단상斷想

The relationship between Korea and the US has been strained and at an all-time low since the Yoon Suk-yeol rebellion. Kang Kyung-hwa, the Korean Ambassador to the US, who seems oblivious to this, publicly raised concerns about the reliability of Korea-US intelligence cooperation during the National Assembly audit at the Korean Embassy in Washington on October 12 (local time), revealing a rift in the foreign policy and security lines within the Lee Jae-myung administration. She identified intelligence cooperation as “the most difficult issue,” confirmed that the US side raised the issue during the September 18 meeting between Foreign Minister Cho Hyun and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and then stated, “I don’t think the issue has been sufficiently resolved to the extent that the US side expects.” Her complaint that communication with the White House National Security Council (NSC) and high-ranking officials is limited and “frustrating” goes beyond a simple working-level report, as even a US ambassador to Korea would find it difficult to make such impolite remarks.

This contrasted sharply with Unification Minister Jeong Dong-young's remarks in Seoul on the same day, where he stated, “There is nothing wrong with the Korea-US alliance,” and refuted the US's restrictions on intelligence sharing as a “misunderstanding” and “the US is wrong,” clearly showing a difference in opinion. The criticism of Kang Kyung-hwa as a 'black-haired American' or 'American stooge' is a framework that interprets her public communication of Washington's expectations as advocating for the US, especially when domestic politics are difficult and the president's position is shaky. It is rather suspicious that, despite the very reason Kang Kyung-hwa was appointed to that position was to resolve and address such issues, there is an effort to emphasize that she does not consider national interests.

Kang Kyung-hwa, who served as the first Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Moon Jae-in administration, was appointed as the first Korean Ambassador to the US under the Lee Jae-myung administration, recognized for her experience dealing with the Trump administration's first term. She was evaluated as the right person to manage practical issues such as strategic investment, Alaska LNG, visa issues, and coordination of Korea-US summits, and her capability in alliance management was a key reason for her appointment. However, the listed Korea-US issues, such as the tariff problems that began at the start of the Trump administration's second term and the large-scale ICE crackdown at construction sites in Georgia, are effectively stalled, with no progress being made.

In such a situation, sensitive issues based on trust, such as intelligence cooperation, are a key task for the Ambassador to the United States to accurately ascertain the circumstances on the ground and find a solution through close consultation with the home government and U.S. authorities. Ambassador Kang stated in the parliamentary audit that the U.S. raised the issue of intelligence cooperation and that the problem has not yet been sufficiently resolved to the level expected by the U.S. side. He also expressed frustration that discussions with high-ranking White House officials have not progressed as desired. While these explanations reveal the difficulties in the field of diplomacy, they also prompt questions about what role the Ambassador to the United States is playing to overcome these difficulties.

Kang Kyung-wha stated that after speaking with Minister of Unification Chung Dong-young, explanations were conveyed to the U.S. side through regular consultation channels. As the National Intelligence Service is responding and there has been progress in communication between the intelligence agencies of both countries, it cannot be concluded that no efforts were made to resolve the issue. However, based solely on the public responses, it is difficult to fully understand how our explanations were received and what diplomatic efforts are being made to narrow the remaining differences.

It would not be possible to disclose all the details of sensitive intelligence cooperation matters. However, in addition to explaining the U.S. concerns and communication difficulties, it should also be revealed, to the extent possible, how our government's position is being conveyed and what solutions are being sought for the national interest. This is precisely what needs to be scrutinized in Ambassador Kang's response. Compared to the explanation diagnosing the problem, the Ambassador's role and response direction in managing and resolving it do not seem to have been sufficiently revealed.

This question is also interpreted in conjunction with internal assessments that are being circulated by some. The assessment that Ambassador Kang is 'a fool who speaks English well' implies a criticism that despite her excellent language skills and experience with the UN and multilateral affairs, she does not deeply understand the sensitive details of bilateral relations and the domestic political context. In particular, there have been internal remarks that a former Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, who worked with Ambassador Kang when she was a minister, called her an 'ignorant fool' and said he 'couldn't work with her.' These assessments reflect the perception that her non-foreign service background and multilateral-focused career show limitations in handling the practical sensitivities of bilateral alliances.

At the same time, there is also an assessment that she has 'very strong survival skills.' The fact that she served as a minister in the Moon Jae-in administration and was then appointed as the ambassador to the U.S. in the Lee Jae-myung administration demonstrates her political and institutional ability to retain her position even amidst a change of government. Some interpret this as meaning she is close to the 'extreme right.' Her public acknowledgment of U.S. concerns regarding intelligence cooperation and her statement that the landmine incident was 'definitely not an accidental mishap' based on the Joint Chiefs of Staff's investigation results, which differed from President Lee Jae-myung's expression, could be seen by the autonomous faction as an 'extreme right-wing' attitude that fails to objectively assess the reality of the alliance and lacks consideration for domestic politics. In fact, with statements of this level, treating a U.S. ambassador who is effectively useless to national interests as a shadow is one approach. After the Yoon Seok-yeol rebellion, the U.S. no longer has a reason to send a white American ambassador to Korea, and Korea, in the same context, believes it is not bad to appreciate the various pro-American statements spewed like buckshot by conservative figures like Kang Kyung-wha, rather than wasting energy by appointing autonomous faction members.

