“Were drones sent to Pyongyang? Is it capable of being controlled that far?” (Han Ki Ho, People Power Party lawmaker)
“I can’t disclose all details.” (Kim Yong Dae, Commander of Drone Operations)
“Who ordered the drone infiltration into Pyongyang?” (Kim Byung Joo, Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker)
“I cannot confirm that information.” (Commander Kim Yong Dae)
The controversy over the Pyongyang drone surfaced during a meeting of the National Defense Committee in the South Korean National Assembly last Tuesday. Lawmakers questioned whether the South Korean military deployed a drone to Pyongyang in October as part of martial law preparations. The military consistently responded with statements such as “I cannot say” or “I cannot confirm.” This suggests a strategy of maintaining confidentiality through a neither confirm nor deny (NCND) stance. However, some have criticized the selective use of strategic ambiguity following the December 3 illegal martial law declaration.
The Pyongyang drone controversy erupted on October 11 when North Korea’s Defense Ministry claimed a drone found in Pyongyang was a South Korean military reconnaissance drone, identical to one displayed at an Armed Forces Day event. They also alleged the drone’s flight control program contained 238 flight plans within South Korean territory from June 2023 to October 2024.
At the time, the South Korean military could not confirm these claims. Consequently, many speculated that North Korea, facing economic and diplomatic challenges, might have staged another false flag operation.
However, the drone controversy entered a new phase after President Yoon Suk Yeol declared illegal martial law on December 3. Park Beom Gye, a Democratic Party lawmaker, cited military whistleblowers, alleging that the Pyongyang drone was deployed under the orders of former Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun. Park claimed Kim had used the drone to provoke North Korea intentionally, creating a “wartime situation” as a pretext for martial law. Martial law can only be declared during wartime or a comparable national emergency. Park also accused Kim of ordering “targeted strikes” against points where North Korea launched garbage-laden balloons.
During Tuesday’s defense committee meeting, various questions were raised about these allegations, but military officials consistently invoked strategic ambiguity. Military operations, facilities, and equipment details are classified. Nevertheless, some criticized the military for selectively using strategic ambiguity while investigating the illegal martial law declaration. When allegations surfaced that former Minister Kim ordered attacks on North Korean trash balloons, the Joint Chiefs of Staff immediately denied the claims. However, regarding the Pyongyang drone, they neither confirmed nor denied it, leaving lingering doubts. Former Minister Kim himself denied sending a drone to Pyongyang during a parliamentary audit on October 11 but reversed his statement 50 minutes later, claiming he could not confirm the facts.
Some experts have suggested that the drone was likely a South Korean military asset. On Wednesday, Hong Min, Senior Research Fellow at the Korean Institute for National Unification, stated, “While it could not be publicly acknowledged previously, the likelihood that North Korean or South Korean civilians sent the drone is low. It is more likely that the military was responsible.” Hong cited several reasons: “Civilians have no reason to produce drones capable of round-trip flights of 300 to 400 kilometers to Pyongyang. It is implausible that such a drone could cross the military demarcation line undetected by our military, whether by land or sea. North Korea revealed debris from the drone with components that cannot be easily replicated, matching those of drones displayed during South Korea’s Armed Forces Day event.” Hong added, “The drone’s appearance is nearly identical to the model showcased during the Armed Forces Day ceremony, particularly the components in the debris revealed by North Korea. This strongly suggests authenticity.” If it is true that the military sent the drone to Pyongyang, it implies that President Yoon and former Minister Kim had been preparing for martial law since October.
Meanwhile, senior military officials implicated in the martial law controversy have inadvertently disclosed various military secrets. During the Defense Committee meeting, Park An Soo, then-Chief of Staff of the Army and Commander of Martial Law during the incident, described the locations of command and control facilities, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff Operations Center, in excessive detail. Lawmakers stopped him, reminding him that “military secrets should not be revealed in this manner.”
Most Commented