A

series of photographs recently circulated in the global public sphere once again laid bare a reality that is well-known but rarely spoken of. Japan Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s visit to the US provided the backdrop for scenes that have sparked much debate in Japan. The fact that the images of Takaichi dancing at a dinner party were featured prominently on the White House’s official website caused a shockwave across the country.

However, the real issue was not the dancing footage, but the psychological subservience displayed by the Japanese delegation throughout the visit. Whilst defending his decision not to inform allies in advance of the Iran operation, Trump remarked, “Who knows better about surprise than Japan?”, alluding to the surprise air raid on the US fleet at Pearl Harbor during the Second World War. Takaichi’s silence in the face of this mocking attitude drew criticism.

Her description of the leader of a country that had dropped atomic bombs on their cities as the only person “who can achieve peace across the world” was viewed by the Japanese public as a humiliating situation. What has transpired is not merely the result of a single act of diplomatic discourtesy or individual lack of judgement. Rather, these events represent the manifestation of a dependency relationship, woven thread by thread since 1945, brought into the open by a current incident.

From defeat to ‘alliance’

With the end of the Second World War, the US, acting as a hegemonic power, initiated a profound process of restructuring in both Japan and Germany. This process was framed as support for democratization and economic development. In reality, however, a structural control mechanism was established over both countries that surpassed even the most refined forms of colonialism.

The picture is striking when looking at the Japanese example. The constitution drafted under US supervision in 1947 stripped Japan of its right to maintain armed forces and declare war. Theoretically, this was presented to the Japanese people as a peace-oriented arrangement. In practice, however, it transformed Japan into a state that had to hand over its defense entirely to the US and seek Washington’s approval in every political crisis. Today, there are over 50,000 US troops and approximately fifty bases on Japanese territory. This military presence resembles not forces deployed in an allied country for the sake of shared interests, but rather a guarantee force stationed by a hegemon to secure its own sphere of influence.

Germany’s situation is, in essence, no different. Divided by the four major powers following the Second World War, Germany was reorganized as West Germany under the NATO umbrella, with every step of this reorganization subject to Washington’s approval. Even today, there are approximately 35,000 American troops in Germany. In this respect, Germany is not much different from Japan. The fact that Germany’s efforts to construct a natural gas pipeline with Russia (the Nord Stream project) were derailed by US pressure has laid this reality bare. The sabotage and explosion of the Nord Stream pipeline in 2022 have also starkly revealed just how harsh and ruthless this dynamic operates.

The illusion of sovereignty: From economic miracle to compliant growth

The post-war economic rise of both countries serves as a kind of veil for their relationship of dependency. Japan’s economic miracle and Germany’s ‘Wirtschaftswunder’ were achieved not in spite of the structural constraints these countries faced, but precisely because of the safeguards those constraints provided. The US’s open market provided a vast area for these countries’ exports; the security umbrella established against the Soviet threat, meanwhile, enabled these states to keep defense spending to a minimum, thereby allowing them to redirect resources towards industrial investment.

This was not a gift, but a transaction. In return, Japan and Germany relinquished their ability to make strategic decisions independently; they often had to subordinate their national interests to Washington’s global agenda, and at times were compelled to accept policies that entailed heavy economic costs. The Plaza Accord, which Japan signed under US pressure in the late 1980s, demonstrated just how heavy the price of this acquiescence could be. What befell the Japanese Prime Minister is also the result of this semi-colonial dependency, systematically cultivated over many years.

Window-dressing democracy: How was South Korea polished up?

Following Japan and Germany, another country we must address here is South Korea. Frankly, South Korea is in no way inferior to these nations. The 1950–53 Korean War was the first major proxy war of the Cold War. In the North, there was a communist regime backed by the Soviet Union and China; in the South, an authoritarian government supported by the US. With the end of the war, South Korea was transformed into the Western bloc’s most advanced outpost in the region. The buffer role of preventing communism from spreading south resulted in South Korea being presented on the international stage as a representative of the democratic and free world, regardless of what transpired in its domestic politics.

Yet South Korea’s recent political history stands in stark contrast to this portrayal. From 1961 to 1979, the country was ruled by Park Chung-hee’s military junta, which systematically suppressed left-wing tendencies, trade unions and the opposition. Following his assassination in 1979, another military coup took place, and Chun Doo-hwan carried out the Gwangju massacre in 1980. This massacre was largely ignored in the West, with the US administration playing a decisive role in covering up the events.

Despite this sordid past, South Korea continues to be presented by the West as a success story of Asian democracy.

