Intelligence cooperation with Washington is in Korea's interest, not subservience
: Korea must restore U.S. trust and intelligence-sharing channels as the alliance faces growing security concerns.
Korean Ambassador to the United States Kang Kyung-wha told a parliamentary audit Monday that intelligence cooperation is currently the most difficult issue in relations between Seoul and Washington.
Recalling U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's remarks at a bilateral foreign ministers' meeting last month that there were problems with intelligence cooperation, Kang said she did not believe the situation had been sufficiently resolved to Washington's satisfaction.
The dispute over restrictions on intelligence sharing has persisted for more than six months, following Unification Minister Chung Dong-young's remarks in March concerning a uranium enrichment facility in Kusong, North Pyongan Province.
Kang declined to specify Washington's expectations. Nevertheless, the United States apparently remains unconvinced by explanations from President Lee Jae Myung and Chung that the information was already public or that the controversy stemmed from factual misunderstandings.
The consequences have included delays in visa issuance for National Intelligence Service (NIS) personnel and Washington's exclusion of the NIS from a recent trilateral working-level meeting involving Korea, the United States and Japan, despite its longstanding emphasis on three-way cooperation.
Against this backdrop, Lee's remarks at Tuesday's Cabinet meeting did little to help resolve the dispute.
"Korea's diplomatic policy is pragmatic diplomacy based on national interests," Lee said, emphasizing that the country must avoid submissive or deferential attitudes toward other nations. He cited investment projects involving the United States as an example.
But trade negotiations involve reciprocal concessions. Restrictions on security intelligence sharing are different: Korea bears the consequences directly. Without timely access to critical information, its national interests inevitably suffer.
Kang also acknowledged that high-level consultations with the White House were proceeding frustratingly slowly. The Korean ambassador's difficulty communicating with Washington's highest decision-makers illustrates the current state of bilateral relations.
What makes this dispute particularly serious is the growing mistrust between two countries bound by a longstanding security alliance. Washington appears uncertain about how Seoul might use intelligence provided by the United States.
Rather than directly addressing those concerns, Lee emphasized that managing relations with major neighboring powers remains important.
Such remarks could be interpreted as signaling an intention to pursue balanced diplomacy between the United States and China and Russia, potentially aggravating Washington's concerns about intelligence security.
Pragmatic diplomacy requires distinguishing between negotiations where compromise is possible and security cooperation where mutual trust is indispensable.
The administration must explain how it intends to rebuild trust, restore intelligence exchanges and strengthen communication with the White House.
The fundamental question is whether its response to this dispute genuinely reflects the pragmatic approach and commitment to national interests that the president repeatedly advocates.
(END)