There is an old maxim in foreign policy that “politics stops at the water’s edge.” The principle suggests that partisan competition should not be allowed to undermine the national interest in dealing with the outside world. However, that principle is increasingly difficult to uphold. Complex diplomatic maneuvers and sensitive military procedures are too often drawn into partisan disputes.
Security issues should be debated vigorously in a democracy. But when they are judged primarily by their usefulness in attacking political opponents, legitimate debate can turn into partisan exploitation. The consequences extend beyond domestic politics.
A recent example emerged on the international stage. During his address at the United Nations General Assembly, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy disclosed a confidential understanding with the South Korean government regarding the transfer of North Korean prisoners of war held in Ukraine.
His disclosure may have been intended, at least in part, to increase pressure on Seoul to provide military assistance to Ukraine by complicating South Korea’s relations with Pyongyang and Moscow. Yet Zelenskyy presumably understands that South Korea has compelling reasons to keep communication channels with North Korea open and to manage its relationship with Russia carefully. It is therefore questionable whether publicizing the POW transfer could significantly change Seoul’s position on military assistance to Ukraine.
Another possible explanation is that the disclosure was aimed partly at a domestic audience, demonstrating that he was doing everything possible to secure international support for his country. If so, the episode offers an unusual example of how a sensitive security issue involving South Korea can become entangled not only in Korean domestic politics but also in the domestic politics of another country.
The second example arose directly from the first. Some opposition politicians in Seoul used Zelenskyy’s disclosure to criticize President Lee Jae Myung. Critics argued that Seoul’s decision to keep the POW transfer confidential amounted to excessive accommodation of Pyongyang.
Some also suggested, without presenting evidence, that the secrecy might have been intended to facilitate the eventual repatriation of the POWs to North Korea. That argument is difficult to sustain. If repatriation to North Korea had been the objective, transferring the POWs to Seoul would have been an extraordinarily complicated way to achieve it.
More importantly, publicizing the movements and identities of North Korean POWs raises serious humanitarian and security concerns. History has repeatedly demonstrated the risks faced by prominent North Korean defectors and other individuals whom Pyongyang considers politically sensitive. The assassination of Lee Han-yong in 1997 and the killing of Kim Jong-nam in Malaysia are reminders that such concerns cannot simply be dismissed.
Public disclosure can potentially endanger remaining families in North Korea. Transparency is an essential democratic principle, but national security and humanitarian cases sometimes require confidentiality. Demanding immediate disclosure without considering those risks can place political advantage ahead of the safety of vulnerable individuals.
The third example involves the recent land mine explosion near the Military Demarcation Line in the Demilitarized Zone. The incident, which seriously injured South Korean officers, requires a thorough investigation. Yet the opposition party criticized the military’s response as lethargic and suggested that the government was excessively concerned about North Korea’s reaction.
Such criticism should take account of the unusual operational environment of the DMZ. The explosion occurred while South Korean troops were opening a route needed for a United Nations Command investigation into suspicions that North Korea had planted new mines south of the MDL. Investigative activities inside the DMZ require close coordination between the South Korean military and the UNC under the armistice framework. Procedures that may appear slow from the outside can be necessary to prevent accidents, misunderstandings or unintended escalation.
There is certainly room to question whether the military responded properly before and after the explosion. Accountability is indispensable, especially when soldiers are injured. But criticism should be based on operational facts rather than assumptions about political motives. Portraying necessary coordination as weakness toward North Korea risks distorting the issue.
Why are sensitive security issues so easily drawn into partisan conflict? One explanation lies in political polarization. In a deeply divided society, political incentives can gradually shift from solving problems to defeating opponents. Complex security issues then become especially vulnerable to partisan framing.
In such a zero-sum environment, politicians have growing incentives to translate complicated diplomatic and military questions into simpler narratives that mobilize supporters. Nuance disappears. Questions involving diplomacy, military procedures and humanitarian considerations can quickly be reduced to a contest over who can attack or embarrass the opposing side more effectively.
This tendency carries costs that go well beyond domestic political discourse. Diplomats need room to negotiate quietly. Military commanders need room to make professional judgments. Governments sometimes need confidentiality to protect individuals or preserve diplomatic options. If every such decision is immediately interpreted through a partisan lens, officials may begin making decisions based on anticipated political attacks rather than national security requirements.
South Korea therefore needs a stronger firewall between legitimate political competition and the professional management of national security. Security experts and military leaders should maintain professional independence and explain operational realities clearly when political rhetoric distorts them. The National Assembly, meanwhile, should seek greater bipartisan understanding regarding basic security procedures even while continuing vigorous debate over broader policy choices.
The goal should not be to remove national security from democratic debate. That would be neither possible nor desirable. The goal is to prevent legitimate debate from degenerating into partisan exploitation.
The challenges facing South Korea, from tensions on the Korean Peninsula to wars and geopolitical competition abroad, are too serious to be treated merely as material for the next news cycle or election campaign. A nation that treats its security as a political football ultimately weakens its own diplomatic leverage and strategic resilience. Protecting space for responsible disagreement while preventing the partisan exploitation of sensitive security issues is therefore not a favor to any administration. It is part of protecting the national interest itself.
- - -
Wang Son-taek
Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. He is a former diplomatic correspondent at YTN and a former research associate at Yeosijae. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.
khnews@heraldcorp.com
