Yoon may have ordered drone incursion into North: local reports
South Korea's special prosecutor investigating former President Yoon Suk Yeol's imposition of martial law is looking into the possibility that Yoon may have ordered a covert drone incursion into North Korea to provoke a military response, multiple local media outlets reported Wednesday, citing unnamed sources.
According to the reports, the investigation team has obtained an audio recording that may be related to the suspected drone operation. While the contents are not considered direct evidence of Yoon's involvement, they are said to contain remarks suggesting that a mission was carried out at the instructions of someone referred to as 'V' — a designation often used within the military to signify the president.
In the recording -- or recordings, as the number remains unclear -- an unidentified active-duty officer is heard saying that Lt. Gen. Kim Yong-dae, commander of the military's Drone Operations Command, had described the mission as 'an order from V' and was preparing to report to 'Yongsan' on a separate drone incursion plan. Yongsan houses the presidential office, along with key military institutions including the Defense Ministry and the Office of National Security.
In October last year, North Korea accused the South of sending a drone into Pyongyang and released photographs as evidence. South Korean authorities at the time denied any involvement.
The drone incident has gained renewed focus and scrutiny amid the backlash following Yoon's short-lived martial rule in December, with opposition politicians suggesting he may have tried to engineer an armed clash with the North to justify the emergency measure. Yoon was impeached by the opposition-controlled National Assembly that same month and formally removed from office by the Constitutional Court on April 4.
Other comments allegedly captured in audio and reported by local media on Wednesday include remarks that the operation 'had to be carried out without the knowledge of the Defense Ministry or the Joint Chiefs of Staff,' and that 'leaflets had to be dropped' and the drone needed to be exposed on purpose to heighten North Korea's sense of insecurity. They also purportedly include, 'The VIP and the minister applauded with joy' after the mission, and remarks that the unit was subsequently instructed to repeat the operation and a second drone incursion took place in November.
The special prosecutor is expected to summon Lt. Gen. Kim for questioning. His unit is also under investigation for allegedly establishing internal protocols to destroy documents and delete drone-related data after the martial law declaration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
![[Wang Son-taek] Why do we need the Ministry of Unification?](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F07%2F02%2Fnews-p.v1.20250702.3383afb914ed4d82ab6d465fa6591ab4_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Wang Son-taek] Why do we need the Ministry of Unification?](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Korea Herald
9 hours ago
- Korea Herald
[Wang Son-taek] Why do we need the Ministry of Unification?
Few policy debates in recent memory have struck such a sensitive nerve as the question now emerging in South Korean political discourse: Should the Ministry of Unification be renamed? The idea, once considered fringe, is now circulating more seriously in the early stages of the Lee Jae Myung administration. Supporters argue that the word 'Unification' has lost relevance in today's geopolitical climate and that a more pragmatic label is needed. But for many Koreans, including myself, this is not simply a matter of nomenclature. It is about who we are as a people, what we have endured and what we still dream of becoming. The debate is emotional because it touches something deep in our collective consciousness: the pain of division, the hope of reunification and the identity of a nation that has, for centuries, understood itself as one people sharing one destiny. To casually rename a ministry that bears the title 'Unification' feels like giving up. In times of growing cynicism, it is tempting to cast off symbols and slogans as empty. But not all names are mere words. Some carry the weight of generations. Some bear witness to wounds still unhealed. I am clearly opposed to the renaming. My opposition is based on six interlocking reasons — constitutional, historical, diplomatic, strategic, political and, above all, human. First, such a move would run directly counter to the spirit and text of the Constitution, which mentions unification seven times as a national objective. Article 4, in particular, states that "The Republic of Korea shall seek unification and shall formulate and carry out a policy of peaceful unification based on the principles of freedom and democracy." Erasing the name "Unification" from a core ministry would not only weaken institutional memory but could also be construed as an abandonment of this constitutional mandate. It would be akin to erasing a promise etched into the founding law of the republic. Second, the name is not just a legal obligation — it reflects a historical yearning that has defined the Korean people for more than a millennium. Since the unification of the Three Kingdoms under Silla and the reunification of the Later Three Kingdoms by Goryeo, Korea has known itself as a singular entity. The division of the peninsula for 80 years is a wound still fresh when measured against over 1,100 years of unity. Some argue that division fatigue is understandable and that the younger generation lacks an emotional connection to the North. However, historical