The September 19 military agreement, which had prohibited hostile acts between North and South Korea, has lost its effect after 6 years.
President Moon proposed a resolution to suspend the entire effect of the September 19 military agreement at the National Security Council meeting.
As a result, experts will discuss what will change, and how inter-Korean relations will develop.
Kim Yeol-soo, director of the Security Strategy Department at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, is here to provide analysis.
Welcome.
The government has taken a strong stance as North Korea has continued provocations such as GPS interference, missile launches, and sewage balloon releases, despite the agreement to prohibit hostile acts between North and South Korea in the 9.19 military agreement. How do you see this situation?
What was the reason for suspending the effect of the September 19 military agreement instead of abolishing it?
Despite the fact that the September 19 military agreement was essentially void due to North Korea’s declaration of nullifying the agreement, the official decision by our government to suspend its effect seems to carry a different significance and weight. How do you view this?
The government stated that it has explained the suspension of the effect of the September 19 military agreement to the United States, Japan, China, and Russia. Will North Korea take notice of South Korea engaging in discussions and cooperation with various countries regarding the Korean Peninsula issues?
By suspending the effect of the September 19 military agreement, our military activities near the Military Demarcation Line and in the Northwest would be possible. Does this raise concerns about increasing military tensions?
The resumption of loudspeaker broadcasts to North Korea is also a possibility. As loudspeaker broadcasts are considered a powerful psychological warfare tool, do you think North Korea might refrain from further provocations?
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently announced that it has raised issues related to North Korea’s GPS jamming attacks with three international organizations. Do you think it would be effective for international organizations to adopt critical statements or urge North Korea to stop the interference?
The U.S. State Department spokesperson described North Korea’s sewage balloon releases as “disgusting, irresponsible, and juvenile.” However, when asked whether floating sewage balloons could be seen as a violation of UN resolutions, they mentioned that further deliberation is needed. How do you interpret this?
Our military has warned that if North Korea continues with further provocations, a firm response will be made based on a robust South Korea-U.S. joint defense posture. If North Korea carries out additional provocations, what cards does our military have to play?
On the other hand, the government has reiterated its position of not requesting restraint from North Korean defector groups that have announced plans to distribute additional anti-North Korea leaflets. They stated that they respect the spirit of the Constitutional Court’s decision that guarantees freedom of expression. What are your thoughts on this stance?
For news inquiries and tips from Yonhap News TV: KakaoTalk/Line jebo23