[ad_1]
Contrasting with discussions such as the United States-Japan and Senkaku
It seems to be because the Korean opposition considers the balance
Defense ministers and diplomats from South Korea and the United States are taking commemorative photos at a meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the 18th. From the right, Defense Secretary Seo Wook, the Minister of Foreign Relations, Eui Yong Jung, the Secretary of State of the United States, Tony Blincoln, and the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin. Photo Co-Recruitment Group
Unlike the ‘horse bomb’ that US Secretary of State Tony Blincoln poured against China and North Korea, the joint statement that came out after talks between Korea-US defense ministers and diplomats (2 + 2 conversations) was unexpectedly ‘tasteful’. Unlike the US-Japan document two days ago full of intense criticism against China, there was no mention of ‘China’, which drew attention, nor of ‘Quad’, a public controls advisory. In the joint statement of the 2 + 2 talks between Korea and the United States issued on the 18th, he mentioned that “I oppose all actions that undermine or destabilize the international rule-based order,” but did not mention China, the issue of this review. An official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who knows the details of the talks, said: “I cannot give the details of the discussions between the two countries. As far as I know, it is unusual to mention a specific country in a joint statement. “He declined to comment on whether the United States asked China to be specified and how South Korea responded. Rather, in the joint statement by the United States and Japan published on 16, the United States showed a clear attitude of public restraint, filling about a third of the content with Chinese criticism. The United States and Japan boldly commented on the conflict over the Senkaku Islands (Chinese name Diaoyudao), the biggest security problem facing Japan, as well as the problems of Hong Kong, Taiwan and the kidneys, which have been identified as “ core interests. ” that China will never be able to give in. Japan did not mention China in a joint statement issued after the last three 2 + 2 conversations. Looking at the documents from the US and Japan on the 16th and the public criticism from Secretary of State Blincoln on the 17th and 18th, It is highly likely that the US initially required South Korea to include the same high-ranking public comments as Japan. However, it appears that Korea’s opposition to maintaining a “subtle balance” between the United States and China could not have materialized. In exchange for a joint statement issued by the two countries coordinated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Blincoln took the opportunity to address the headlines of the Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs Korea-United States of the day 17, which was will release Reporters to deliver an unusually intense impeachment message to China, I think it was spilled. By Gil Yoon-hyung, Staff Reporter [email protected]
[ad_2]