responsibility should not diminish with time. The Ministry of Unification represents the hope, grief, and sacrifice of generations who believed that someday, the divided land and people would be reunited. To rename it would be to dishonor that belief — and those who carried it through more challenging times than these. Third, we must never forget that Korea's division was not born of domestic will but imposed through foreign calculation. In 1945, Korea emerged from decades of Japanese colonial rule only to be divided by an arbitrary separation agreed upon by the United States and the Soviet Union. Korean voices were excluded from the process; national sovereignty was sacrificed for Cold War convenience. While we lacked the power to resist then, we possess it now. South Korea is a global economic and cultural power. To surrender our claim to unification now would be to legitimize a historical injustice — and to signal that sovereign rights can be obliterated if the world waits long enough. That message would not only betray our past but also imperil our future. Fourth, changing the name could send a damaging message to the international community. South and North Korea are recognized as separate entities by the United Nations. Should a crisis occur in the North, it might not be assumed that the South has any natural claim to leadership unless we have demonstrated, consistently and openly, that peaceful unification is a core interest. If the Ministry of Unification were to disappear, that message would become muddled. Our diplomatic position weakens. Other global powers, including the permanent members of the UN Security Council, may assert control, sidelining South Korea from its national destiny. Maintaining the name is a form of diplomatic signaling. To remove it would be an unforced error with high strategic costs. Fifth, renaming the ministry will not ease tensions with North Korea. Chairman Kim Jong-un's grudge toward the South is not rooted in semantics. It is rooted in frustration that it is impossible for the North to catch up with the South and to unite the two Koreas under his authoritarian leadership. Renaming the ministry will not change that reality. If anything, it emboldens Pyongyang by suggesting that South Korea's commitment to reunification is fading. We must instead show that our door remains open — not because we are weak, but because we are patient and principled. Keeping the Ministry of Unification is part of that message. Finally, on the domestic front, renaming the ministry would only inflame political divisions and complicate the administration's early governance. Conservative factions have long accused progressive leaders of being soft on North Korea. Renaming the Ministry of Unification would play directly into these narratives, providing ammunition to political opponents. South Korea has urgent work to do — restoring economic dynamism, investing in innovation, strengthening national security and enhancing global competitiveness. We do not need an unproductive controversy that will consume political assets. Practical governance demands focus, not distractions. This is not merely about preserving a name; it is about maintaining a national aspiration and the moral compass that keeps it alive. The Ministry of Unification stands as a testament to the unfinished work of healing a divided people. Its name is a promise to those who still believe that we can become family members again, especially those who still wait for a knock from a long-lost sibling across the DMZ. We simply must not give up on that promise. Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. He is a former diplomatic correspondent at YTN and a former research associate at Yeosijae. The views expressed here are the writer's own. — Ed.
Korea Herald
19 hours ago
- Korea Herald
S. Korea inks 2nd K2 tank export deal with Poland
Latest deal marks 'first large-scale arms export' after launch of new administration, says DAPA South Korea signed its second 'large-scale' deal to export a second batch of K2 tanks to Poland, the state arms procurement agency said Wednesday, amid growing calls for the country to tap its military manufacturing firms to navigate new global security challenges. 'Polish Minister of National Defense Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz officially announced on July 2 that the negotiations for the second deal involving K2 tanks with Hyundai Rotem were finalized and set to be signed,' Seoul's Defense Acquisition Program Administration said in a statement. The deal marks the country's "first large-scale arms export" after the launch of the Lee Jae Myung government in early June, DAPA noted. DAPA said the size and details of the deal would remain classified until a later time, but Seoul officials, declining to be named, said in June that the contract is expected to be worth around $6 billion. If confirmed, the figure would mark Seoul's biggest single arms export contract. The sources added that Poland will receive 180 K2 tanks under the new deal. Some 117 units would be manufactured by Korean defense contractor Hyundai Rotem, and the remaining would be produced by Poland's state-owned Polish Armaments Group. Seoul and Warsaw are currently negotiating the details of the signing ceremony, including its date and venue, according to DAPA. DAPA anticipates that the latest deal would allow Poland to receive some customized versions of K2 tanks "aligned with the demands of the Polish military," with the new partnership between Hyundai Rotem and PAG. A manufacturing facility for K2 tanks will be established in Poland as well, increasing the chance for additional deals