Just how unfounded this privileged international perception of South Korea is has become even more apparent in recent years with a succession of scandals. In 2016, the then-President Park Geun-hye was removed from office and put on trial on charges of accepting millions of dollars in bribes from major corporations to influence state decisions. While this scandal laid bare the corruption of business world-political relations, the arrest of the Samsung Group chairman also exposed the intertwined nature of business and politics. Yet, these scandals have been presented to Western public opinion as examples proving the strength of South Korea’s democracy and commitment to the rule of law, simply because they were brought to light. The President’s trial has been cited as proof that accountability mechanisms are functioning.

In December 2024, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol declared a state of emergency, characterizing opposition parties as representatives of anti-state forces. This move was declared invalid by parliament within hours, and the President was removed from office. These developments inevitably raise the question of how a leader in a country presented as a consolidated democracy could attempt such autocratic measures. On the other hand, despite all this, it is puzzling that South Korea’s position in the upper echelons of international organizations’ democracy indices remains unchanged. For the existential contrast with North Korea renders South Korea indispensable to the West. This indispensability, in turn, brings with it a systematic display designed to mask its weaknesses.

W

hen South Korean President Lee Jae Myung meets U.S. President Donald Trump next week in Washington for their first summit, the agenda will be dominated by security and defense costs, rising tensions with China, and the future of diplomacy with North Korea.

The White House talks come just weeks after a whirlwind of trade negotiations left Seoul largely sidelined, and they are expected to set the tone for the next phase of the alliance between the two nations.

At the heart of the talks will be the issue of “burden sharing”—the funding for 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea as part of a longstanding security arrangement dating back to the Korean War. According to U.S. officials, Trump is expected to push for a significant increase in Seoul’s contribution, despite South Korea already paying over $1 billion annually and having financed the construction of the massive Camp Humphreys base.

“President Trump clearly wants more,” said Victor Cha of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noting previous calls for Seoul to pay as much as $5 billion to $10 billion per year. “He wants defense spending closer to 5% of GDP for all allies. South Korea is currently at 3.5%.”

There is even talk within the Pentagon of reducing the U.S. military presence if an agreement cannot be reached, though some officials are working to frame the alliance more broadly in terms of countering Chinese influence in the region.

China’s shadow over the summit

While the summit is primarily framed as a security discussion, Washington is increasingly looking to its Asian allies to play a role in its wider competition with China. Discussions are expected to include how U.S. forces in South Korea might be used in a potential crisis involving Taiwan, though Seoul remains cautious about becoming entangled in Beijing’s disputes.

President Lee has pledged full support for the U.S. alliance but has also advocated for a “balanced approach” between Washington and Beijing—an approach that may be tested as pressure grows to align more closely with U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy.

“The more explicit the depiction of U.S. Forces Korea as having an anti-China mission, the more likely China will retaliate economically or politically,” said Bruce Klingner of the Mansfield Foundation, recalling Beijing’s response to the 2017 deployment of the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea.

North Korea: Shared goals, uncertain roadmap

Trump and Lee are likely to find common ground is North Korea. Both leaders have signaled openness to renewed engagement with Kim Jong Un, although Pyongyang has rebuffed recent overtures and deepened its ties with Russia.

“I doubt much substance will be said on North Korea beyond committing to diplomacy and reiterating a goal of denuclearization,” said Jenny Town of the Washington-based 38 North program.

Lee, in an interview with Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun this week, reiterated that his administration would “lay the groundwork” for dismantling North Korea’s nuclear weapons program through talks and close coordination with Washington. However, Pyongyang has repeatedly insisted its nuclear arsenal is non-negotiable.

Nuclear latency debate in Seoul

The summit also comes amid domestic debate in South Korea about whether it should develop its own nuclear capabilities or pursue reprocessing of nuclear materials for energy and industrial purposes. Foreign Minister Cho Hyun told parliament that Seoul may seek U.S. approval to reprocess or enrich uranium—an idea met with skepticism by arms control experts.

“Too many South Korean politicians are flirting with the idea of their country acquiring the nuclear weapons option,” said Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association. “The foreign minister’s claims about the purpose of his government’s interest are hardly reassuring.”

Under the current U.S.–South Korea Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation, Seoul is prohibited from reprocessing or enriching nuclear materials, as these activities could provide the means to produce nuclear weapons.