Minister Chung mentioned Gusung, North Pyongan Province, along with Yongbyon and Kangson, as the location of a uranium enrichment facility in the National Assembly in March 2026. The Ministry of Unification explained that it was based on publicly available think tank information, but the US side viewed it as the exposure of sensitive information, given that it was an official statement by a high-ranking official, and took measures to restrict the sharing of some intelligence, such as satellite intelligence on North Korea. This measure has been ongoing for more than half a year, and the National Intelligence Service acknowledged the restrictions in certain areas but stated that the total amount of information provided has not decreased and cooperation is maintained in various fields such as missiles, conventional weapons, and cyber. Ambassador Kang drew a line, saying that Secretary Rubio did not specifically target Jeong Dong-young and Lee Jong-seok, but virtually admitted the US position that there was a problem with information cooperation itself. What role Ambassador Kang can play in the middle may only result in maintaining a stalemate for the time being, without any progress or regression.

Regarding the landmine incident, based on the results of the Joint Chiefs of Staff investigation, he stated, “It was clearly not an accidental incident,” revealing a difference from President Lee Jae-myung’s expression. With just one attitude towards an incident where a soldier's two ankles were severed, the abilities an ambassador should possess have already been fully verified. It is not a desirable phenomenon for an ambassador of a country to express views that contradict the president.

This issue is not a simple technical misunderstanding but a problem that touches the core of trust-based information cooperation. While it is necessary for the ambassador to the US to accurately convey the expectations of the US side felt locally, if the ambassador's job is to solve and resolve problems, then publicly diagnosing and expressing limitations is a form of media play and an overreach of authority.

The role of the Ambassador to the United States carries a dual mission: to convey the home government's position to the U.S. while accurately reporting Washington's true atmosphere and policy priorities back to Seoul. In sensitive matters like intelligence cooperation, if there's a gap between the level of resolution expected by the U.S. and the perception on the Korean side, concealing or downplaying it diminishes the ambassador's credibility and the effectiveness of the channel. Stating the limitations directly during an opposition party's questioning in a public setting like a parliamentary audit might have been a choice to maintain credibility. However, if the reason for being in this position is not merely to be a reporter but a person responsible for solving and resolving problems, it's difficult to say that the mission has been fulfilled with just a public diagnosis.

The complaint of "frustration" in the face of information sharing restrictions lasting over half a year and the reality that high-level White House channels are not as open as desired, might be an appeal about the difficulty of solving the problem, but at the same time, it can also be interpreted as an admission of the limits of one's own problem-solving ability. While it was stated that Korea's position is actively explained on other issues such as strategic investment, no progress commensurate with expectations has been made in the most sensitive axis of the alliance, which is information cooperation. The recognition that high-level channels are not open within the Trump administration's unique White House-centric decision-making structure is valid, but how much effort has been made to overcome or circumvent these restrictions is a separate issue.

This situation is also intertwined with the structural tensions within the Lee Jae-myung administration. With figures like National Security Advisor Wi Sung-rak, who tend to favor alliance management, coexisting with those like Chung Dong-young and Lee Jong-seok, who lean towards self-reliance, there have been cracks in policy messaging. The self-reliance faction tends to dismiss restrictions on information sharing as an excessive reaction from the US or a domestic political attack. Ambassador Kang's remarks could serve to curb the domestic tendency to downplay the issue and convey the concerns of those who prioritize alliance management.

However, conveying the reality that the ambassador experienced locally and actually solving and resolving those problems are different matters. If the purpose of the appointment was to manage and restore such cracks and trust, it is difficult to say that the role was faithfully performed merely by public acknowledgment and an appeal of "frustration." The frames of "black-haired American" or "American stooge" are still an excessive simplification. It is not reasonable to ignore the practical function of intelligence cooperation on South Korean security and to define local reporting itself as betrayal. At the same time, if one merely acknowledges insufficient resolution and expresses limitations in a position appointed to solve problems, it is difficult to deny that it, in turn, undermines the very reason for being in that position.

Ultimately, Ambassador Kang's remarks are an example of the structural tension the Lee Jae-myung administration faces between alliance management and securing autonomous space. While it is natural for an ambassador to convey local realities to their home country as part of their duties, if the purpose of their position was to solve and resolve problems, then public diagnosis and expressing limitations alone are insufficient. As the issue of intelligence cooperation suggests the possibility of becoming prolonged, whether this matter will lead to pressure for adjustment within the domestic diplomatic and security lines or be resolved at the working level depends on the government's subsequent response.

However, if the ambassador to the US, who is at the forefront of that apprenticeship, remains at the stage of saying "it's frustrating," the gap between the purpose of the appointment and the actual performance of the role will inevitably become more pronounced. National interest exists simultaneously in terms of being secured through the functional maintenance of alliances and in terms of expanding the space for independent judgment. Ambassador Kang's remarks not only made that tension visible but also left a question about what is being done in the position that was appointed to resolve that tension. How this question is answered will be an important variable for the stability of future ROK-US relations and the consistency of the Lee Jae-myung administration's foreign policy and security line.