Minister of Unification Jeong Dong-young responds to reporters' questions as he heads to his office at the Government Complex Seoul in Gwanghwamun, Seoul, after concluding external schedules on the afternoon of the 20th. He stated, "I am deeply regretful that policy explanations are being labeled as information leaks." [Photo=Yonhap News]

The government's language, which amplifies unconfirmed information as fact and covers up problems with excuses

Minister of Unification Jeong Dong-young's remarks regarding North Korea's nuclear facilities have resurfaced as the center of diplomatic and security controversy nearly six weeks later.

Minister Jeong mentioned Yongbyon, Guseong, and Gangseon in the National Assembly on March 6th, but it was initially dismissed as just a ministerial remark. However, following a Reuters report on April 17th, concerns about U.S. displeasure and restrictions on information sharing emerged. Then, domestic reports on April 19th claimed that the U.S. had partially restricted satellite information sharing, leading to a belatedly escalating ripple effect.

Before the diplomatic risks from President Lee Jae-myung's Holocaust remarks had even subsided, the minister's 'Guseong' comment has now escalated into a controversy over ROK-U.S. security cooperation.

The issue is not a simple slip of the tongue. Minister Jeong presented his remarks as based on a report by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but the IAEA's statement on March 2nd only mentions Yongbyon and Gangseon, not Guseong.

Ultimately, the essence of this controversy lies not in the single place name 'Guseong,' but in mixing speculative public assumptions with official confirmations from international organizations.

The problem with Minister Jeong's remarks is not solely that he mentioned additional suspected North Korean nuclear facilities. A more fundamental aspect is how he handled the basis for those remarks.

Minister Jeong, in the National Assembly, referred to the report by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi to the board on March 2nd, mentioning Yongbyon, Guseong, and Gangseon together. However, the actual public statement from the IAEA only specifies "enrichment facilities in Gangseon and Yongbyon," with Guseong not appearing. Reuters also pointed out the same discrepancy.

This difference is by no means trivial. Yongbyon is the birthplace of North Korea's nuclear program, which the international community has long monitored. Gangseon is a key uranium enrichment site directly mentioned by the IAEA. On the other hand, Guseong is not present in the latest IAEA document that Minister Jeong cited as his basis.

If the minister truly intended to explain public information, he should have stopped at the level of "suspicions raised by some research institutions."

Subsequent explanations further fueled the controversy.

The Ministry of Unification stated that it had explained to the U.S. that Minister Jeong's remarks were based on "public information such as international research reports."

However, that explanation does not align with the authority of the IAEA that was cited at the time of the remarks. It appears that the remarks were made to sound like confirmations from an international organization, and only when problems arose did they backtrack to a general discussion of public information.

Mistakes can happen in one's remarks. However, the government's caliber is revealed in its explanations.

Minister Jeong's critical blow is not so much that he mentioned 'Guseong,' but that he presented the basis for that statement as an IAEA report when it did not match the original text.

Such linguistic habits directly translate into costs in diplomacy and security.

At a regular briefing on April 20th, the Ministry of National Defense stated that ROK-U.S. information sharing matters cannot be publicly confirmed, but reiterated that a close information-sharing system is being maintained. The Ministry of Unification also stated that it was unaware of whether the U.S. had imposed information restrictions.

However, according to some reports, the U.S. has reportedly suspended the sharing of North Korea-related intelligence obtained through satellites, reconnaissance planes, and wiretapping for about a week.

If true, this could be seen not merely as an expression of diplomatic displeasure, but as a signal of a crack in ROK-U.S. security cooperation.

What comes to mind here is President Lee Jae-myung's Holocaust remark.

The structure is similar. President Lee shared a video whose factual basis was not fully verified, and then overlaid it with the Holocaust, the most grave historical analogy. After the controversy grew, the government attempted to manage the situation by explaining the intent and context.

If Minister Jeong elevated the weight of his words by invoking the IAEA, President Lee amplified the intensity of his message by invoking the Holocaust.

One is the problem of packaging speculative public claims as official confirmations, while the other is the problem of appending the worst tragedy in human history to an unverified video. Although the matters are different, the method is the same.

During the Hanoi summit, U.S. President Trump essentially raised the issue of another uranium enrichment facility besides Yongbyon, but refrained from mentioning specific names.

This is because negotiations are not a game of saying everything one knows, but a game of controlling what one chooses not to say.

In such sensitive areas, if a minister elevates speculative public claims to the level of government confirmation, regardless of whether it was intentional or due to ignorance, it can only be perceived as careless talk by an ally.

The recurring problems of the Lee Jae-myung administration are not mere mistakes.

It is a linguistic habit of disseminating unconfirmed information as fact and evading responsibility with excuses rather than explanations when problems arise.

The structure of Minister of Unification Jeong Dong-young's 'Guseong' remarks and President Lee Jae-myung's Holocaust analogy controversy are no different. They prioritize amplifying the weight of the message over factual verification and attempt to manage controversies by emphasizing intent and context.

As a result, the government's words become lighter, and the alliance's trust erodes.

In national security, it is not only information leaks that are dangerous. The government's language, which blurs the lines between what is confirmed and unconfirmed, between speculative claims and official confirmations, and between explanation and incitement, is equally perilous.

It is the repetition of small inaccuracies, rather than grand lies, that breeds greater distrust.

A government that has lost the weight of its words loses trust, and a government that has lost trust cannot properly protect its alliances, diplomacy, or security.