Concerns grow over leaking of military intelligence
By Jung Da-min
Concerns are growing over the leaking of confidential military information following a recent incident in which a South Korean government official was shot dead by North Korean troops after drifting into the North's territorial waters.
Politicians briefed on the incident have disclosed military intelligence to the media in detail, raising concerns that this could have a negative influence on the military's intelligence-collecting ability in the future and could compromise national security.
The killing happened on Sept. 22, but the military's official announcement of the event came two days later. As criticism rose against the military for not responding to the situation in time to rescue the South Korean national, the military said it had to combine fragmentary information from various sources to get the whole picture of what happened.
But while explaining the reason for the late announcement, the military may have provided too much of its special intelligence to politicians, including opposition lawmakers, who in turn disclosed quite a lot of the intelligence information to the media to support their arguments on the issue and denounce the Moon Jae-in administration, all in the name of the public's right to information.
Special intelligence (SI) is military jargon for information collected through intelligence activities such as intercepting enemy radio communications.
The military and experts expressed concerns over the situation, saying such confidential military information should have been kept among the relevant officials to protect the military's intelligence sources. They said some politicians have ruined the military's SI system by indiscreetly leaking confidential information for political gains ― for example, if SI is leaked, the North will change its radio communication frequencies and South Korean intelligence will have to find the new frequency, which could take months.
One such situation was created by Rep. Joo Ho-young, floor leader of the main opposition People Power Party (PPP). During a press conference at the National Assembly on Oct. 4, he said North Korea's military command ordered its troops to shoot the South Korean official with a specific type of rifle.
While the truth of the incident has yet to be confirmed, some media reports based on the information expressed by the lawmaker were distorted and exaggerated, according to the military. It denied a local broadcaster's Sept. 27 report that the government has secured images of a scene showing North Korean troops burning the body of the South Korean official they had killed.
Another news agency report, Sept. 29, said South Korea's military intelligence officers were listening in on conversations between North Korean troops confirming a shoot-to-kill order from the North Korean Navy headquarters. But the military said there were no words like shooting or shoot-to-kill in the military's intelligence collected on the incident.
The Ministry of National Defense strongly warned against this kind of divulgence of sensitive information.
“It does not seem appropriate for the military's sensitive intelligence to be arbitrarily processed or indiscriminately disclosed,” the ministry's deputy spokesman Moon Hong-sik said during a regular press briefing, Oct. 5. “Such things not only cause a lot of obstacles to our military missions but they are also not conducive to maintaining the country's security at all. We are deeply concerned about the situation where our military's intelligence is being publically reported indiscriminately.”
Lawmakers of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) criticized the PPP for endangering national security by disclosing and distorting confidential information gathered by the militaries of South Korea and the United States, as such an action reveals and damages the allies' ability and very system of collecting military intelligence.
“If the intelligence and information obtained through the military intelligence means of South Korea and the U.S. is leaked, there is a high possibility that North Korea would change its existing methods of communication to evade surveillance by South Korea and the U.S.,” said Rep. Kim Byung-joo, a general-turned-lawmaker with the DPK.
“It is obvious that the U.S. and South Korea's ability to collect information, which is the basis of defense power, will be seriously damaged. In addition, the PPP's criticism against the government by unilaterally asserting some of the claims made by the North Korean side instead of high-level information confirmed by South Korean and U.S. authorities will only divide public opinion in the field of security without any benefit.”
Choi Yoon-cheol, an assistant professor at Sangmyung University's Department of National Defense, said it was inappropriate for the military officials and lawmakers not to keep confidential information among themselves but leak it to external parties, such as the media, and such leaks should be punished by relevant laws.
“Eavesdropping intelligence is a necessary activity for the military but relevant activities should not be disclosed to the public,” Choi said. “Although lawmakers have immunity under law, the defense minister is still urged to take a firm stance against their leaking of confidential intelligence by taking legal action against them.”
But PPP lawmaker Ha Tae-keung, a member of the Assembly's Intelligence Committee, said a lawmaker is given immunity under law for legislative activities. On DPK members' criticism against PPP floor leader Joo for leaking military intelligence, Ha said lawmakers receive reports from anonymous sources, and delivering information after judging its credibility is also the job of a lawmaker.
“That is why the immunity privilege is given to lawmakers. Criticizing Joo is too much when it is not an era of authoritarianism,” Ha said.
Shin Jong-woo, a senior researcher at the Korea Defense and Security Forum, said he does not view that the military intelligence on the incident which has been reported through the media should be classified as a top-level secret or SI of the military.
“For this case, it seemed that the military eavesdropped on an ordinary communication among North Korean troops, not a communication for top-tier secrets by special means … I do not believe that media reports citing such military information would pose a serious threat to the military's intelligence activities,” Shin said.