How far should we tolerate politics overpowering diplomacy? That is the question that comes to mind when looking at recent foreign policy and security issues, such as the Ukrainian prisoners of war and the restrictions on intelligence sharing between Seoul and Washington. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's decision to announce at the United Nations the repatriation of North Korean soldiers taken prisoner — a matter both sides had agreed to keep confidential — was political and inappropriate. But President Lee Jae-myung went too far in publicly criticizing him for "making me out to be a liar." Lodging a protest through diplomatic channels and demanding assurances against a recurrence would have been enough.
There are more than enough reasons to further strengthen relations between South Korea and Ukraine. In such a situation, the Presidential Office must have someone willing to say plainly that "we should not respond emotionally and publicly as well." Once the president's words are made public, they are received not as a mere remark but as the official position of the state.
The restrictions on intelligence sharing with the United States are a sensitive issue involving the national intelligence agency, yet the opposition party is discussing them in public. Here, too, a political calculation is likely at work — to assign blame to the government and the ruling party and to use the matter as an opening for attack. As a result, instead of productive debate and discussion, only nitpicking controversies are spreading. The focus of the debate should be on what caused the restrictions and how to address them. It is not a subject that should have been discussed publicly in the first place.
It is doubtful whether the domestic political impulse to drag matters that should be handled behind the scenes out into the open will serve the national interest over the long term. The response of the president and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the issue of the North Korean prisoners of war appears ill-suited to a South Korea whose standing differs from the past. The same goes for the opposition party, which is calling for the immediate dismissal of the heads of the relevant ministries and agencies over the fact that the U.S. side raised an issue regarding intelligence sharing. If U.S. displeasure leads to the removal of a South Korean minister, then whose country is South Korea?
South Korea is one of the rare countries that experienced colonial rule and still rose from a recipient of international aid to a donor. Amid breathtaking change, we have missed the chance to reflect on an important question. A prime example is what South Korean diplomacy should ultimately pursue — what it aspires to be, to borrow a current turn of phrase. That is a difficult question in itself, and it has grown harder still as the times keep changing and our standing shifts rapidly. It is time to establish principles and a direction for diplomacy that are not easily swayed by political interests.