South Korea's balancing act

By Tong Kim

South Korea continues to play a delicate balancing act in its increasingly complicated relationships with China, Japan and the United States. At the ASEAN defense ministers’ meeting in Kuala Lumpur last week, the South Korean defense minister supported the U.S. secretary of defense in proposing a statement for inclusion in a joint statement that called for restraint from further militarization of reclaimed islands in the South China Sea and the protection of the conventional freedom of navigation as guaranteed by international law.

The proposed statement also called for peaceful resolution of the territorial disputes through talks among co-claimants, including China and five other countries in the region. In the end, no joint statement was adopted due to strong opposition from China, which insists on its “historic sovereignty” that has little ground in international law. China says its reclamation does not ― and will not ― affect freedom of navigation.

For South Korea, a robust military alliance with the U.S. is indispensable to its security. A strong strategic and economic partnership with China is critical to stability on the peninsula and to its continued prosperity. A restored relationship with Japan is desirable to create a security and economic environment that could benefit all nations of the Asia-Pacific.

The idea of a new security architect for the region, or President Park’s Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative, cannot be undertaken without improved relations between Seoul and Tokyo or without Chinese participation. Ideally, such efforts should also include North Korea.

With China, Seoul has a territorial dispute over the Socotra Rock, named after the French ship Socotra that first discovered the submerged rock, about five meters below sea level, 149 kilometers southwest of Marado, near Jeju Island, and 287 kilometers from China’s Yushan Island. The rock falls within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of South Korea and China, as defined by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Chinese call it the Suyan Rock and the South Koreans “Ieodo,” on which Seoul built a maritime research station and a helipad to service the structure.

In a summit between Beijing and Seoul, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang reportedly proposed to draw a maritime border in the overlapping areas of the EEZs between the two countries. Apparently, the South China Sea was not discussed, probably because China did not consider the disputes in the Spratly archipelago would affect South Korea, as long as freedom of navigation is guaranteed.

The overlapping of the Air Defense Identification Zones between South Korea, China and Japan, all covering the skies over the Ieodo, has not been resolved.

On the other hand, Korea also has a history issue with China, which attempted to rewrite the history of ancient Korea as part of the northeastern region of China when Beijing pushed its development plan for that region. Despite its “best ties ever” with Seoul, Beijing still opposes the ROK-U.S. alliance as an unwelcome legacy of the Cold War. Beijing still supports North Korea, reluctant to let the Kim Jong-un regime go down.

Only in Washington does Seoul find a staunch ally fully committed to its defense. There is no light between the two allies on the denuclearization issue. Enhancement of the deterrent against North Korean threats will continue, while Seoul is mindful of Chinese opposition to the THAAD missile system deployment to South Korea. That is why Seoul avoids discussing THAAD and instead talks about its plan to develop a Kill Chain and Korea Missile Defense system. To complete these systems, Seoul may end up importing the central technology and key components of the THAAD system from the U.S.

With Japan, South Korea has the thorny issues of history and comfort women, as well as a territorial dispute over the Dokdo islands, which the Japanese call Takeshima; Americans call them the Liancourt Rocks to stay out of the dispute. A militarily resurgent Japan, whose security role has expanded with encouragement from Washington, poses another problem for Seoul.

Japanese forces might even intervene in a North Korean contingency. Military planners in Tokyo believe Japanese forces should be on the ground to support U.S. forces when operating in the North. The Japanese reportedly hold a view that international law does not recognize South Korea’s constitutional sovereignty over the land that is now the territory of North Korea.

Washington has long pushed Seoul and Tokyo to improve their strained relations by burying the past and to move forward to meet the challenges of a nuclear North Korea and a rising China. Under U.S. pressure, President Park met Prime Minister Abe on the sidelines of a trilateral meeting with China, Japan and South Korea, without finding any breakthrough to the issue of comfort women, which prevented Park from having a summit with Abe for three and a half years.

Perhaps, the substantive outcome of the trilateral summit last week was an agreement to continue its annual summitry. The leaders of the three countries also agreed to cooperate on the North Korean nuclear issue and to move toward a trilateral free trade agreement. Seoul has an FTA with the U.S. and China. South Korea joined the China- initiated Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), while Japan was a primary participant in the U.S. led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which South Korea is yet to join.

China pushes its own version of wider free trade agreements with ASEAN members and others in the name of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). China has not shown its interest in the TPP, while the United States is excluded from the RCEP. The global economy interweaves more countries in an intricate network of trade in multilayers. In global trade, there are neither foes nor friends, except for competitors. It is only fair that every country competes on a level playing field by the same rules of trade agreements.

In pursuit of its security and economic well-being, South Korea has no other choice but to play a delicate balancing act in the rapidly changing dynamics of surrounding players in the region. What’s your take?

Tong Kim is a Washington correspondent and columnist for The Korea Times. He is also a fellow at the Institute of Korean-American Studies.