Lee's angry diplomacy toward Ukraine

Lee Hyun-sang

The author is a columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo.

President Lee Jae Myung is reportedly furious with Ukraine. He has threatened “further measures” unless Kyiv acknowledges that it agreed to keep the transfer of North Korean prisoners of war (POW) confidential and publicly apologizes for failing to do so. Responding to remarks on the Korean Peninsula by a Ukrainian presidential official, Lee allegedly even used phrases including “claims of an imminent military clash between the two Koreas” and “hoping for war to break out on the peninsula.” Such language is unusually harsh for a president addressing a foreign government.

The dispute began with the POWs. After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly disclosed the transfer of two captured North Korean soldiers to the South, Seoul protested. Dmytro Lytvyn, the communications adviser to the Ukrainian president, then denied that any confidentiality agreement existed. With South Korea’s international credibility at stake, the matter cannot simply be brushed aside. Adding fuel to the controversy was an interview late last month by Kyrylo Budanov, the head of Ukraine’s presidential office, with online outlet Newsforce.

Budanov said that North Korea’s military capabilities were rapidly improving through the war in Ukraine, primarily so it could “be prepared for active combat operations in its region.” Referring to a recent incident along the military demarcation line between the two Koreas, he said that it was “only a matter of time before a trigger event occurs that could lead to uncontrollable consequences.” That appears to have particularly angered Lee.

The South Korean president’s position is not incomprehensible. Three South Korean soldiers were injured by a mine believed to have been planted by North Korea in the demilitarized zone, or DMZ, even as the government works to reduce inter-Korean tensions. Seoul may have felt that Kyiv was exaggerating the risk of a crisis on the peninsula. A tough response could itself be intended as a conciliatory signal to Pyongyang.

Even so, diplomatic rhetoric requires calibration. I read Budanov’s interview. Some of his language and forecasts were blunt and exaggerated. But Ukraine is also a war-ravaged country desperately dependent on international support. More importantly, interpreting his warning that a crisis could be triggered at any time as a claim that war on the Korean Peninsula is imminent stretches his words too far. The suggestion that Ukraine is hoping for war is an even greater leap.

The two countries’ foreign ministers are communicating directly to find a way to contain the dispute. When the president himself intervenes in a forceful tone, he narrows the room for diplomacy. Unless the intention is to drive relations toward rupture, diplomacy requires leaving an exit while respecting the other side’s dignity. Lee’s reaction almost gives the impression that Ukraine is an enemy state.

South Korea and Ukraine have much intelligence to share on North Korean tactics and weapons, as well as military cooperation between Pyongyang and Moscow. Ukraine also connects South Korea to European security and defense networks.

Poland offers a useful example of helping Ukraine while managing disputes separately. Since Russia’s invasion, Poland and Ukraine have clashed over an influx of cheap Ukrainian grain. But Warsaw kept the grain dispute separate from security cooperation. Even while fighting over individual issues, the two sides did not overturn the entire relationship. South Korea should likewise respond to Ukrainian wrongdoing without allowing an excessive reaction to damage larger strategic interests.

Critics have recently said that Lee posts too frequently and bluntly on social media. Foreign and domestic affairs are not directly comparable, but some also accuse him of being too cautious toward hard-liners within his own camp. Others ask why the “dignity of South Korea and its people” that Lee invokes toward Ukraine does not seem to apply when North Korea insults and mocks the South, including by describing Seoul’s policy as the “climax of a farce.” That has prompted accusations that Lee is strong toward the weak and weak toward the strong.

A social media post written by South Korea’s president in Seoul is read simultaneously in Kyiv, Washington, Brussels, Moscow and Pyongyang. When Lee adds that Ukraine “made [him] look like a liar,” the message can appear driven more by personal indignation than by diplomatic strategy.

A president can get angry. But the country pays the price every time that its president presses the post button.