A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
SEOUL, South Korea — A tranche of bilateral tensions between Washington and Seoul are piling up, with a brouhaha over an alleged intelligence leak being the biggest flare-up.
Key personnel dealing with U.S. affairs at Seoul’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs are being reshuffled after a political storm exploded last month over remarks made by Unification Minister Chung Dong-yong in late March, which reportedly included the leak of sensitive U.S. intelligence on North Korea.
Speaking about Pyongyang’s fissile materials to the National Assembly, Mr. Chung cited the well-known sites of Yongbyon and Kangson — but added a third facility, Kusong, as a site of uranium enrichment.
Though Kusong, in the northwest, has been generally acknowledged as a site for nuclear activities among arms analysts and academics, it had never been formally identified as a uranium enrichment facility by Seoul or Washington. Suspicions about Kusong had been raised by analyses as far back as 2016.
Reports followed of U.S. displeasure about Mr. Chung’s public remarks, while unidentified sources speaking to the press subsequently stated that Washington had halted the sharing of satellite data with Seoul.
Mr. Chung maintains that he had provided only “open” information, and President Lee Jae Myung said on April 20, “It is an undeniable fact that the existence of the Kusong nuclear facilities has already been widely known to the world through various academic papers and media reports.”
But some opposition leaders in Seoul have called for Mr. Chung’s resignation.
“I don’t think he understands how to protect secret information as a minister,” said Shin Kyoung-soo, a retired South Korean general. “He does not fully understand that experts and professors can say there might be some nuclear facilities, but as he is a government official, it is confirmed.”
Mr. Chung, a former presidential candidate, has had a long political career engaging North Korea: he is holding the unification portfolio for the second time.
In February, he called for legislation to allow sovereign South Korean access to the Demilitarized Zone. Access is currently controlled not by Seoul, but by the U.S.-led U.N. Command, per the terms of the Armistice Agreement that ended the Korean War.
Seoul, angry that the 1950-53 war was being halted without unification, did not sign the armistice.
Some believe Washington wants Mr. Chung’s head.
“He has been an outspoken critic of the U.S. and argued for a law on U.N. Command’s jurisdiction, and maybe that is why the U.S. side raised the issue,” said Moon Chung-in, a prominent academic with wide experience in North-South diplomacy. “Conservatives argue that South Korea is dependent on U.S. intelligence, but the intelligence that the U.S. provides accounts for around 30%.”
Current cross-Pacific frictions are not unique.
“This has happened in the past when the Democratic Party of Korea wins the government,” said Mr. Shin, a former defense attache to Washington.
South Korea’s liberal DPK — which holds the presidency and controls the National Assembly — generally pursues improved relations with North Korea and China while seeking greater defense autonomy.
The conservative People Power Party leans harder toward the U.S. and the U.S. alliance, while downplaying defense autonomy.
An unnamed diplomatic source quoted by the conservative Chosun Ilbo, Korea’s leading newspaper, stated, “Minister Chung’s remarks were merely a trigger; accumulated grievances between the two nations are the core issue.”
Grievances are numerous.
As part of a widespread and sometimes heavy-handed investigation into imprisoned conservative ex-President Yoon Suk Yeol, Korean special prosecutors last year entered the Korea-U.S. air base at Osan. That led to a reported written protest from the U.S.
During the Chinese New Year holiday in February, a flight of U.S. fighters from Osan flew up to the median line in airspace over the Yellow Sea. That irked not just Beijing, which scrambled jets, but also Seoul, which said it had not been fully informed.
The commander in chief of U.S. Forces Korea, Gen. Xavier Brunson, has been vocal about leveraging Korea’s strategic geography. On May 7, he told Japanese media of the desirability of linking Korean, Japanese and Philippine military capabilities, across all domains, into a single “kill web.”
That might suit Manila and Tokyo, both at odds with Beijing. Seoul, however, is not and under the Lee administration has been pursuing amicable relations with China.
Seoul has also made clear its discomfort with bases on its soil being used as launch pads for U.S. operations region-wide.
Meanwhile, both militaries are working toward the transfer of “OPCON” — wartime operational control — of Korean forces from U.S. to Korean command. The Lee government wants it done by the end of its term, 2030; the U.S. insists it must be conditions-based.
“I think that, mainly, the relationship with the U.S. has been strained because of the OPCON issue,” Mr. Shin said.
A new canyon has opened between Seoul and Washington over Coupang, Korea’s dominant ecommerce/delivery app. Though it does not conduct business in the U.S., the company, founded in Seoul in 2010, was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 2021.
Following a massive data leak in November — 33.7 million accounts were compromised — Seoul regulators pounced, alleging laxity in Coupang’s security management.
Coupang returned fire via U.S. lobbying. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have initiated a probe into Seoul’s treatment of Coupang and investors have urged the U.S. trade representative to take action.
Facing these tensions, South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs conducted a reshuffle last week of key U.S.-facing personnel.
An expert on security and North Korean intelligence has been promoted to head MOFA’s North American Affairs Department, while the official responsible for handling Coupang issues is being deployed to Seoul’s embassy in Washington.
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.