"Disadvantageous to the South"... Kim Young-ho, Minister of Unification, Hints at Possibility of Breaking the September 19 Agreement

Minister of Unification Responds at the National Assembly Foreign Affairs Committee Meeting
"Appropriate Response to Serious Provocations Such as the 7th Nuclear Test"
260 Inter-Korean Agreements... Zero Cases of South Side's Prior Termination

Kim Young-ho, Minister of Unification, said on the 21st, "If (North Korea) commits a serious provocation, it should be regarded as a clear violation of the spirit of the September 19 Agreement," adding, "The government's position is that appropriate measures should be taken in response to such a situation." This is interpreted as suggesting the possibility of reviewing the termination of the September 19 Inter-Korean Military Agreement if North Korea carries out a serious provocation.

Minister Kim made this remark during the plenary session of the National Assembly's Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee in response to a question from Kim Hong-gul, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, asking, "Does the government also consider terminating the September 19 Military Agreement if the situation worsens?" Minister Kim cited North Korea's seventh nuclear test as an example of a serious provocation that requires "appropriate countermeasures."

Minister of Unification Kim Young-ho Photo by Yonhap News

Minister Kim also pointed out that the September 19 Military Agreement is disadvantageous to the South. He said, "The current government views the September 19 Inter-Korean Military Agreement as unfavorable to our security because it prohibits us from using reconnaissance assets we possess and conducting military operations south of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), among other things," adding, "Such aspects should also be kept in mind when looking at the September 19 Inter-Korean Agreement (Pyongyang Joint Declaration)."

The September 19 Military Agreement is a supplementary agreement to the Pyongyang Joint Declaration, which was concluded between the South and North during then-President Moon Jae-in's visit to North Korea in September 2018. It consists of 20 articles across five areas aimed at preventing military clashes between the two Koreas. According to this agreement, no-fly zones, artillery firing and outdoor maneuver training bans for units at the regiment level or higher, and maritime buffer zones were established based on the Military Demarcation Line (MDL).

In September 2018, President Moon Jae-in is shaking hands with North Korean aides after signing the military agreement at the Baekhwawon Guesthouse. / Photo by Pyongyang Joint Press Corps

However, due to North Korea's continued provocations, there are calls inside and outside the government to "terminate the agreement as it has lost its effectiveness." There have been 17 explicit violations of the agreement by the North, with the representative case being the infiltration of five small unmanned aerial vehicles south of the MDL in December last year. President Yoon Suk-yeol instructed in January this year, "If North Korea provokes by invading our territory again, consider suspending the effectiveness of the September 19 Military Agreement."

Shin Won-sik, currently nominated as the Minister of National Defense, also maintains the position that the September 19 Military Agreement is a one-sided agreement favorable to North Korea. Even after his nomination, he stated, "Personally, I think it is desirable that it be definitely abolished." Recently, Kim In-ae, Deputy Spokesperson of the Ministry of Unification, also supported the move toward termination, saying, "I think an agreement that only we unilaterally abide by is undesirable."

However, there are concerns that if our government first suspends or declares the termination of the agreement, it could cause side effects. It might provide justification for North Korea's military provocations or even eliminate the grounds to urge North Korea's denuclearization. Although nearly 260 agreements have been concluded between the South and North over the past 50 years, despite criticisms of their ineffectiveness, our government has never been the first to terminate any of them.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.