With both leaders keen to project strength abroad while managing political challenges at home, the summit is likely to produce headline agreements on continued diplomacy with North Korea and shared commitment to the alliance. But the thorny questions—how much South Korea should pay for its security, and how far it is willing to go in supporting U.S. policy toward China—may remain unresolved.

(Source: Reuters)

S

outh Korea has rapidly ascended as a formidable player in the global arms trade, a development that has caught many security analysts off guard. The country’s defense exports surged from an annual average of 3 billion USD in 2012-2021 to an impressive 17.3 billion USD in 2022, a report by Center for Asian Studies & Security Studies Center has revealed.

Recent high-profile deals, such as the contract with Australia for 129 Redback infantry fighting vehicles valued at 2.4 billion USD, underscore South Korea’s newfound prominence in the international defense market.

Traditionally, the defense industry has been dominated by a handful of countries forming an oligopoly, with the United States, Russia, France, China, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom comprising over 80% of the global arms market. South Korea’s rapid ascent to the eighth position in recent years challenges this established order.

The defense industry, characterized by its complexity, high technological requirements, large-scale contracts, and political sensitivity, imposes significant barriers to entry. South Korea’s emergence provides an unexpected opportunity for a newcomer to break into this exclusive club.

South Korea’s strategic opportunity

Defense industrial enterprises play a critical role as strategic partners for governments, providing military capabilities across ground, naval, and aerospace domains. Unlike conventional industries, defense enterprises require national-level capacity and commitment due to their capital intensity, long research and development cycles, and the inherent link to national security.

Subsidies, protectionist policies, and exclusive procurement procedures distinguish the defense industry from liberal market-oriented sectors.

South Korea’s rapid rise in the global defense market challenges the existing narrative. Major contracts with Central and Eastern European countries, especially Poland, in 2022 and 2023 have positioned South Korea as a significant player, particularly in ground and aerospace domains.

The country leverages competitive technologies, mass-production capabilities, competitive pricing, quick delivery times, coordination with its key ally (the U.S.), and strong diplomatic support to make inroads into the European security theater.

Key features

Key features and background of South Korea’s unexpected surge in the global defense market are important to highlight. It scrutinizes the defense industry’s portfolio, capacity, development over the last five decades, and assesses strengths and weaknesses.

Additionally, the report outlines main security implications of South Korea’s ascendancy in the defense industry and provides a short-term prediction for its future trajectory.

South Korea’s emergence as a defense industrial powerhouse represents a notable shift in the global arms trade dynamics. The country’s ability to navigate the intricacies of the defense industry, coupled with its competitive advantages, opens new possibilities for diversification and competition in a traditionally exclusive market.

The report aims to unravel the factors contributing to South Korea’s success and shed light on its potential impact on the global security landscape.

Source: Center for Asian Studies & Security Studies Center

U

.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has expressed deep concerns about the burgeoning military cooperation between North Korea and Russia during his visit to South Korea, as reported by media outlets on November 9, 2023. Blinken, alongside South Korea’s Foreign Minister Park Jin, highlighted the “profound” nature of their worries, particularly in light of recent arms and technology transfers they allege are occurring between the two nations.

In a series of high-level talks, Blinken and Park discussed the implementation of an extended deterrence strategy to address potential threats emanating from North Korea and to deepen strategic cooperation with Japan. This strategy encompasses sharing real-time missile warning data and conducting trilateral defense exercises aimed at countering North Korea’s missile programs and cyber activities.

The United States, South Korea, and Japan have openly condemned what they claim is a significant flow of military equipment from North Korea to Russia. Despite both North Korea and Russia denying any formal arms deals, their leaders have committed to closer military ties, as evidenced by a meeting in Russia’s Far East this September.

“Abandon plans to launch a spy satellite”

Amid these developments, Park and Blinken jointly called on North Korea to abandon plans to launch a spy satellite—a plan that has already seen two failed attempts this year. South Korea’s intelligence suggests that North Korea is in the advanced stages of this endeavor, presumably with Russia’s technical support.

Furthermore, the growing military collaboration comes as North Korea designated November 18 as “missile industry day,” commemorating the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile last year, putting South Korean forces on high alert.

Blinken’s visit to South Korea, the first by a U.S. Secretary of State in over two years, forms part of a wider Asia tour, signaling U.S. commitment to regional security amidst global tensions. Following engagements in the Middle East, where Blinken addressed the conflict in Gaza, his tour underscores a strategic pivot to the Indo-Pacific, despite the ongoing war in Ukraine overshadowing Washington’s efforts.

