Jung Min-ho has worked as a staff writer at The Korea Times since 2012, mostly covering social and political issues. He currently belongs to the Politics & City Desk where he covers topics such as health, labor and human rights. Prior to joining the team, he was responsible for covering North Korea and sports. His article about a biosecurity breach of Middle East respiratory syndrome won him an award from the Korea Science Journalists Association in 2016. He is also the co-author of the book, "Medical Pioneers of Korea" (2019). He served as the head of the international relations committee at the Journalists Association of Korea from 2021 to 2023.
ANALYSIS Concerns of Korea getting dragged into war in Taiwan are inflated
Chinese military helicopters fly past Pingtan Island, one of Beijing's closest points from Taiwan, in Fujian province, ahead of massive military drills off Taiwan, in this Aug. 4, 2022 file photo. Experts recently told The Korea Times that a Seoul-Washington-Tokyo security deal signed at Camp David last month would not expose South Korea to a greater Taiwan war risk. AFP-Yonhap
By Jung Min-ho
Trilateral security pact does not make Seoul's involvement more likely, experts say
By Jung Min-ho
After a new Seoul-Washington-Tokyo security pact was sealed last month to reinforce cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region, critics in South Korea claimed that the deal could expose their country to a greater risk of being drawn into a potential war over Taiwan ― a volatile superpower flashpoint.
At a recent meeting with officials of the opposition Democratic Party of Korea, Kim Do-gyun, former commander of the Capital Defense Command, said, with their stated commitment to unity, South Korea is now more likely to be embroiled in issues of potential armed conflict.
“It is very likely that the move, packaged as the trilateral security partnership against North Korean threats, aims largely at strengthening containment against China,” he said.
Such views are shared by more than just a handful of politicians.
A poll released Wednesday shows that 44.8 percent of respondents said they believe the three-way deal would not be helpful for the security of their country.
That, however, is a weak argument, according to security and foreign relations experts. They said, with the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States already in place, South Korea would have to respond militarily regardless of the trilateral pact should US forces clash with those of China over Taiwan, a self-ruled island Beijing claims as its territory. Considering other risk factors before and after the possible outbreak of violence in that area, South Korea is safer, not less so, with the pact, they added.
“Please consider that the U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty is a mutual defense treaty. My reading of that treaty says that even if the ROK (South Korea) decides not to send forces to assist Taiwan in a conflict, as soon as China attacks any U.S. military base in the Pacific, the ROK would have a responsibility to support the U.S.,” said Bruce Bennett, a senior defense analyst at the Rand Corporation, a U.S. think tank.
The treaty states that in such cases, either party “would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.”
“Now some in the ROK may perceive that this is a weak requirement that the ROK might evade, but think how the American people would react if China attacks the U.S. Kadena Air Base in Japan and the ROK fails to support the United States after decades of U.S. support,” Bennett said.
“It is of course the ROK choice whether or not to send forces to defend Taiwan, but a ROK failure to defend U.S. forces and civilians after a Chinese attack on U.S. facilities or the United States would, to me, imply a ROK abrogation of the Mutual Defense Treaty, and the Trilateral Summit has no effect on this bilateral ROK responsibility.”
The addition of Japan to the already existing South Korea-U.S. security system would not hurt the core of that partnership, according to Sean King, senior vice president at Park Strategies, a New York-based advisory firm.
“Nothing discussed or signed at Camp David makes any potential South Korean wartime involvement more or less likely,” he said. “President (Joe) Biden again reaffirmed America's extended deterrence commitment to South Korea at Camp David which is only good for the U.S.-ROK alliance long-term.”
Asked about the prospect of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, experts said they think it is highly unlikely, given the stability brought about and supported by international security principles in the region, including the South Korea-U.S.-Japan pact.
“I think it is unlikely now. I think mutual deterrence is stable,” said Daniel Pinkston, an East Asia expert at Troy University in South Korea.
“I think the trilateral statement is aimed at deterring Beijing from using force to resolve the Taiwan issue. So, this turns on what people believe about the credibility of that deterrent signal. I tend to view it as credible, so, I think the risk of conflict is lower than if the U.S. were to abandon its security commitments in the region and if trilateral security cooperation were absent.”
President Yoon Suk Yeol, left, walks alongside U.S. President Joe Biden, center, and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida ahead of their trilateral summit at Camp David near Thurmont, Md., Aug. 18 (local time). Yonhap
'Japan's help is critical against North Korea'
For South Korea, one of the most important gains from the Camp David deal was a renewed, stronger partnership with Japan, which Bennett thinks will be essential if Pyongyang decides to invade South Korea ― a possibility that is, in his view, “at least as likely as a Chinese attack on Taiwan.”
“I think it is being misunderstood because the ROK people don't understand that the United States cannot rapidly send a major military force to defend the ROK without substantial Japanese assistance,” he said.
“And now that the ROK has reduced its Army from 560,000 active duty personnel to 360,000 over the last 20 years (and that number continues to fall), a rapid U.S. deployment is absolutely required.”
There are many forms of military coordination where Japanese help could be critical against North Korea. In a hypothetical conflict, the North is expected to send many submarines and other naval combatants out into the East Sea.
“Even a few of those leaking south could force the closure or limited use of key ports in the ROK until the threat is eliminated (think of the insurance liability of the shipping companies alone). Japanese naval help will significantly reduce the damage that North Korea could do,” Bennett said.
Japan's anti-missile system could also help by reducing the number of North Korean ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones that could effectively strike South Korea.
“Given that the North would arm at least some of these delivery means with nuclear weapons, the damage to the ROK could be significantly reduced with Japanese coordination,” Bennett said.
It is true that the trilateral pact demands South Korea assume greater responsibilities in the regional security, experts said. But it is ultimately in its national interest as it depends on the stability and peace in where it belongs, they added.
“It is designed to make our collective defenses stronger,” Bennett said. “No surprise that both China and North Korea strongly objected to the Trilateral Summit: They both want to be able to coerce the U.S., ROK and Japan and the Trilateral Summit undermines their ability to do so.”