(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Ji-heon Kim = As there are successive signs that communication between Korea and the United States is not smooth and trust is decreasing, concerns are raised that a warning light is blinking in the blood-friendly Korea-U.S. relationship.
Although the transactional relationship unique to the Donald Trump administration may be to some extent the cause, some say that we must read the U.S. global strategy and create a relationship between the two countries that matches it.
According to a diplomat on the 13th, the United States has recently had several complaints about cooperation in the intelligence field between South Korea and the United States, and although discussions have continued between South Korea and the United States intelligence authorities, the differences of opinion have not disappeared.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Cho Hyun said during the National Assembly audit on the 6th, "I heard an explanation of what problems there are in the information field at the ROK-US foreign ministers' meeting," which attracted attention because it revealed intimate communication between diplomatic channels.
Although a detailed explanation was not followed, it was interpreted that there was a significant level of conflict between the two countries in the information field and that even though the highest level was mobilized, the problem could not be resolved.
At the National Assembly Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee's audit of the Embassy in the United States held in Washington DC on the 12th (local time), Korean Ambassador to the United States Kang Kyung-wha also said that the controversy over information sharing restrictions between Korea and the United States is the most difficult issue to resolve in diplomacy between Korea and the United States, and that it is not easy to negotiate with the United States.
He said, “The high-level consultations that I would like to have are not happening as much as I would like, to the point where I am frustrated,” and went so far as to say, “I will admit that there are limits” to communication with the White House.
This is interpreted to mean that although working-level communication continues at various levels, such as ambassadors to the United States and counselors, direct communication with positions above the vice minister level, which can lead to breakthroughs, is largely blocked.
While there are various opinions as to the cause, it may be that the United States, which is dissatisfied with the content of Korea's communication with the United States, does not feel the need for additional discussions.
The United States may have judged that there was no change in the Korean authorities' approach, starting with the Coupang issue, which has not been resolved for nearly a year, to the recently emerged differences of opinion in the intelligence field.
In particular, the United States is said to have conveyed its opinions on Korea's diplomatic and security lines to South Korea through various channels.
Although it is not at the level of a direct personnel-related request or complaint as some have speculated, it is known that some high-ranking officials have consistently mentioned the impact on Korea-US relations.
The observation of diplomats is that this goes beyond simply North Korea policy and is closer to a critical awareness of whether the main focus of Korea's overall diplomatic stance remains focused on ROK-US relations as before.
It appears that some awareness of this problem has been expressed in corporate and economic fields where actual funds are exchanged.
Independent lawmaker Han Dong-hoon made a statement during the inspection of the Embassy in the United States that day, saying that the United States had raised this issue after a large Korean company stopped discussing transactions with an American company due to concerns about possible Chinese sanctions.
Ambassador Kang, while avoiding specific confirmation, mentioned the difficulties faced by Korean companies between the U.S. and Chinese regulatory systems.
If the US actually brought up this issue, this could be interpreted as the US going beyond the level of asking Korea for 'cost sharing' such as investment in the US or contribution to the alliance, and asking 'whose side are you on?'
Accordingly, some voices are saying that the continued complaints from the United States are a 'crisis signal' for Korea-US relations and should not be treated as a 'conflict of interest'.
If this situation continues, concerns are being raised that abnormal signals must be taken seriously as Korea's desired nuclear-powered submarines and securing nuclear fuel enrichment and reprocessing rights may be a long way off.
