Camp David Summit and Korean Diplomacy Challenges
Jungsup Kim
Vice President of Sejong Institute
jungsupkim@sejong.org
The direction of the three-way summit between South Korea, the U.S., and Japan held at Camp David on the 18th is too clear. The basic direction is to aim for multidimensional cooperation almost equivalent to an alliance between three countries. Summit also did not hide that China was the target. The joint statement pointed out that China is the country that shows "dangerous and aggressive behavior" in the Indo-Pacific region. It is far beyond the existing Korean government's position, which expressed China's challenge with euphemism expressions such as "rules-based international order" and "peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait."
The most important thing is the so-called 'Pledge'. In other words, the leaders of the three countries stipulated a pledge through "Camp David Spirit" for a "quick consult with each other to coordinate responses to regional challenges, provocations, and threats." It also clarified that the purpose of this consultation is to share information, synchronize messages, and coordinate countermeasures. Although it did not meet the standard treaty's obligations, but was a political commitment through the highest-level document. In addition, the talks also focused on institutionalizing cooperation between South Korea, the U.S., and Japan so that it does not end up as a one-off summit. In addition to holding an annual summit, it was intended to create an institutional framework by agreeing to hold consultations between ministers from foreign, defense, and industrial departments at least once a year. It also means establishing a multi-layered cooperation mechanism covering economic security and high-tech fields such as supply chains and finance as well as security fields.
So how should we rate this Camp David meeting? From the Biden administration's point of view, it is evaluated that it has achieved valuable results after a long diplomatic long-cherished desire. The U.S. has been striving to establish an anti-China network that binds its allies as closely as possible against China. In 2017, Australia, India, and Japan launched a QUAD, and in 2021, Australia and the United Kingdom created the AUKUS Partnership. While QUAD has limitations in operating non-traditional security fields such as health, technology, and cyber due to the presence of India, it has definitely attracted Australia to military cooperation against China through the Anglo-Saxon consultative agreement with AUKUS.
In addition, the United States has been trying to link the alliance in the Atlantic with the alliance in the Indo-Pacific amid the regrouping of NATO since the Ukrainian war. Their move is to create an alliance from both ends of Eurasia's west and east against authoritarian China and Russia. However, the weakest part of the U.S. blockade network was the solidarity between South Korea, the U.S., and Japan. This is because security cooperation between South Korea, the U.S., and Japan has been a loose connection due to conflicts between South Korea and Japan due to historical issues and the burden of the South Korean government on anti-China routes. However, the three-way talks have overcome existing limitations and achieved unprecedented solidarity, which is a diplomatic success of the Biden administration.
It was also a satisfactory achievement for Japan. Japan's Kishida administration is attempting a major shift in its post-war pacifism stance with doubled defense costs and securing capabilities to counterattack enemy bases. Japan's national strategic line since the Abe administration is to take off the restrictions from the of the Constitution and regain its diplomatic and security status suitable for their economic power. Nuclear threats from North Korea and the rise of China are driving the conservativeization of Japan's security strategy, but on the other hand, there is also a clear aspect of strategically utilizing environmental difficulties. The institutionalization of Korea-U.S.-Japan cooperation through the Camp David talks has the effect of justifying Japan's plan, making Japan lose nothing
Korea faces problems unlike the two countries. It is understandable that our diplomacy is following steps with the U.S. and Japan under the increasingly fierce international order. It is necessary to remind the national identity as a liberal democratic country or as a way to prepare for regional uncertainties such as the rise of China. However, the important matter is a sense of a balanced and comprehensive perspective. However, it is unwise to cross the line even if it is in the right direction. Hence, we must not be satisfied with the sense of safety from the solidarity between the three countries but also need to be concerned about the side effects of North Korea, China, and Russia. A large number of high officials from China and Russia attended North Korea's military parade last month, hence with a talk with Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu, the possibility of resuming joint military drills between North Korea and Russia, transferring Russian nuclear and missile technology has been raised.
With the regional crisis in the Senkaku Islands, Taiwan Strait, and the South China Sea, the issues of involvement should also be deeply considered. According to the agreement, three countries are required to "synchronize messages and coordinate countermeasures" in the event of regional challenges or provocations. It does not mean behavioral unification, but it is clear that a coordinated response is required by nailing the regional problem as a Korean problem. The problem is our position on these issues. To what extent does Korea accept this regional crisis as our own problem? In what ways and at what level are we going to intervene in regional conflicts? If our thoughts are not cleared out through concerns and national-level discussions, there is a possibility that we will be involved in unwanted disputes at an unwanted level. Before coordination, our position should be cleared first.
South Korea is a divided country facing the North Korean threat. It is also a geopolitical intermediate country where powerful powers collide like Ukraine. In this regard, the structure of national interests is different from Japan as well as the United States. This is because Korea is the country that has to pay the most for the confrontation between the powers. It is clear that the task of Korean diplomacy should be an effort to harmonize national interests with allies, not synchronization or unity of value of the national interest. We hope that active diplomacy based on our national interests will be developed in the process of cooperation between South Korea, the U.S., and Japan in the future.
File