{"id":2201700,"date":"2023-07-14T18:39:47","date_gmt":"2023-07-14T09:39:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/?p=2201700"},"modified":"2023-07-17T17:01:24","modified_gmt":"2023-07-17T08:01:24","slug":"how-south-koreas-transactional-diplomacy-threatens-indo-pacific-partnerships","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/2023\/07\/how-south-koreas-transactional-diplomacy-threatens-indo-pacific-partnerships\/","title":{"rendered":"How South Korea\u2019s transactional diplomacy threatens Indo-Pacific partnerships"},"content":{"rendered":"
South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol <\/span>called<\/span><\/a> on NATO\u2019s three other Indo-Pacific partners \u2014 Japan, Australia and New Zealand \u2014 to establish a \u201cstrong collective security posture\u201d to counter North Korea\u2019s nuclear and missile threats this week.<\/span><\/p>\n Yoon\u2019s remarks came in a meeting with leaders of the AP4, the name used for the four NATO partners as a collective.<\/span><\/p>\n The partnership offers South Korea access to arms sales and collective bargaining power, enabling participation in Ukraine\u2019s post-war reconstruction plans. However, this relationship appears to be primarily transactional, contingent upon the immediate benefits that Seoul can derive rather than shared values and interests with fellow democracies.<\/span><\/p>\n Such a transactional approach could limit the longevity of Seoul\u2019s interest in AP4. If the current benefits dissipate, South Korea may stop actively engaging the group, which could negatively impact Seoul\u2019s long-term security and geopolitical interests.<\/span><\/p>\n A ROBUST FOUNDATION?<\/b><\/p>\n South Korea\u2019s primary security concern remains North Korea\u2019s burgeoning missile and nuclear weapons program. The DPRK\u2019s recent launch of the <\/span>Hwasong-18<\/span><\/a> intercontinental ballistic missile, launched east toward Japan, underscores the continuous security threats South Korea faces from its northern neighbor.<\/span><\/p>\n International alliances and partnerships are critical to South Korea\u2019s strategic posture. Yoon\u2019s call for the AP4 to establish a \u201cstrong collective security posture\u201d reflects its security landscape. These Indo-Pacific nations represent a collective that shares mutual security concerns and economic interests, extending beyond the threats posed by North Korea\u2019s missiles and nuclear weapons to broader geopolitical tensions in the region.<\/span><\/p>\n However, outside of its relationship with Japan, South Korea\u2019s ties with the other AP4 nations \u2014 Australia and New Zealand \u2014 are underdeveloped.<\/span><\/p>\n Seoul achieved some recent progress in trade relations with Australia, especially following Canberra\u2019s decision to purchase South Korea\u2019s <\/span>K9 self-propelled howitzers<\/span><\/a>. However, the relationship has cooled since Australia announced that it will <\/span>reduce its budget<\/span><\/a> for further land armored vehicles. This decision dashed Seoul\u2019s hopes of introducing its Redback Infantry Fighting Vehicles in the country.<\/span><\/p>\n While South Korea and Australia maintain <\/span>trade<\/span><\/a> in various sectors \u2014 Seoul exports petroproducts and vehicles to Australia, and Canberra supplies coal, natural gas, minerals and agricultural and livestock products to the ROK \u2014 neither country seems highly incentivized to deepen these ties.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cA high degree of trade complementarity, a security focus on the U.S. and a shared perception of \u2018bilateral irrelevance\u2019 mean neither side has sought to build the relationship,\u201d Jeffrey Robertson, a professor at Yonsei University, told <\/span>Korea Pro<\/span><\/i>. \u201cThere\u2019s a strong strategic rationale to build the relationship, but without a greater domestic constituency, there\u2019s little hope of real change coming soon.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In the case of New Zealand, South Korea\u2019s ties are even less developed. Despite a <\/span>more than twofold<\/span><\/a> increase in bilateral trade following the enforcement of the Korea-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement in 2015, Wellington lacks the economic and military prowess necessary to support South Korea\u2019s long-term interests.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAs a smaller middle power, New Zealand does not have the capacity to provide anything but a token contribution to the security or defense of South Korea within the context of wider U.S.-led efforts,\u201d Robertson added.<\/span><\/p>\n Thus South Korea\u2019s rationale for seeking closer cooperation with AP4 countries may lack a robust foundation.<\/span><\/p>\n