Recently the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of China and Modern Asia published a forecast, to which the present author contributed, which noted that the most likely scenario for the outbreak of a conflict on the Korean Peninsula is that it could be sparked by irrational factors, including provocations mounted by a third party.
Pyongyang accuses Seoul of drone intrusion
Seoul was directly reminded that the fact that the DPRK has no intention of attacking the Republic of Korea does not mean that it is unprepared for conflict: “If the ROK commits such a provocation as infiltrating a drone into airspace of the DPRK once again, the DPRK will launch an action immediately without any warning.”
And Seoul seems genuinely surprised…
Shin Won-sik, head of the South Korean Presidential Administration’s National Security Department stated that any confirmation of this fact would plays into the hands of North Korea, as it would only stir up discord within the South and thus play into North Korea’s hands, and that the best answer is to ignore what happened. The DPRK’s active dissemination of information about these incidents is beneficial to the North and also indicates instability within South Korea.
South Korean Defense Minister Kim Young-hyun has declared that South Korea did not send a drone to North Korea, although he later said that he could not confirm or deny the veracity of North Korea’s claims. The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the military had not sent drones to Pyongyang, but it was necessary to check whether private or public organizations could have done so. The US-led United Nations Command, overseeing activities in the demilitarized zone between the two Koreas, said it had begun studying the issue in strict accordance with the Armistice Agreement.
Yonhap News Agency, citing unnamed sources reports that “the recent drone launch was carried out by people in South Korea who oppose Kim Jong-un’s regime and have a strong interest in democratizing North Korea, and not by not existing organizations.” A number of organizations representing North Korean defectors also denied that they had sent drones into North Korea. And although the present author has been unable to determine who has taken responsibility for the launches, there is a real possibility that a new player has entered the field.
It is clear that Pyongyang is not satisfied by these claims that “this is not us” and on October 12, KCNA published a statement by the deputy head of the department of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Kim Yo-jong, which was highly critical of Seoul’s position.
And who could it be?
The ambiguity of the official statements and the desire to shift responsibility have given rise to a number of strange theories in the media about who arranged the drone flights and why KCNA chose to publicize the “raid”. Thus, Yonhap News Agency notes that “it is unusual for North Korea to publicize the South’s sending of anti-North propaganda leaflets in its news outlets largely aimed at local citizens.”
“Some analysts suggest that the disclosure could be a strategic move to stir up anti-South Korean sentiment among its population, paving the way for a possible constitutional amendment supporting the two-state theory.” The Conservative newspaper JoongAngn, ingeniously, expressed the suspicion that this is an intrigue of the North itself. One suggestion was that drone flight had been organized by anti-government forces inside North Korea. But where did they print so many high-quality leaflets?
As Russian military expert Vladimir Khrustalyov notes, drones can be launched into North Korea “from places other than South Korea, and not necessary by the state.” While the recent printed leaflets are not the same as those that Park Sang-hak’s group has sent in the past, they are in a similar style. The UAVs in the photo seem to be similar to those used in the army of the Republic of Korea. And if the leaflets were not launched by the usual suspects, then there may be some truth to Seoul’s assurances that “we will figure it out”.
But who could be responsible, if NOT Park Sang-hak? The present author sees three possible answers top this question.
It could be a group of “young hawks” within the South Korean army, wishing to show off or take revenge for the North sending balloons over the office of the President.
Russian experts traditionally underestimate the stubbornness of right-wing South Korean NGOs, which are often backed by Protestant sects of an apocalyptic orientation.
We should not forget the Free Joseon group, led by Adrian Hong, a US resident and the son of missionaries. These young hooligans are associated with the US intelligence services, and staged a raid on the DPRK’s embassy in Spain. And the present author suspects them of having organized the murder of Kim Jong-nam.
The problem is that whoever launches the drones, Pyongyang will not believe it was not the government in Seoul. Therefore, the likelihood of this incident escalating into a conflict seems serious to the present author. It is to be hoped that Seoul will clamp down on the responsible people and put a stop to these flights. Then, after a show of strength on both sides, the situation will soon calm down.
The North is on the defensive
On October 13 KCNA reported that the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army had issued an order to bring eight artillery formations deployed in the border regions to a state of full combat readiness in the event of a repeated incursion of UAVs from South Korea. Pyongyang will regard another appearance of a South Korean drone in its airspace as a declaration of war.