Military nexus between North Korea and Russia

Blinken has pointed out the dual concern of North Korean military equipment allegedly being supplied to Russia for use in Ukraine, and in turn, Russia providing North Korea with technical support.

This military nexus between North Korea and Russia has prompted serious concerns regarding global non-proliferation regimes and the security of the Korean Peninsula. Blinken emphasized that this constitutes a violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and poses a direct challenge to efforts aimed at curbing North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile advancements.

In a related context, during a meeting in Japan, G7 foreign ministers, including Blinken, condemned the transfer of arms from North Korea to Russia, viewing it as a breach of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Moreover, the ministers called for humanitarian pauses in the Israel-Hamas conflict to facilitate the delivery of aid to civilians in Gaza.

The discussions between Blinken and Park also covered North Korea’s endeavors to launch a spy satellite, urging a halt to such activities that could further destabilize regional security.

As these international dynamics continue to unfold, Blinken’s tour is seen as a crucial effort to reinforce U.S. alliances and address the multifaceted security challenges in the Asia-Pacific region.

Sources: Al-Sharq Al-Awsat and Reuters

T

he recent allegations regarding North Korea’s supply of military equipment and munitions to Russia have provoked international condemnation from countries including South Korea, the U.S., and Japan. These countries have expressed their deep concerns, claiming that such transfers exacerbate the human toll of Russia’s ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

A joint statement, released by the top diplomats from South Korea, the U.S., and Japan, offers a unified stance against what they perceive as a destabilizing factor in an already precarious global situation. South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Japanese Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa together asserted that these weapon deliveries, some of which have been confirmed, “will significantly increase the human toll of Russia’s war of aggression.”

The geopolitical implications of this alliance are manifold. Historically, North Korea and Russia, both engaged in separate confrontations with the U.S. and its allies, have often found common ground in their mutual interests. This bond seems to have tightened recently, as evidenced by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s visit to Russia, where he met President Vladimir Putin and toured several key military installations.

Significant shift in the balance of power

The fears of Japan, South Korea and the U.S. aren’t unfounded. Reports suggest that North Korea isn’t just making a one-sided deal; it seeks advanced weapons technologies from Russia to augment its nuclear program. If these speculations hold water, they could represent a significant shift in the balance of power in the region, posing a direct threat to many countries, especially given North Korea’s historic volatility.

The U.S., South Korea, and other concerned nations suspect this alliance to be a two-way street. While North Korea allegedly provides Russia with conventional arms to supplement its dwindling arsenal, Russia, in return, is believed to be supplying North Korea with sophisticated weapons technologies. This would not only bolster North Korea’s nuclear capabilities but could also lead to more reliable and advanced weapons systems.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, however, dismissed these allegations. During a recent trip to Pyongyang, he emphasized Russia’s appreciation for North Korea’s “unwavering” support in its Ukraine conflict. Upon his return to Moscow, and in response to these claims, he stated that “the Americans keep accusing everyone” and refused to comment further, labeling them as mere “rumors.”

1,000 containers of military equipment

However, contrary to Lavrov’s dismissive stance, the White House recently disclosed evidence suggesting North Korea had indeed delivered over 1,000 containers of military equipment and munitions to Russia. These containers, the U.S. claimed, were transferred to a Russian-flagged ship and subsequently transported via train to southwestern Russia.

The international community’s concerns aren’t limited to the ongoing Ukraine conflict. Since the previous year, North Korea has conducted over 100 missile tests, many simulating nuclear strikes against the U.S. and South Korea. With Russia potentially providing advanced weapon technologies, Kim Jong Un could develop more reliable nuclear weapons systems, threatening global stability.

To counter North Korea’s increasing nuclear prowess, the U.S. and South Korea have intensified their regular military exercises. In a show of collective defense, they have even reinstated some joint training exercises with Japan. This week witnessed the three nations’ armed forces carrying out their inaugural trilateral aerial exercise close to the Korean Peninsula.

Maritime exercise

Moreover, South Korea’s navy announced a comprehensive maritime exercise off the Korean Peninsula’s western coast. This training, encompassing live-fire drills, also saw participation from U.S. military helicopters and patrol aircraft.

While North Korea has yet to comment on this maritime drill, it has a history of perceiving such U.S.-South Korean exercises as precursors to invasion, often retaliating with missile tests.

The evolving dynamics in the region underscore the intricate balance of power and the high stakes involved. As alliances shift and nations recalibrate their strategies, the world watches closely, hoping that diplomacy and dialogue will prevail over confrontation.

Sources: The Independent, Japan Today, AP News