North Korea accuses Seoul of fabricating landmine blast

North Korea’s permanent representative to the United Nations wrote to the Security Council on Sunday, accusing Seoul of staging a landmine explosion that injured three South Korean soldiers on September 21 inside the Demilitarized Zone. The letter claims the incident was fabricated to shift blame onto North Korea and to justify a “military invasion” narrative. It warns that any violation of North Korea’s sovereignty could trigger a defensive response.

The claim comes amid a long‑standing standoff over the DMZ, a 250‑kilometre strip that has remained a flashpoint since the 1953 armistice ended the Korean War. South Korea says the blast was caused by North Korean landmines, while Pyongyang has denied responsibility, calling the accusation a farce designed to deflect from its own border fortification projects. The letter also criticises Seoul for firing warning shots at soldiers who cross the Military Demarcation Line, arguing that such actions breach the armistice agreement.

North Korea’s letter frames the landmine incident as a “sinister obstructive move” and calls South Korea’s claims “groundless.” It describes the country’s border‑fortification efforts as a legitimate exercise of sovereignty in line with the UN Charter, while accusing Seoul of violating the charter by its warning‑shot policy. The United States‑led UN Command echoed South Korea’s view, stating that North Korea’s mine placement violates the armistice. In response, the South Korean foreign ministry sent a letter to the UN president, blaming Pyongyang for the blast and labeling it a clear breach of the armistice.

Last week, South Korea’s Defence Ministry proposed military talks with Pyongyang to confirm the precise border location and reduce the risk of accidental clashes. The dispute over the landmine incident highlights the fragile security environment on the peninsula and underscores the importance of clear communication and verification mechanisms. If the talks succeed, they could ease tensions and prevent future incidents; if they fail, the risk of escalation remains high.