During a National Assembly audit of the Defense Ministry on October 7, the focus shifted from appropriate responses to North Korea's landmine provocations to a debate over the responsibilities of previous administrations. The ruling party pressed the Yoon Suk Yeol administration on its response to North Korea's landmine deployments and incursions across the Military Demarcation Line (MDL), while the opposition accused them of shifting blame without distinguishing the timing and locations of the landmine placements.
Defense Minister Kang Shin-cheol stated that the removal of landmines is the beginning of the response, but he did not provide specific details on subsequent actions.
Democratic Party lawmaker Cheon Jun-ho raised concerns during the audit about North Korean incursions across the MDL in 2024, questioning what actions the government took beyond issuing warning broadcasts and warning shots. He also inquired whether the government verified what North Korean troops left behind and if they classified the landmine placements as violations of the armistice agreement or publicly demanded a halt to them.
In contrast, military-affiliated opposition lawmakers argued that it is essential to differentiate between North Korea's activities north of the MDL and landmine placements south of it. They contended that blaming the previous administration solely for not strongly deterring past activities north of the MDL is unjustified.
People Power Party lawmaker Lim Jong-deuk sought confirmation on whether there was intelligence regarding North Korea's installation of thousands of landmines south of the MDL during the Yoon Suk Yeol administration. The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency responded that while there was no definitive evidence of such installations, there were areas where landmine placements were suspected.
Lim criticized the need to assess the process of North Korea's development of barren land and facility installations from the north separately from the landmine placements south of the MDL, questioning why the facts could not be stated plainly.
Another lawmaker from the same party, Han Gi-ho, referenced his experience in frontline service, noting that during freezing conditions, the ground is too hard for landmine placements. He argued that since the timing mentioned by Cheon falls in winter, attributing responsibility to the previous administration is unreasonable.
Concerns were also raised about the adequacy of the military's current response. Lim questioned whether the military truly believes that their landmine removal efforts constitute a decisive and appropriate response.
Kang responded, stating, "I referred to it as a beginning," and assured that necessary measures had been communicated to the public. In response to Lim's observation that the term 'provocation' was omitted from the military's report, Kang reaffirmed that the actions were indeed provocations and indicated he would review the report's content.
The debate also extended to the effectiveness and responsibility for the suspension of the September 19 inter-Korean military agreement. Democratic Party lawmaker Song Young-gil compared the frequency of North Korean provocations before and after the agreement, asserting that it contributed to reducing tensions and minimizing harm to soldiers. He further argued that the launch of North Korea's military reconnaissance satellite, Malligyung-1, constitutes a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and questioned the previous administration's decision to suspend the military agreement.
Conversely, People Power Party lawmaker Kang Sun-young countered that the agreement lacked provisions to control North Korea's nuclear and missile threats and that the withdrawal of guard posts and restrictions on aerial reconnaissance had created gaps in the military's readiness. He noted that violations, including North Korea's gunfire from guard posts and artillery fire in maritime buffer zones, had accumulated, emphasizing that the background for the suspension should not be explained solely by the launch of Malligyung-1.
Kang acknowledged the significance of the inter-Korean military agreement but explained that policies have changed according to the political situation. He emphasized that the military continues to maintain readiness and fulfill its duties regardless of changes in government, stating, "There is no party affiliation in security."
While the audit saw ongoing disputes over which administration's policies weakened security, there was insufficient discussion on measures to prevent further harm and deter North Korea's repeated incursions. The focus on past policy responsibilities overshadowed the need to evaluate the effectiveness of military responses in light of the recent injuries to soldiers.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.