Notwithstanding contentious differences between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan, the recent trilateral summit of three countries-the US, Japan, and ROK, certainly indicates the growing ties between the three nations, propelled by emerging security challenges. The joint statement rightly observes that the world is at ‘a hinge point of history’ because of geopolitical competition, the climate crisis, the prolonging Russia-Ukraine conflict, and nuclear provocations.
The summit is important for four reasons. First, it institutionalised cooperation among the three countries. They committed to organise such meetings annually. While Biden underscored that the world would be safer if the three countries stood together, Kishida averred to take coordination between the three countries to new heights, and Yoon stressed that challenges that threaten regional security demand a stronger commitment to working together. The joint statement mentioned that with the renewed bonds of friendship, girded by the ironclad U.S.-Japan and U.S.-ROK alliances, both bilateral and trilateral relationships are now stronger. They have decided to hold trilateral meetings of their leaders, foreign ministers, defence ministers, and national security advisors regularly.
Second, despite the refusal by four petitioners out of a total eighteen from the ROK for compensation for forced labour during the World War II, Yoon decided to move ahead with his policy of developing closer relations with Japan. While there is still a sizable population in the ROK opposing closer ties with Japan, Yoon’s step also suggests that there is a segment of population, that sees the urgency for cooperation in view of increasing threats from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and China. He changed the policy of his predecessor, who was reported to have given assurances to China after receiving a warning from that country, that the ROK would not deploy additional Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries, participate in a regional U.S.-led missile defence system, or join a trilateral alliance with the US. However, ROK denied that these assurances were ever given to China: the then administration only explained the situation that existed at that time. Biden commended Yoon and Kishida for their courageous leadership in transforming relations between Japan and the ROK.
Third, the joint statement indicated that their trilateral cooperation would cover the entire region of the Indo-Pacific and beyond it. They reaffirmed their support for ASEAN centrality, ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific, and Pacific Island countries. It underlined that their collective objective will be to have a free and open Indo-Pacific, in which half-billion people are safe and prosperous. It declared that partnership is for the entire Indo-Pacific, and the objective is to ensure that ‘the Indo-Pacific is thriving, connected, resilient, stable, and secure.’ They committed to ‘strengthening their economies, providing resilience and prosperity, supporting the free and open international order based on the rule of law, and bolster regional and global peace and security.’ They also announced ‘to launch an annual Trilateral Indo-Pacific Dialogue to coordinate implementation of their Indo-Pacific approaches and to continually identify new areas for common action.’ The Trilateral Economic Security Dialogue met twice and is cooperating on artificial intelligence, advanced technology, pharmaceuticals, energy security etc. They announced their determination to develop the Partnership for Resilient and Inclusive Supply-chain Enhancement (RISE) to help developing countries play larger roles in the supply chains of clean energy products. For the protection of technology from being stolen, they decided to conduct exchanges between the U.S. Disruptive Technology Strike Force and their Japanese and ROK counterparts.
Fourth, they lambasted China for its activities in the South China Sea (SCS) and the DPRK for its unprecedented number of ballistic missile-launches, its nuclear programme, and illegal cyber activities. They criticised harshly the aggressive behaviour of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the SCS and opposed the militarisation of reclaimed features, the dangerous use of its coastguard and maritime militia vessels, and its coercive activities. They pointed out that the Ruling of PCA sets out the legal basis for the peaceful resolution of maritime conflicts between the parties, suggesting the need for its implementation. Expressing the importance for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, which is an indispensable element of security and prosperity for the International Community, they stated that there was no change in their basic position on Taiwan.
They urged the DPRK to abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes They announced the establishment of a new trilateral working group to drive their cooperation, including with the International Community, to combat DPRK cyber threats and block its cyber-enabled sanctions evasion.
Though the US unequivocally reaffirmed its extended deterrence commitments to both Japan and the ROK, which are ironclad and backed by the full range of US capabilities, it is not a military alliance. It is rather a platform for consultations ‘to share information, align their messaging, and coordinate their response actions.’ Jack Sullivan stated that this partnership is not against anyone: it is a vision of the Indo-Pacific that is free, open, secure, and prosperous.
However, the important aspect is how the PRC and DPRK perceive it. For China, the trilateral cooperation in ballistic missile defence could weaken its deterrence. While the official reaction of the PRC was to urge all parties to uphold true multilateralism, an article in the Global Times states that the Chinese analysts lashed out at the group’s anti-China hypocrisy and pointed out that although the group has yet to form a collective defence commitment like NATO’s “an attack on one is an attack on all,” the slogan of “a threat to any member is a threat to the US, Japan, and South Korea as a whole” has already been echoed. A Chinese expert, Lu Chao, stated that the Camp David was possibly a starting shot for a new cold war. Thus, the PRC perceives it as a military alliance in its embryonic form. The DPRK’s perception could also be on the similar lines.
What form it finally takes will significantly depend on how the situation evolves in the region. If the PRC and DPRK do not change their behaviour, there is a distinct possibility of this trilateral group getting transformed into a military alliance. This development reminds us how the Triple Entente was formed in phases before the World War I: the Franco-Russian Alliance in 1894, the Entente Cordiale of France and UK in 1904, and the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907. The Triple Entente was also not an alliance but later became one after Germany continued its aggressive activities and World War I began.
The impact of this triple partnership is being viewed with great interest by the South and South-East nations, including India and ASEAN. While most nations desire to avoid their entanglement in the US-China rivalry, their security is threatened by the Chinese aggressiveness, and they may be compelled to side with the nations that are trying to contain the Chinese aggressiveness. Their interests are in the peace and security of the entire Indo-Pacific, and they oppose the Chinese coercion.
If the situation worsens, they will have no option but to cooperate with powers fighting against illegal claims and unjust activities. The reactions of the International Community to the Chinese aggressive actions like the sinking of Vietnamese boats, use of military grade lasers or water cannons against Philippine ships, indicate that its patience is getting exhausted.
The concerned nations must be working out their options to face the changing security environment. India is especially focused on peace and security in the SCS, which forms its critical trading route, it is keenly watching the developments in the Taiwan Straits. Any conflict would seriously harm China, whose economy is in the doldrums. China needs to keep this development in view and change its approach before it is too late.
FacebookLinkedinEmail
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE
Opinions
