Seoul:The circumstances surrounding recent land mine explosions that injured three South Korean soldiers in the western demilitarized zone are becoming clearer. The Joint Chiefs of Staff indicated that North Korean mines were likely responsible, as investigators discovered another suspected North Korean plastic antipersonnel mine near the blast site. Defense Minister Kang Shin-chul stated that the military suspected a North Korean mine immediately after the September 21 incident and labeled it a clear violation of the armistice.

According to Yonhap News Agency, President Lee Jae Myung's initial public comments on the case, made eight days after the incident, were underwhelming. Although he ordered a swift investigation, he failed to mention North Korea or any armistice violation. Instead, he referred to the event as a "land mine accident" and cautioned against "baseless conspiracy theories" that could harm national security.

The public is not seeking conspiracy theories but rather facts about what occurred, why it was not prevented, and who is responsible. Despite the military's early suspicion of North Korean involvement, the investigation on-site faced delays. President Lee's call for a prompt investigation also came late.

Some views from the ruling party raise concerns. National Assembly National Defense Committee Chair Jin Sung-joon suggested that the North Korean mines might be defensive, making it difficult to conclude they were specifically planted to injure Korean troops.

However, if North Korea planted mines south of the military demarcation line, it would breach the armistice. With a North Korean mine already suspected and the defense minister identifying the incident as an armistice violation, proving intent to harm should not be a condition for responding.

The South Korean military's response to North Korea's activities also requires examination. Since 2024, North Korea has constructed roads, fortifications, and laid mines around the MDL. Questions arise as to why South Korea's military and security authorities did not protest more strongly or act to prevent these activities. Their handling of North Korea's recent military actions and mine-laying must now be scrutinized.

If their response was inadequate, identifying failures in command and border security and establishing accountability is essential. It remains possible that tolerating or responding passively to North Korea's mine-laying contributed to the conditions leading to this incident.