Except for the US’North Korea denuclearization’ joint statement, he hit harder at the press conference.

“China” and “North Korea denuclearization” were completely omitted from a joint statement issued at the end of the Korea-US diplomatic and defense (2+2) ministerial meeting held in five years. Due to disagreement, it can be seen that the two sides were unable to put it in the document issued in the form of consensus. However, in the public remarks that followed, the United States did its best, defining the North Korean regime as a “repressive government” and China’s actions as an “aggressive and authoritarian challenge.”

Foreign Minister Eui-yong Eui, Defense Minister Seo Wook, US Secretary of State Tony Blincoln, and US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in a joint statement adopted as a result of a meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Building in Doryeom-dong, Seoul, “70 years ago, The ROK-US alliance is the core axis of peace, security, and prosperity in the Korean Peninsula and the Indo-Pacific region.“I reaffirmed. It also reaffirmed its mutual commitment to the defense of Korea and strengthening the combined defense posture of the ROK-US under the Mutual Defense Treaty.

In fact, the expression “key axis” and strong defense pledges are the same as basic side dishes that go into every discussion between Korea and the United States. This is the reason why the missing information is more eye-catching in this joint statement.

First of all, China fell out. Just two days ago, in a joint statement between the United States and Japan, the two sides said they were opposed to “coercive actions” by China. From China’s maritime police law to military activities in the Taiwan Strait, claiming sovereignty in the South China Sea, and human rights issues in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, they have shot against China in virtually every field.

However, in a joint statement between the ROK and the United States, “Amid the growing challenge to the regional security environment, the connection between the two countries so that they can work together in opposition to any action that undermines and hinders the norm-based international order is shared by the ROK-US alliance. It’s all about value. All specific issues were skipped, and it was not specified who was the subject of undermining the international order. There was no mention of the Quad (US, Japan, Australia, India) security council. In response, an official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained, “It is an exception to include a third specific country in the original joint statement.”

Denuclearization was also eliminated. Regarding the North Korean nuclear issue, a joint statement between the United States and South Korea states, “The ministers of both countries emphasized that the North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile issue is a priority concern of the alliance, and reaffirmed their shared will to cope with and resolve this issue.” It is difficult to find precedent that even the word denuclearization did not appear in the results of security talks between Korea and the United States.to be. In addition, North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles were not defined as security threats, but were expressed as’priority concerns’.

A few hours before the 2+2 meeting North Korean Foreign Ministry First Minister Sun-hee Sun-hee criticized “the only sound that came out after the change of government in the United States was the insanity of’the threat of North Korea’ and’complete denuclearization’,” he said.Unfortunately, both threats and denuclearization were omitted from the joint statement. This is in contrast to the US-Japan Joint Statement describing North Korea’s weapons as a “serious threat” and “reaffirming its commitment to the complete denuclearization of North Korea.” Regarding this, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs official said, “There is nothing (determined) unless (the expression of North Korea’s denuclearization) is necessarily included in the joint statement,” and said, “It is more important to emphasize cooperation in a limited amount.”

In fact, even if it is a joint statement, there are cases in which issues with different opinions include the subject only on one side. But This joint statement between Korea and the United States seems to have been written by subtracting all the content that is not desired on either side, rather than including all the content desired on one side. This is because not only denuclearization is missing, but also the peace process on the Korean peninsula, and not only China, but also the quad.

However, the atmosphere at the press conference immediately following the meeting was completely different. It wasn’t that I didn’t care about expressing disagreements, but that I would say everything I would say at a press conference. Minister Blincoln said about the ongoing review of North Korea policy. “This includes reopening pressure while opening up the potential for future diplomacy.”Said. “The goal is clear. “The complete denuclearization of North Korea and the reduction of the threat that North Korea poses to the US and its alliance and improving the lives of all Koreans.” North Koreans continue to suffer from widespread and systematic human rights abuses committed by repressive governmentsIt includes” he said. This is not an answer to a question, but in all remarks.

The target was then moved to China. He said, “We are challenging the stability, security and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region. China’s aggressive and totalitarian behaviorWe also discussed,” he said. “China’s actions require a common approach between our allies.” This can be seen as a request for South Korea to join China’s pressure at the meeting.

Minister Eui-yong’s remarks were different. He said, “The ROK-US will continue to cooperate to advance the peace process on the Korean Peninsula,” he said. “Over the past three years, we believe that the ROK-US has proved that if they continue to engage in North Korea, they can solve the denuclearization problem.” The point was different from Secretary Blincoln’s remarks to pressurize and open up the possibility of diplomacy. Minister Chung did not comment on the challenges posed by China or the human rights issue in North Korea.

Even in terms of terms, the two ministers were different. During the press conference, Secretary Blincoln described it three times as “the denuclearization of North Korea.” However, Minister Chung said, “South Korea has already given up its nuclear weapons, and if we say denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, it means that North Korea will also denuclearize with us.” “Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is a more correct expression (rather than denuclearization of North Korea).”

However, North Korea often links the expression’denuclearization of the Korean peninsula’ to the removal of the US nuclear umbrella and withdrawal of US forces in Korea. It is analyzed that the reason that Minister Blincoln recently expressed the denuclearization of North Korea rather than the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is because he is well aware of North Korea’s intentions.

When asked if there was any discussion on Quad, Minister Chung said, “There was no direct discussion in this consultation.”Said cut. It is repeating the existing position that “if it suits our national interests, any council can cooperate.” In response to the same question, Secretary Blincoln said, “You know, the Quad is an informal meeting between like-minded countries to strengthen cooperation on all issues.“I want to talk about this,” he said. “We are working very closely with Korea, and this is possible through regional groups such as Korea-US-Japan cooperation.” Summarizing the words of the two ministers, there was no direct discussion on Korea’s participation in the quad at this meeting, but the United States can be seen as a position that there is no reason for Korea to fail to participate in the quad.

“Emphasis on the US as an informal and universal problem-solving for the quads, which has the nature of public check, is also intended to give a justification for Korea to participate, but Korea is still showing a cautious position.” Saying “The government should have an answer as to whether it would be a strategic advantage for Korea to not easily participate in public pressure unlike Japan.”Pointed out.

Reporters Yoo Ji-hye, Jin-woo Jung, and Hyun-ju Park [email protected]