to be smoothly negotiated and inked. The latest supply contract is part of a broader arms agreement reached between the two countries in 2022, which amounted to $13.7 billion and included a clause to supply 1,000 South Korean K2 tanks to Poland. Besides K2 tanks, Seoul agreed to supply the country with rocket launchers and fighter jets. The agreement came as Poland decided to increase its defense spending following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February that year. Later in 2022, Hyundai Rotem signed a deal worth around $3.3 billion to supply Poland with the first batch of 180 K2 tanks. The deal to supply the second batch was projected to be signed late last year, but was pushed back. Observers cited the political turmoil stemming from impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol's failed Dec. 3 martial law bid as a major hurdle. DAPA on Wednesday, however, pointed to issues related to the "expanded scope of the deal" compared to the first as a reason behind the delay. "The deal was confirmed today as the negotiation period became prolonged due to the expanded scope of the deal and the scale of the project, by including plans involving the development of the Polish version of the K2 tanks and local manufacturing," it explained. In South Korea, there have been growing calls for the government to utilize its military manufacturing firms to navigate new security challenges and shifting demands posed by the NATO members' recent decision to raise defense spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product. 'With NATO members now committed to raising defense spending to 5 percent of GDP, demand for advanced weapons systems and defense technology is set to rise sharply,' the Asan Institute for Policy Studies said in a Monday report. 'To fully capitalize on these opportunities, South Korea should treat defense industry cooperation not simply as a commercial venture but as a core pillar of its broader security and alliance strategy." DAPA, nodding toward such calls, said, "The latest deal is expected to be a fresh momentum for the country's arms exports," with countries in Europe and NATO members. South Korean President Lee has picked the defense industry as one of the sectors that his administration plans to foster with expanded support. He aims to position his country among the world's top four arms exporters. In a phone call with United Arab Emirates President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan on Tuesday, Lee agreed to deepen bilateral cooperation in defense industries alongside advanced technologies and energy. The UAE, alongside Poland, is a major arms industry partner for South Korea. Meanwhile, South Korea's arms exports fell to $9.5 billion in 2024 after hitting a record high of $17.3 billion in 2022 and sliding to $13.5 billion in 2023.
Korea Herald
a day ago
- Korea Herald
Yoon may have ordered drone incursion into North: local reports
Special counsel set to summon South's drone operations chief over alleged provocation plot to justify Yoon's martial law South Korea's special prosecutor investigating former President Yoon Suk Yeol's imposition of martial law is looking into the possibility that Yoon may have ordered a covert drone incursion into North Korea to provoke a military response, multiple local media outlets reported Wednesday, citing unnamed sources. According to the reports, the investigation team has obtained an audio recording that may be related to the suspected drone operation. While the contents are not considered direct evidence of Yoon's involvement, they are said to contain remarks suggesting that a mission was carried out at the instructions of someone referred to as 'V' — a designation often used within the military to signify the president. In the recording -- or recordings, as the number remains unclear -- an unidentified active-duty officer is heard saying that Lt. Gen. Kim Yong-dae, commander of the military's Drone Operations Command, had described the mission as 'an order from V' and was preparing to report to 'Yongsan' on a separate drone incursion plan. Yongsan houses the presidential office, along with key military institutions including the Defense Ministry and the Office of National Security. In October last year, North Korea accused the South of sending a drone into Pyongyang and released photographs as evidence. South Korean authorities at the time denied any involvement. The drone incident has gained renewed focus and scrutiny amid the backlash following Yoon's short-lived martial rule in December, with opposition politicians suggesting he may have tried to engineer an armed clash with the North to justify the emergency measure. Yoon was impeached by the opposition-controlled National Assembly that same month and formally removed from office by the Constitutional Court on April 4. Other comments allegedly captured in audio and reported by local media on Wednesday include remarks that the operation 'had to be carried out without the knowledge of the Defense Ministry or the Joint Chiefs of Staff,' and that 'leaflets had to be dropped' and the drone needed to be exposed on purpose to heighten North Korea's sense of insecurity. They also purportedly include, 'The VIP and the minister applauded with joy' after the mission, and remarks that the unit was subsequently instructed to repeat the operation and a second drone incursion took place in November. The special prosecutor is expected to summon Lt. Gen. Kim for questioning. His unit is also under investigation for allegedly establishing internal protocols to destroy documents and delete drone-related data after the martial law declaration.
