On September 23, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky unilaterally announced the repatriation of two North Korean soldiers to South Korea.
In response, President Lee Jae-myung urged Ukraine to apologize via X, stating that Ukraine had agreed to a non-disclosure request but publicly revealed the transfer of the North Korean soldiers.
As a protest against Ukraine, the South Korean government summoned the chargé d'affaires at the Ukrainian embassy and subsequently recalled Ambassador Park Ki-chang to South Korea on October 8.
Nevertheless, citing a lack of proactive measures from Ukraine, the government decided to withdraw additional embassy staff. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced this decision during a regular briefing on October 20.
This decision has sparked intense debate within the political arena. Here are three key points to fact-check regarding this issue.
First, we need to examine the claim that the embassy is being withdrawn.
To be precise, it is not the 'embassy' that is being withdrawn, but rather a partial withdrawal of 'staff' working at the embassy. The embassy itself will remain operational with the remaining staff.
There is a significant difference between closing the embassy entirely and withdrawing some staff members.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations outlines the effects of severing diplomatic relations or temporarily recalling an embassy in Article 45, which includes the host country's obligation to protect the embassy and the sending country’s ability to delegate embassy management and citizen protection to a third country. In contrast, the departure of staff and termination of duties are addressed in Articles 10 and 43, which focus on notification. In this context, withdrawing the entire embassy and reducing staff while maintaining the embassy are distinct actions.
Therefore, the assertion that 'the embassy is being withdrawn' is entirely false and can lead to misunderstandings. It is more accurate to say that 'some staff members are being withdrawn.'
On October 20, lawmaker Na Kyung-won claimed on her Facebook that 'withdrawing the embassy is just one step before severing ties.' On October 21, lawmaker Yoon Sang-hyun emphasized that 'excluding severing ties, this is the highest level of diplomatic protest.'
To conclude, I reserve judgment on the factual accuracy of this claim. There is no official hierarchy for diplomatic protest measures.
Some argue that the typical escalation of diplomatic protest goes from 'communication between diplomatic channels → public statement → summoning the ambassador → recalling our ambassador → withdrawing the embassy → severing diplomatic relations,' suggesting that withdrawing the embassy is the only measure just before severing ties.
However, this sequence is not codified in law or treaties as an official ranking. Additionally, this action does not involve completely closing the embassy but rather reducing the number of staff, making it difficult to apply this standard directly.
Other high-level diplomatic protest measures include expelling diplomats from the host country and downgrading diplomatic relations. However, there is no official agreement or legal standard to determine which of these actions constitutes a stronger protest, leading to varying opinions among experts. Therefore, I reserve judgment on the factual accuracy of this claim.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs cited the lack of proactive measures from Ukraine, such as an apology, and the difficulty of ensuring safety due to the threat of airstrikes across Ukraine as key reasons for the staff withdrawal.
Indeed, Russia has attacked energy facilities in 11 regions of Ukraine as recently as October 19, confirming the dangerous situation on the ground.
There have also been incidents of damage to embassies due to the war. In August 2025, the EU delegation and the British Council were damaged by Russian airstrikes, and earlier in December 2024, embassies from Albania, Argentina, and Palestine were also affected.
However, skepticism arises regarding whether safety is the true reason for the government's decision, as South Korea appears to be the only country withdrawing staff from its embassy.
Upon verification, this is not accurate. In February 2022, just before and after Russia's invasion, the United States, Japan, and European countries, including South Korea, evacuated their embassies due to safety concerns.
However, timing is crucial. At this point in the prolonged war, most diplomats who had evacuated have returned, and embassies are operational again. Recently, Russia warned foreign diplomats to leave Kyiv, but on October 2, Georgiy Tikhiy, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, stated that they had not received any withdrawal intentions from foreign diplomatic missions. The EU has also indicated that it will maintain its current operations, and both Germany and France have stated they will continue normal operations.
While it is unclear whether other countries are individually reducing staff, South Korea is the only country to officially announce a reduction or withdrawal of embassy staff.
Therefore, the assertion that 'the reduction of staff at the Ukrainian embassy is unique to South Korea' is entirely false. However, it is accurate to say that 'as of now, South Korea is the only country to officially announce a reduction of staff at the Ukrainian embassy.'
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.