ED President Lee's diplomatic naivety

President Lee Jae Myung’s increasingly confrontational response to Ukraine over the public disclosure of North Korean prisoners of war (POWs) risks turning a manageable diplomatic misunderstanding into an unnecessary dispute. His insistence that Kyiv acknowledge a confidential agreement, apologize for violating it and face “additional measures” if it refuses may satisfy a desire to defend national dignity. But diplomacy is not conducted to satisfy wounded pride. It is conducted to protect national interests.

Ukraine was under no international legal obligation to repatriate the North Korean POWs to South Korea. Nevertheless, it accepted the wishes of the prisoners who wanted to come to the South and facilitated their transfer. The circumstances surrounding the disclosure certainly merit clarification. If Ukraine did, as Lee claims, explicitly request confidentiality and subsequently breached that understanding, Seoul has every right to seek an explanation and an apology. Yet there is a vast difference between demanding accountability through diplomatic channels and publicly escalating a dispute with a country already fighting for its survival.

Lee has now criticized Ukraine publicly twice, describing the episode as an issue involving “the dignity of the Korean people and the nation” and warning of further action. He has even suggested that Ukraine made him appear to be a liar. Such language is strikingly emotional for a head of state. It risks making a diplomatic disagreement seem like a personal quarrel between political rivals rather than a matter to be resolved through established diplomatic channels.

More troubling is the apparent naivety in treating public pressure as an effective instrument of statecraft. Ukraine currently faces thousands of North Korean troops fighting alongside Russian forces. More North Korean soldiers could become POWs, and some may wish to seek asylum in South Korea. Others might attempt to reach the South through Ukraine. In such circumstances, Seoul has a clear interest in maintaining Ukraine’s cooperation. Turning Kyiv into an adversary over an issue that could have been handled quietly is strategically self-defeating.

The dispute is also difficult to reconcile with South Korea’s broader interests. Ukraine is the victim of Russia’s aggression and of North Korea’s decision to support Moscow militarily. Recognizing this reality, the Lee administration pledged $100 million in assistance to Ukraine following the president’s summit with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in July, describing the commitment as evidence of Korea’s determination to contribute to international peace and security. South Korean companies also have major interests in future Ukrainian reconstruction projects, potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars. A public diplomatic confrontation serves none of these objectives.

Nor does it strengthen Seoul’s position with the European Union and other Western partners, which have invested heavily in supporting Ukraine. Allies inevitably judge not only what a country says, but how it behaves when disagreements arise. If Seoul appears willing to use aid or cooperation as leverage against a country under extreme wartime pressure, questions about Korea’s reliability as a partner could follow.

Lee’s approach is particularly incongruous given his government’s stated desire to exercise patience in pursuing improved inter-Korean and U.S.-North Korean relations. North Korea’s recent provocations and contemptuous rhetoric toward Seoul demonstrate why restraint and strategic consistency matter. If national dignity is truly the concern, Seoul should ask whether an avoidable public confrontation with a friendly country advances that dignity — or diminishes it.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha has already expressed hope that the matter will be resolved soon. That should be the cue for Seoul to step back. Lee should allow professional diplomats to settle the disagreement quietly, clarify the facts and preserve channels of cooperation.

A sovereign state must defend its interests. But genuine diplomatic strength lies not in displaying anger; it lies in knowing when anger serves no useful purpose. Lee’s handling of the POW issue has so far demonstrated more political sensitivity to perceived insult than strategic sensitivity to Korea’s long-term interests. That is not firmness. It is diplomatic naivety.