Growing global challenges and need for cooperation
By Kim Sang-woo
U.S. President Joe Biden’s speech to the nation in October connected the dots between Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel, assisted by Iran.
“We’re facing an inflection point in history,” he said, “one of those moments where the decisions we make today are going to determine the future for decades to come.”
Biden warned against the political divisions in the U.S. “We can’t let petty, partisan, angry politics get in the way of our responsibilities as a great nation,” the president declared.
“History has taught us that when terrorists don’t pay a price for their terror, when dictators don’t pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos and death and more destruction. They keep going, and the cost and the threats to America and the world keep rising.”
Members of the U.S. Congress who opposes further military aid for Ukraine often seek to justify its position by claiming that China rather than Russia presents a greater danger to the United States.
But the truth is, China and Russia act together to endanger the U.S. and its allies. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin both views the consolidation of democracy as an existential danger to their own power.
Putin is waiting for a reversal of fortune not by a brilliant military victory on the battlefield but by the lack of steadfastness of the U.S. and its allies and partners.
Military cooperation between Russia and North Korea is an enabler of Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Beyond the shipment of military weapons, the Moscow-Pyongyang axis threatens world peace.
Moreover, the possibility that Russia recently offered core technical assistance to help North Korea launch a military satellite into space could be the beginning of a new and more dangerous strategic cooperation that could undermine the security of the Korean Peninsula and beyond.
The Russia-North Korea military axis should reinforce our understanding that security in Europe and Asia is inseparable.
In a similar vein, representatives from 8 NATO countries—the U.S., the United Kingdom, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Romania and Poland--- made joint visits to South Korea and Japan this month.
“[Geopolitical] conflict in Asia and Europe these days carry implications for both regions,” said Andrew Yeo, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. NATO was seen as attempting to bolster regional security cooperation with Indo-Pacific countries.
Ramon Pacheco Pardo, a professor at Kings College London, said “NATO sees China as the biggest long-term threat and cooperation between China, Russia, North Korea and Iran as a strategic challenge.”
The 2022 summit In Madrid, Spain was the first time NATO declared China as a “systemic challenge” and Beijing’s ties with Russia as threatening “the rules-based international order.” They were reiterated in the joint communique at the Vilnius summit this year.
The Chinese foreign ministry criticized NATO’s statements and said “NATO must not seek to sow chaos here in the Indo-Pacific or elsewhere in the world”.
The fact that Europe is paying attention to what China is doing in the region may reduce its military adventurism more than just having the Indo-Pacific partners and the United States doing it,” said Mirna Galic, a senior policy analyst on China and East Asia at the U.S. Institute for Peace.
According to Galic, ties between Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific partners can be seen as a response to the “return of strategic competition in the international system,” where any events in one region become more relevant to the security of the other region.
On Nov. 8, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken claimed that the U.S. could maintain focus on the Indo-Pacific while simultaneously handling multiple security issues by working with regional allies and partners that the Biden administration has called The U.S.’ “greatest strategic assets.”
The “empowerment” of allies has been “the overriding priority” of the U.S.’ Indo-Pacific strategy since Biden took office. Concerns about China taking advantage of an overextended US military are the reason Washington has placed so much emphasis on fostering security cooperation initiatives in the Indo-Pacific.
This year, the BRICS -- Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -- announced their expansion by inviting six additional nations to join their group of emerging economies.
The addition of more nations to a group dominated by China and Russia raises the question: shouldn't the democracies also comply? For the United States, the core “grouping” for more than 50 years has been the G7.
Given that the group is already Eurocentric, with Japan the only Asian member, and given the challenge posed by China, adding nations from the region seems logical. The two largest economies by GDP that are neither members of the BRICS or the G7 are South Korea and Australia.
As the Ukraine war has increased military ties between Russia and North Korea -- and U.S. tensions with China have made South Korea ties with its number one trade partner more difficult -- the case for having South Korea at the table of the G7 seems natural.
Likewise, as the U.S. works to improve relations between South Korea and Japan -- overcoming their historical issues -- giving South Korea a seat at the G7 table on the same terms as Japan will help soften South Korean domestic opposition to closer ties with Japan. And this moment in history seems including South Korea the right thing to do.
The G9 -- G7 plus South Korea and Australia -- would have to make clear to the global South countries that this can benefit them too, by working together to solve global challenges that are the same concerns they share, including climate change and pandemic readiness among others.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.
Kim Sang-woo (swkim54@hotmail.com), a former lawmaker, is chairman of the East Asia Cultural Project and a member of the board of directors at the Kim Dae-jung Peace Foundation.