October 14, Kim Yo-jong directly blamed the incident on “the scum of the military departments of the Republic of Korea,” adding that the United States “is responsible for the actions of the dog, since the owner is responsible for the actions of the dog.”
On the same day, Kim Jong-un held a meeting with senior military and security officials. KCNA reported that Kim had received reports on steps to counter “serious provocations by the enemy” and presented a plan for “immediate military action” and proposed “important tasks that must be carried out in order to deter war and exercise the right to self-defense in protection of national sovereignty.”
On October 15, “First Sister” Kim Yo-jong said: “We have found irrefutable evidence that the military gangsters of the Republic of Korea are the main culprits of this hostile provocation. The violators will pay a heavy price.” It is true that she did not explain what kind of evidence had been found.
On December 16, KCNA reported that “throughout the country there is a will to punish the scum from the Republic of Korea who violated the sovereignty and security of our sacred Republic” and that “more than 1.4 million leaders from the Youth League and other young people expressed a strong desire to join or return to the People’s Army.” However, as Russian military expert Vladimir Khrustalyov notes, “This is a sign of exacerbation, but not one that is really alarming.”
On October 17, Pyongyang announced that it would blow up roads and railways connecting South and North, which were considered key symbols of inter-Korean reconciliation.
Finally, on October 18, KCNA reported a visit by the North Korean leader to the headquarters of the Second Corps of the KPA, during which Kim Jong-un called South Korea “a foreign country and a clearly hostile state.” Photos published by the media show Kim Jong-un laying out on a table a large map, on which the word “Seoul”, although blurred, is visible, and this may indicate the development of military action plans in the event of an emergency.
The South “puffs out its cheeks” and does not want to find out who launched the drones
In response to Kim Yo-jong’s statement, Seoul also increased the combat readiness of its units deployed in the border area, and on October 13, the South Korean Ministry of Defense issued a warning that “If North Korea harms the security of our people, this day will be the end of the North Korean regime.”
The present author is more interested in something else. On October 14, the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that “if we confirm or disclose any details about the drone’s flight route, this could lead to internal conflicts.” The Ministry of Unification went further: “North Korea has repeatedly fabricated and exaggerated external crises to consolidate its vulnerable regime and control its people.”
On October 17, South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that there was no need for an investigation into the incident. According to the South Korean military, this should be done by North Korea. Here the phrase “the main thing in such investigations is not to accidentally incriminate yourself” comes to mind.
Russia side with North Korea
On October 14, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova made an official statement in connection with the incident, which Moscow sees as caused by “unprecedented UAV attacks by the Republic of Korea… Such actions by Seoul can only be considered as a flagrant violation of the North’s sovereignty and interference in its internal affairs and an attempt to undermine the legitimate political system of an independent state and deprive it of its right to independent development.” Russia advised the leaders of South Korea to “take Pyongyang’s warnings very seriously and cease further escalation on the peninsula through their reckless and provocative campaign, which exacerbates tension and could lead to actual armed confrontations.”
In response on October 15, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea expressed regret that Russia agreed with North Korea’s statement about the “intrusion of South Korean drones in Pyongyang.” They also noted that Zakharova’s statement came after Russian President Vladimir Putin had presented a draft federal law on the ratification of the North Korean-Russian treaty.
Maria Zakharova, partly in response, stated on her Telegram channel that “the only country that really increases the risk of conflict both on the Korean Peninsula and in the Asia-Pacific region as a whole is the United States. It is anxious to see a disturbance here too.”
On October 15, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko told reporters that Seoul’s actions “are provocative steps that seriously undermine stability on the peninsula and lead to an escalation of tensions.” Answering a question from TASS about whether Moscow would provide military assistance to Pyongyang in the event of a conflict on the Korean Peninsula, he explained that the relevant provisions could be read in the document submitted to the Duma for ratification the day before and indicated that under the laws of both Russia and the DPRK, Moscow would take all necessary measures, including providing military assistance to Pyongyang, if an act of aggression was committed against it.
The author also hopes that the provocateurs will be reined in and that soon the tensions will subside.
Konstantin Asmolov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Leading Research Fellow of the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
