(EDITORIAL from The Korea Times on Oct. 12)

Seoul, Kyiv should resolve spat

: Dialogue needed following ambassador recall, for South Korea's national interest

South Korea's ambassador to Ukraine, Park Ki-chang, returned home Saturday, called in by President Lee Jae Myung over Ukraine's disclosure that two North Korean prisoners of war (POW) who were captured in 2025 are now in South Korea.

Recalling an ambassador is one of the strongest diplomatic actions a country can take, the others being the much more drastic steps of expelling the ambassador of the offending nation or formally severing ties. The last time South Korea took such step was in 2008, when it recalled its ambassador to Japan over the Dokdo islet issue. It is regrettable that the ties between South Korea and Ukraine, which have thus far been characterized by cooperation — particularly during Ukraine's four years of war following Russia's invasion — are now under such strain.

Seoul's frustrations stem from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's sudden and unilateral disclosure during a speech at the United Nations that the North Korean POWs had been transferred to South Korea, a disclosure that caught Seoul off guard. In the ensuing weeks, Ukraine continued to deny that there had ever been an agreement in place between the two countries to keep the information confidential — an agreement that was intended to protect the POWs and their families who remains remain in North Korea. After Ukraine's successive apologies fell short of Seoul's demands, the matter snowballed into the diplomatic rift we see today.

Zelenskyy, whose country has been at war with Russia for more than four years, has sought to bolster international support through public statements and appeals for assistance. In asking for more support, Zelenskyy in August and September projected that more North Korean soldiers will be sent to support Russia's war efforts soon. But the issue of the North Korean POWs is a highly sensitive matter, especially after the North rewrote its constitution to categorize South Korea as a hostile nation rather than an eventual partner for unification.

In that vein, the unilateral disclosure and ensuing denial may well be seen as undoing the good faith that has existed between Seoul and Kyiv. However, diplomacy requires balancing competing interests in pursuit of a country's broader goals. Achieving those goals sometimes calls for quieter negotiations and dialogue, as an unwaveringly hard-line stance can leave little room for maneuver in today's complex global order.

The foreign ministries in both South Korea and Ukraine have signaled their willingness to continue dialogue. When it announced the ambassador's recall on Thursday, Seoul also said that they would "continue consultations with the Ukrainian side." A spokesperson for Ukraine's foreign ministry said that "diplomacy" should prevail over "emotions," even while softening language used at last week's news conference. The ministry said it had "invited" the South Korean ambassador to the foreign ministry office in Kyiv to explain Ukraine's position.

Lee reportedly is considering keeping its ambassador in Seoul until Ukraine meets South Korea's demands. Both sides must now assess the fallout should the standoff continue.

South Korea remains aligned with efforts to uphold international law and de-escalate the conflict. It has provided humanitarian assistance, supported reconstruction efforts and supplied non-lethal equipment, and announced further assistance of $100 million to Kyiv in July. Ukraine, despite being embattled, remains vital to European security. In a changing global order shaped by U.S.-China rivalry, countries increasingly need to safeguard their interests through both bilateral and multilateral diplomatic ties.

South Korea's participation in Ukraine's postwar reconstruction and its continued partnership with Kyiv would serve Seoul's broader foreign policy objectives. Ukraine, in turn, must demonstrate good faith in its dealings with partner nations. Difficult circumstances may call for flexibility, but that flexibility should be guided by firm principles.