Wi Sung-lak “Trouble arose from a perception gap between the U.S. and Jeong Dong-young… It is true that the Coupang issue is affecting security consultations” - 경향신문

This article was translated by an AI tool. Feedback Here.

Wi Sung-lak, Director of the Office of National Security, gives a briefing related to the tour at the press center in Hanoi, Vietnam, on the 23rd. Hanoi/Lee Jun-heon

Wi Sung-lak, Director of the Office of National Security, said regarding the controversy over the United States partially limiting the provision of intelligence on North Korea after Minister of Unification Jeong Dong-young made a remark about a nuclear facility in Guseong, North Pyongan Province, that it was “a slight difference in perception between the United States and Minister Jeong,” adding, “Minister Jeong, who made the remark, says it is unrelated to information that came from the United States, while the United States seems to think that information they provided leaked.” Wi said, “We are communicating extensively with the United States about this issue.”

Wi answered as follows at a briefing held at the press center prepared in Hanoi, Vietnam, on the 23rd. Wi said, “(The Guseong nuclear facility) is now widely known so anyone talks about it, but it was originally secret. Through sharing between the United States and South Korea, it became a joint South Korea-U.S. secret,” adding, “Minister Jeong says he spoke because he had heard about it from open sources, but the combined secret remains secret for him.” Wi said, “That is why trouble arose, and if you examine the circumstances, there is that aspect.”

Wi said, “The point of a post by President Lee Jae Myung on X is that arguments and discussions premised on Minister Jeong having ‘leaked information received from the United States’ are mistaken,” adding, “That is the government position, and follow-up measures are under way pursuant to the President remark, ‘We need to look into this.’”

Earlier, on the 20th, the President wrote on X, “Any claims and actions premised on Minister Jeong having ‘disclosed secrets provided by the United States’ are wrong,” adding, “We need to take a close look at why such an outrageous situation is occurring.”

On the 22nd, after paying a courtesy call on Park In-jun, leader of the Cheondoist Church, at the Cheondogyo Suun Hall in Jongno-gu, Seoul, Minister Jeong met with reporters and again explained that his remark was not classified. Minister Jeong said, “That place name has been mentioned for ten years by numerous research institutes and experts, and even in U.S. congressional reports,” adding, “It has appeared in news reports, so how could it be classified?”

Earlier, at a full meeting of the National Assembly Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee on the 6th of last month, Minister Jeong said North Korea is advancing its nuclear program and pointed to three locations with operating uranium enrichment facilities: Yongbyon, Kangson, and Guseong. In addition to Yongbyon County in North Pyongan Province and Kangson District in Nampo Special City, which the government and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have officially confirmed, he additionally mentioned Guseong City in North Pyongan Province. The United States was reported to have partially suspended sharing satellite intelligence on North Korea with South Korea, taking issue with this and related matters.

On the question, ‘To what extent is the United States restricting the intelligence on North Korea it had been providing to South Korea?’, Wi said, “The answer I can give is that on intelligence matters between South Korea and the United States, it is difficult to either confirm or deny.”

Wi said, “There has been extensive communication between South Korea and the United States from the moment this matter arose,” adding, “We are trying to find a kind of exit together.” He explained, “I think the current situation that has arisen from the Guseong remark by Minister Jeong needs to be properly sorted out through communication,” and “We are consulting with the United States with the aim of returning promptly to a normal state of cooperation.”

Wi asked political circles and the media to refrain from excessive reactions. He said, “The reason this issue has flared up is recent media reporting,” adding, “It is true that the matter became complicated as political circles paid attention and issued positions.” He said, “If there is too much controversy outside, there is concern that it could hamper efforts between governments to resolve the issue,” adding, “An alliance is a very close relationship, but some compare it to a garden (tending) in the sense that it requires careful coordination and management.”

On reports that the U.S. government recently conveyed to the South Korean government the position that ‘it will be difficult to hold South Korea-U.S. security consultations unless the Coupang issue is resolved,’ Wi stated, “It is true that the Coupang issue is affecting security consultations between South Korea and the United States.” He explained, “Because the government sees it as undesirable to link matters in that direction, the Coupang issue is proceeding according to legal procedures, and security negotiations should make progress as security negotiations. We are holding many discussions with the United States on that basis.”

Regarding a remark by U.S. Forces Korea Commander Xavier Brunson that “political expediency must not outrun the conditions for OPCON (wartime operational control) transfer,” Wi said, “Commander Brunson appears to have expressed his own opinion as a military commander,” adding, “This is an issue to be handled not so much with a military commander as between the diplomatic and defense authorities of South Korea and the United States, and our position seeking a swift transfer has been fully conveyed.”

Wi also said, “Pursuing the transfer of OPCON is not political expediency,” adding, “It is something that has been pursued continuously since the Roh Moo-hyun administration.” He said, “The military dimension cannot be discounted, but fundamentally it is a matter of political decision,” adding, “In the end, the decision is made by the top leaders of the two governments.”