Kang wrongly accused
Foreign minister respects writer’s view, knows of nukes
Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha is laudable in not losing her cool in the face of false accusations and acts of condescension from lawmakers. The way Korea’s first top female diplomat has been grilled during the recent National Assembly inspection on state affairs has rather confirmed the puerility in the line of lawmakers’ questioning.
To say the conclusion first, the Assemblymen in question should get serious about their job of scrutinizing foreign affairs on behalf of the people or let Kang do her duty at this critical time of national security. First in case is Kang’s reference to Man Booker Award winner Han Kang’s contribution to the New York Times, titled, “When the U.S. talks about war, South Korea shudders.”
She answered, “I would not have recommended it,” when Rep. Lee Tae-kyu of the middle-of-the-road People’s Party asked her whether the posting of Han’s anti-war piece on the website of the presidential office would help boost the ROK-U.S. alliance. Kang’s answer couldn’t be found at fault since Han was as critical as she was right about the part of blame the U.S. should take. This Han attitude represents a significant portion of the nation’s public opinion in favor of bringing balance to Seoul-Washington relations but the minister was left with little choice to raise the issue as a diplomat responsible for boosting the alliance to resolve North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship. She was caught between pro- and anti-American camps and took a lot of flak.
In the same context, Kang obviously showed a degree of reluc- tance to consent to Han’s description of her view of the 1950-53 Korean War as a proxy war — the South for the U.S. and the North for the defunct Soviet Union and China.
Apparently Kang opted for the more urgent of two choices — mending the troubled alliance over advocating the writer’s view. Still, the minister clearly said she respected Han’s view as a writer and her freedom of expression. Besides, Kang managed to escape a fiercer kind of controversy that befell the late President Roh Moo-hyun, the mentor of President Moon Jae-in, when he called the Korean conflict a “civil war.” Roh’s detractors attacked the liberal leader for allegedly diluting the fact that the North started it.
On a more frivolous but no lesser level, Rep. Lee Soo-hyuck of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea nitpicked the foreign minister’s reply and claimed she didn’t know the differences between tactical and strategic nukes. “Tactical nukes are for immediate use in the battlefield, while strategic ones are for a long-term deterrence,” she answered. She could have given a fuller answer but her reply couldn’t be dismissed as wrong. Also, her reference to the F-35 joint strike fighter, a type of aircraft the Air Force plans to bring in, as if it was already deployed, was inaccurate but it should not be taken as a sign of incompetency. Kang should be subject to the highest level of scrutiny for her pivotal role in national security but she warrants as much support. After all, she is our top warrior in the cutthroat arena of international diplomacy.