(EDITORIAL from The Korea Herald on Sept. 29)

On September 29, South Korea's military and the U.N. Command launched an investigation into a suspected land mine explosion in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), six days after the incident occurred. The military had initially planned to conduct the investigation on Tuesday, following the Chuseok holiday, due to the risk of a secondary explosion. However, after facing criticism for delays and concerns about evidence being destroyed, they moved up the investigation by two days.

The investigation team encountered difficulties reaching the site due to the presence of unidentified mines and the fatigue of personnel involved. This led to unanswered questions regarding potential North Korean military involvement, fueling controversy and criticism of the military authorities. The military faced blame for their lack of proactive response from the outset, exemplified by the Joint Chiefs of Staff official repeatedly saying, "We'll check."

The explosion left two soldiers with serious injuries, including one who had an ankle amputated, while another suffered only minor injuries. However, the military later excluded the lightly injured soldier from its injury count, raising suspicions of downplaying the severity of the accident. Access to the site for preparatory checks began only on Saturday, five days after the incident and one day before the scheduled investigation.

Opposition lawmakers, such as Rep. Han Dong-hoon, accused the military of obstructing the investigation by rejecting the UN Command's request for an immediate joint investigation. The Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that the site's danger required safety precautions and a rehearsal first. However, if the operation was indeed dangerous, sending troops without proper preparation was the real issue.

During a similar event in 2015, North Korean wooden-box mines detonated in the DMZ, and the military collected mine fragments on the day of the incident and began a joint investigation with the UN Command two days later. This contrast highlights the delay in the 2022 investigation. Additionally, rain forecasted for the day of the 2015 incident may have washed away crucial evidence, further complicating the investigation.

The delay in initiating the on-site investigation raises serious concerns, as early investigations are crucial in such incidents. The military's lack of swift action is particularly evident when compared to their handling of the 2015 wooden-box mine provocation. Clear explanations are needed to justify the military's passive response in both incidents.