ED Clarity should take precedence

The damaged stern of HMM Namu, a bulk carrier operated by Korean shipper HMM, is seen in this photo released Sunday by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, after it was struck by two unidentified objects on May 4 while anchored in waters near the Strait of Hormuz. The upper right inset photo showing HMM Namu pinpoints the damaged section. Courtesy of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Yonhap

Amid the lack of clarity — or perhaps deliberate strategic ambiguity — surrounding the question of who attacked the Korean ship HMM Namu near the Strait of Hormuz, engine debris from "unidentified airborne objects" may provide the answer. Foreign Minister Cho Hyun said the debris will arrive in Seoul soon for in-depth analysis.

Any news from the Strait of Hormuz has been unnerving since Feb. 28, when the conflict in Iran was started by U.S.-Israeli attacks. But when it involves South Korean commercial assets and South Korean lives, as with HMM Namu, the expectation is that the government will uphold its duty to protect its national interests and citizens swiftly and transparently.

It's been frustrating to watch the government's apparent hesitation to identify what exactly happened to HMM Namu in waters off the United Arab Emirates on May 4. The government first categorized the incident as an "attack or explosion," even as the size of the 5-by-7-meter hole in the ship's stern had experts questioning the government's inspection ability. Even as Seoul determined it was an external attack after initial inspections in Dubai, it attributed the strike to "unidentified airborne objects." The government belatedly added that one crew member sustained injuries.

There has been no understandable explanation from the government over conflicting statements made by Iranian media and the Iranian Embassy in Seoul.

The case presents significant diplomatic dilemmas, as the tenuous ceasefire between Iran and the U.S. carries myriad uncertainties. Since the outbreak of the Iran conflict, Seoul has maintained pragmatic diplomacy between Iran and its traditional ally, the U.S. Yet the cause of the attack has been debated by these two nations. Immediately after the attack, on May 5, U.S. President Donald Trump attributed it to Iran. Later that day, the Iranian Embassy in Seoul issued a statement denying "any military involvement" regarding Namu. Then Iran's state-affiliated Press TV printed a column seemingly justifying the attack.

We must ask what work Seoul has done to reconcile the discrepancies between the two explanations. The Iranian government is regarded as fractured now, but it could present a better, clearer explanation of what happened.

Iranian Ambassador to Korea Saeed Koozechi did visit the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and listen to Seoul's explanation of the incident as "a relevant country." Seoul's prudence in not naming a specific country as the agent of the attack strikes a parallel with China and France, who condemned similar attacks on their ships but did not pin blame on any one country. Other nations such as Thailand reportedly protested via foreign ministry channels.

The safety of the 25 Korean ships remaining in the strait and further safe passage of ships carrying oil hangs in the balance, surely, for all involved nations.

Meanwhile, peace negotiations remain stalled between Iran and the United States, meaning Korea may face pressure to join efforts to safeguard the waterway through U.S.-led initiatives — either the Maritime Freedom Construct or the temporarily halted Project Freedom. There is also the multinational coalition led by the United Kingdom and France. Once those responsible for the incident are identified, Korea should participate, even in limited fashion, in efforts to protect its nationals.

There has been speculation that Seoul is avoiding full clarification of the incident, cognizant of the upcoming local elections on June 3. That should be all it is: talk, rumors at most. There should be no dereliction of government duty. The primary aim of defending national interests and citizens should not become subject to harmful or disadvantageous ambiguity. Diplomatic dynamics may complicate government actions, but where clarity is possible, it should take precedence.