Lawmaker Kim Byeong-joo summarizes the Pyongyang drone incident - Is this a foreign exchange crime or an attempt at a coup?

Provocation or Manipulation – The Beginning of the Problem

On the night of October 8, 2024, a drone appeared over Pyongyang. This drone, which dropped leaflets near the North Korean Ministry of Defense, immediately sent ripples through the Korean Peninsula's situation. It was an incident that would typically lead to a conventional military confrontation, but North Korea remained silent, and reports emerged that the South Korean president 'clapped and celebrated.' What happened that night? There are allegations that this incident was not a simple mistake in a military operation or an unforeseen circumstance, but rather a meticulously planned and controlled operation. According to revelations by Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Byeong-joo, only specific military commanders were given information on the day of the operation, while the majority of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Ministry of Defense were deliberately excluded. Additionally, the Minister of Defense awarded bonuses to five key commanders involved in the operation under the pretext of 'military readiness contributions.' Evidence is increasingly suggesting that these agencies, including the drone command, were aware of the Pyongyang drone operation and actively involved in it. Taking all these circumstances into account, the Pyongyang drone incident reveals the possibility that it was not just a military act, but a provocation with political motives or manipulation resulting from internal planning.

Revealed Circumstances: Operation or Manipulation

On the very day the drone reached the skies over Pyongyang, encouragement funds were awarded only to five military leaders, including the Drone Command, the Operations Headquarters of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Operations Command, the Ground Operations Command, and the Deputy Commander of the Combined Forces. This encouragement fund is interpreted as a sign of prior agreement sent to the 'key figures involved in the operation,' going beyond the mere meaning of a reward. Congressman Kim Byeong-joo expressed that 'the puzzle is coming together.' Typically, encouragement funds are given after the completion of training or operations based on performance, but in this case, they were exceptionally granted in advance, and the scope was highly restricted. Conversely, other major commands such as the Army Strategic Command, Special Forces Command, and Missile Command were thoroughly excluded. This implies that these entities were unaware of the operation, indicating that the operation was conducted secretly among a very small number of commanders. Moreover, the drone was not used in its original form. Illegal modifications were made, equipping it with special devices for leaflet dissemination, and subsequently, suspicious fires occurred at drone-related facilities, destroying material evidence. This can be interpreted as an attempt to systematically destroy evidence. Congressman Kim Byeong-joo directly referred to circumstances where 'the drone facility burned down,' asserting that 'it seems they tried to erase the evidence.' This series of events strongly suggests that this incident was not merely a military response but rather an operation based on organized planning.

Why It Happened: Intent and Scenario

The reason why the drone penetrated as far as Pyongyang was not simply a display of military power. The flyers released by the drone reportedly contained contents that sexually insulted North Korea's supreme leader Kim Jong-un and his wife Ri Sol-ju. Some even claimed that Ri Sol-ju's face was superimposed onto obscene images. This constitutes a deliberate provocation that goes beyond mere propaganda. North Korea announced that the flyers fell over the Ministry of National Defense. This directly provoked the heart of the North Korean military command and, logically, could lead to immediate military retaliation. However, North Korea has remained quiet and did not respond militarily. In this regard, Congressman Kim Byung-joo suggested that Kim Jong-un may have temporarily restrained himself due to diplomatic circumstances involving sending troops to Russia. There are reports that President Yoon Suk-yeol was 'pleased' with this unexpected silence. Why might this be? Congressman Kim Byung-joo interprets the situation as an 'attempt to provoke a localized war.' If North Korea were to respond with gunfire, South Korea could use that as a pretext for a strong retaliatory strike, gaining justification to declare a state of emergency constitutional measures such as martial law. Consequently, the function of the National Assembly would be halted, and presidential powers would be significantly strengthened. In other words, a scenario of military provocation → localized war → state of emergency → power extension is possible. This scenario is a very dangerous notion in reality. Using military conflict, which endangers the lives and property of citizens, as a tool for stabilizing or extending power is a clear attempt to undermine constitutional order and is close to conspiracy for treason.

Who is the main entity of the operation?

For all these plans to be executed, strong authority and coordination are required. It is too much to decide and execute solely at the level of the drone commander or the counterintelligence commander. In fact, the drone command is a newly established organization, with indications that the first commander was dismissed after just eight months and Kim Yong-hyun, who is a peer of the female counterintelligence commander, was appointed as the new commander. Critics have raised concerns that this personnel change was a 'selection for a specific purpose.' The key military leadership, including the Minister of National Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been excluded from operations. Congressman Kim Byung-joo asserts that 'such operations are impossible without the president's decision.' Indeed, the military's command structure consists of three parallel systems: the command line, the staff line, and the situation room line, and to bypass all of these, direct orders from the president or the presidential office are necessary. Some suggest the possibility that the National Security Office directly issued orders. There is also a previous instance when former Congressman Boo Seung-chan raised related suspicions and then the then National Security Office chief Shin Won-sik responded with legal action. However, analyzing the situation, Congressman Kim Byung-joo believes that 'the National Security Office was bypassed, and it is highly likely that the actual decision was made by President Yoon and Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun.'

Is this a foreign exchange crime, or an attempted coup?

According to Article 84 of the Constitution and Article 87 of the Criminal Act, actions such as conspiracy to commit foreign exchange violations or inciting rebellion are serious crimes punishable by death. It must be treated even more seriously considering that it is not merely about modifying drones, dropping flyers, and partially utilizing military command systems, but that the result could have plunged the entire Korean Peninsula into the risk of war. The Yoon Suk-yeol administration may have planned this operation to retaliate against the humiliating situation when North Korean drones infiltrated Seoul's airspace in the past. However, no matter how military responses are implemented, it should not be done at the risk of citizens' lives, circumventing the Constitution, and undermining the democratic system. Representative Kim Byung-joo stated, "If North Korea had retaliated at that time, tens of thousands of citizens in Seoul would have died or suffered," and evaluated, "Ironically, it was North Korea's restraint that prevented that tragedy." This reflects the shocking fact that the South Korean government attempted to use the reactions of an external enemy for internal political purposes.

Conclusion

The infiltration incident involving unmanned aircraft in Pyongyang is not a simple military surprise. This event has enough grounds to be interpreted as a manipulated provocation, a planned war, and moreover, a political conspiracy aimed at shaking the constitutional order. While it may have seemed to the public like a 'flyer distribution incident,' behind it lies manipulation of the military command system, operational instructions disguised as encouragement funds, destruction of evidence, and, above all, an attempt to undermine the very democratic system itself. What is now needed is to uncover the truth. Thorough investigations by a special prosecutor, fact-finding by the National Assembly, and oversight by civil society are required. We must never forget that the ambition of a single individual can threaten the lives of millions and the very existence of the nation. The moment we turn a blind eye to this incident, democracy crumbles in silence.