The remark would have been justified if the government had decided that it was vital for Chung as head of the National Security Council to rebuff Rep. Henry Hyde's remark at this juncture. But was it? Does openly aggravating differences with Washington help resolve the nuclear standoff in the Korean Peninsula?

There has been no shortage of criticism of South Korea concerning the North Korean nuclear issue from U.S. Congress, press and expert groups. But the U.S. administration prudently avoids comment, from a sense that a united front among countries involved in the six-party talks is the key to resolving the North's nuclear issue.

But there is diplomatic calculation, too, in the gap between the U.S. administration and legislature when it comes to pressuring South Korea. Hyde, a U.S. Congressional leader, complains about South Korea's excessive support for the North, and Chung answers that South Korea "will judge and decide how to proceed with aid independently." Propriety apart, that is a rather diplomatically clumsy response, again more likely to fan controversy than put it to rest.

Diplomacy is conducted in words, but they should not be empty words but words rooted in strength. If Chung's remarks are to be buttressed by strength, South Korea should have realistic capabilities to deal with the North's nuclear armament without the U.S. Instead we have a diplomacy of empty words, where Seoul says what it wants regardless of whether that could drive the nation into crisis.

As it watches the South Korean government immediately assume a fighting stance toward Washington but hold its tongue when it comes to Pyongyang, America may well wonder who our enemy is.