Seong Il-jong, a lawmaker from the People Power Party, criticized the military on October 7 for using the term "fortification of the border" as it exposes the military to North Korea's terminology tactics. He argued that using such language could lead to falling into North Korea's strategic intentions, especially as the North claims the existence of "hostile two states."
During a National Assembly audit, Seong questioned Minister of National Defense Kang Shin-cheol about the existence of a border on the Korean Peninsula as defined by the Constitution. When Kang responded that there is currently no border on the Korean Peninsula, Seong pressed, "Then why do you use the term 'fortification of the border'?"
Kang explained that he referred to it as "what they claim." However, Seong criticized this, stating that merely adding a qualifier does not suffice. He emphasized, "We should not use terms that North Korea employs, including 'so-called.'" He urged the military to create and use response terminology that reveals attempts to undermine the Military Demarcation Line (MDL), even if North Korea uses the term border.
Seong stated, "The military is using the term border without strategic response, despite North Korea declaring two hostile states. How can soldiers use language that carries North Korea's malicious intent?" He also referenced Article 3 of the Constitution, which defines South Korea's territory as the Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands, pointing out that the military is carelessly using North Korean expressions that assume the North and South are separate states.
Kang reiterated that "fortification of the border" is a term claimed by North Korea, but he assured that the military would strategically assess terminology tactics.
Seong also raised concerns about the military's use of the phrase "topographical changes" in relation to North Korea's landmine placements. He argued that describing landmine placements as topographical changes makes it difficult for the public to understand the nature of the actions taken by North Korea to undermine the MDL.
Additionally, he questioned the appropriateness of President Lee Jae-myung's characterization of landmine casualties as "unfortunate accidents" during the Armed Forces Day event on October 1. He criticized the military for not clearly attributing responsibility to North Korea, stating that it is inappropriate for the commander-in-chief to refer to it as an accident.
Kang responded that he interprets the President's remarks as expressing sympathy for the injured soldiers, indicating that it was an unexpected incident. He clarified that there is no difference in the government's and military's judgment regarding North Korea's responsibility.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.