[Reporter’s Notebook] HMM Namu Attack: Time for a Sophisticated Response, Not a Show of Force

The HMM Namu was damaged while anchored in the Strait of Hormuz after being attacked by unidentified flying objects. On May 4, two unidentified aerial vehicles struck the ship’s hull one minute apart, causing damage measuring 5 meters wide and 7 meters deep. The incident occurred as tensions rose following discussions of “Project Freedom,” a U.S.-led initiative to rescue ships in the Strait of Hormuz. There is also the possibility that Iran or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) deployed suicide drones as a warning.

The presidential office and government, having reviewed the initial findings of the government investigation team dispatched to the area, condemned the event as “unacceptable.” They stated that after bringing debris from the flying objects that struck the Korean vessel into the country via diplomatic pouch for further analysis, they would consider taking necessary response measures.

Opinions on the incident are divided. Some criticize the government for being “too passive even after an attack,” arguing that the lives and property of citizens and the safety of Korean ships are at risk, and thus a stronger message and immediate “retaliation” are needed. Others counter that given the instability following the Iran war, relationships with related countries, energy supply, and maritime logistics networks, a cautious response is inevitable.

Both sides raise points worth considering. The government must not appear silent in the face of damage to its own vessels. At the same time, discussing retaliation before the attacker has been identified is even more dangerous. Retaliation is a serious state act that involves military, diplomatic, and legal responsibilities. Korea could be drawn into an unwanted escalation. When Japanese, Chinese, and French-flagged ships were attacked in March, those countries consistently maintained a cautious stance.

It is also unwise for some in the political sphere to pressure President Lee Jaemyung for a hardline response, even invoking his past “ruin and bankruptcy” rhetoric, with calls to “end humiliating silence.” If such pressure aligns with U.S. military demands, it could lead to even greater military and economic burdens for Korea.

What is needed now is a more sophisticated response. The core justification should be “freedom of navigation” under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Strait of Hormuz is not the exclusive territory of any single country; it is a vital artery for global energy and logistics. Korea is not a party to the conflict but a trading nation that suffered damages and has a significant interest in the stability of maritime routes. Korea must put this principle first and gradually persuade the warring parties of its position.

The essence of Henry Kissinger’s realist diplomacy was not the display of power, but its restraint. What the Lee Jaemyung administration needs now is not loud calls for retaliation, but responsible pressure and meticulous diplomacy. There must never be a situation where Korea is pushed into discussing retaliation.