Since the beginning of the year, the confrontation between North and South Korea has been intensifying in words and actions. At the 9th Plenary Meeting of the 8th Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea, Chairman Kim Jong-un said in his speech: "In case of emergency, we must continue to accelerate preparations for a great action to pacify the entire territory of South Korea by mobilizing all physical means and capabilities, including nuclear force." Of course, there was a caveat that “a nuclear crisis could occur in the event of an emergency,” but the media reported that North Korea could prepare for a war that would pacify all of South Korea through nuclear war. When paying attention to the conditional clause in Chairman Kim Jong-un's remarks, the media reports seemed to emphasize the impression that North Korea had decided to prepare for nuclear war, even though the possibility of nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula could be controlled if a crisis threatening the system did not occur. Of course, this does not mean that this remark is light or something we can tolerate. No matter how conditional clauses are added on the Korean Peninsula, we firmly oppose any statement that heightens the possibility of war between South and North Korea. However, putting the blame for the conflict only on one party does not help ease tensions. There is a need to closely analyze what North Korea wants to say.
Not only words but also concrete military actions are increasing anxiety. On January 5, North Korea fired some 200 artillery shells into waters off its western coast along the Military Demarcation Line in the West Sea but no damage was caused to our military or civilians, and most of the shells fell within the northern buffer zone of the Northern Limit Line. Our military immediately fired back, and residents of the five islands in the West Sea, including Yeonpyeong Island, were told to move to nearby shelters. Of course, passenger ships traveling between Incheon and Baengnyeong Island were also controlled.
In recent years, the media has poured out articles criticizing North Korea, saying that it stopped firing coastal artillery on the west coast and then suddenly carried out a military “provocation.” However, before that, on January 1, the Korean Army carried out K-9 self-propelled artillery shelling in the Cheorwon area, and on the 2nd, artillery and armored units moved on the Eastern and Western Fronts. On January 3, the Navy conducted maritime maneuvers throughout the east, west, and south, and there was combat shooting by the ROK-US combined forces for seven days from December 29 of last year. And the media described all of this as “training.”
According to experts, the prevailing analysis is that North Korea's coastal artillery fire on the West Sea is in response to our military's actions. It was not seen as a sudden “provocation” by North Korea when there was no provocation but as a response to our military’s “training.” However, the media did not sufficiently analyze our side's previous movements and only emphasized North Korea's coastal artillery fire. Of course, it is natural that our military's training does not become news, but North Korea's military actions do. However, describing all of North Korea's military actions as provocations in media reports also puts the blame on only one party. This is not seeing the situation as it exists.
The current reality on the Korean Peninsula is that one side's actions, whether words or actions provoke a response from the other side. The words and actions of the North and South are naturally directed at the other. However, the perception is that our side's words and actions are defensive and legitimate military "training", while the other side's offensive and reprehensible military "provocations", clearly show the entrenched conflict situation. In a conflict situation, a mechanical schema is activated in which the in-group is good and the victim, but the opposition is bad and the perpetrator. However, not all actions can be expressed as provocations. Rather, it is expressed as “low-intensity military action” or “high-intensity military action,” and the conflict can be managed only when objective judgment and analysis are made. If you look at the other person with fixed eyes and that is all you see the situation will not change. Wouldn't correcting our perspectives and expressions in conflict situations be the first step to realizing peace?
