Korea: shrimp or safety valve between US, China?

By Kim Won-soo

World politics is going through a great upheaval. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the latest manifestation of the growing malaise in big power relations. At its center lies the rising rivalry between the United States and China, the world's two most powerful states and leaders of their respective blocs.

Inevitably, this great upheaval poses great diplomatic challenges to the countries along the geopolitical fault line between the two. The Korean Peninsula is situated squarely on this fault line.

Many foreign policy pundits continue to regard North Korea as the No. 1 challenge for South Korea. North Korea's unbridled nuclear buildup poses an existential threat to South Korea. Pyongyang's self-imposed isolation, further aggravated by international sanctions, has caused devastating hardship for its people, which could have a long-term impact on a unified Korea. These North Korean headaches will be there for many years to come as the country is intent on keeping its nuclear arsenal at any costs.

I believe, however, that the far greater challenge for South Korea is to figure out what to do in the face of the U.S.-China rivalry. The U.S. and China are not only the most powerful states, but also the closest geopolitical neighbors of Korea. As an old proverb says, when either of them sneezes, Korea catches cold.

Then the next logical question is what is the best way forward for South Korea. Simply put, there are three options: pro-U.S., pro-China and neutrality.

The majority view in South Korea is pro-U.S., primarily given its security dependence on the U.S., including extended nuclear deterrence against North Korea. However, it comes with the dual risk of entrapment and abandonment. A situation may arise where South Korea gets dragged into a confrontation between the U.S. and China for reasons other than vital South Korean interests. Or worse, the U.S. may decide not to defend South Korea for reasons beyond Seoul's control. This dual risk lurks in the minds of policymakers and can introduce some degree of ambiguity to the conduct of South Korean diplomacy.

Calculated ambiguity is fine. But ambiguity arising from indecisiveness or lack of thinking is not acceptable, as it contains two fatal flaws of passivity and simplicity. The two flaws together can lead to what I consider the worst outcome: determinism.

Passivity should be avoided as there is still diplomatic space in which South Korea can maneuver. South Korea can try many things to encourage the U.S. and China to find common ground. South Korea can be a proactive facilitator that can help the two think outside the box and start a dialogue on issues of low political difference and high universal consequence.

Simplicity should be avoided as there are a number of gray areas in diplomacy. Depending on the nature of the issue area, South Korea can identify its diplomatic options on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the most pro-U.S. and 10 being the most pro-China. For example, on the security front, it can place itself anywhere between 1 and 3, and on the economic front, between 3 and 5.

The options can be refined further according to the specifics of a sub-issue area. For instance, on security, South Korea's option should vary in accordance with its priority interests. It can be 1 on issues directly related to the Korean Peninsula while 3 on extra-regional issues. South Korea's economic policy can be similarly calibrated. Special care must be given to the growing nexus between security and economy ― what we call economic security.

There may not be much South Korea can do to ease the tensions between the U.S. and China. Many experts consider the rivalry inescapable and almost predestined. This view depicts South Korea as a shrimp sandwiched between two whales and forces it to choose sides for its security. The bottom line is that either way, the outcome is sub-optimal for South Korea. In the event of a clash between the two whales, it will be the first one to get hurt. Passivity and simplicity do not provide South Korea with optimal policy outcomes. South Korea cannot and should not sit idly by only to be swallowed up by its neighbors.

Therefore, it is vital for South Korean policymakers to take a different approach, no matter how difficult it is. A new approach requires proactivity and creativity. South Korea must mobilize its intellectual capital to craft alternative avenues of ushering the U.S. and China toward a managed competition. With open communication lines with both powers, South Korea is in a rare position to help them compete responsibly within the mutually agreed guardrails. This outcome is much better not only for the U.S. and China, but also for the rest of the world.

This is a tough task. But it is doable if the U.S. and China take heed of their responsibility for the whole of humanity. Without the two working together, existential threats such as weapons of mass destruction and the climate crisis cannot be addressed. South Korea can help the two powers get off the collision course. Then it will cease to be a shrimp and instead can serve as a global safety valve.

Kim Won-soo (wsk4321@gmail.com) is the former under secretary-general of the United Nations and high representative for disarmament. As a Korean diplomat, he served as secretary to the ROK president for foreign affairs as well as for international security. He is now the chair of the international advisory board of the Taejae Academy (Future Consensus Institute) and a chair professor of Kyung Hee University.