Two days after South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol assumed office on Tuesday last week, the South Korean Ministry of Defense said that, effective immediately, it would no longer refer to a missile launch by North Korea’s military as a “firing of an unidentified projectile,” but would instead use the phrase “firing of a missile.”
This change shows that Seoul has stopped covering for Pyongyang and has decided to call each missile launch what it is: a provocative action. It also indicates that the Yoon administration intends to adopt a tougher stance toward North Korea.
Before Yoon became president, his foreign policy was widely acknowledged to be “pro-Washington, anti-Pyongyang and distant from Beijing.” The South Korean military’s change of policy toward North Korea’s missile firings shows that there is a renewed resolve in Seoul to push back against the North.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, “offensive realism” — a structural theory in international relations — appears to have become the mainstream opinion within South Korea’s foreign policy community.
Offensive realism posits that the international system is anarchical, and individual nation states, as rational actors, must therefore take actions to protect themselves and guarantee their security through the construction of independent security capabilities. A unique aspect of the theory is its explanation of the interplay between regional actors.
The theory says that, in seeking to guarantee their own security, each nation expands their military forces and attempts to become the regional hegemon, which will eventually lead to conflict and war — such as has occurred between Russia and Ukraine.
The South Korean electorate’s selection of Yoon as their new president could be interpreted as a sign that they have had enough of Pyongyang’s provocations and threats.
Previously, South Koreans tolerated North Korea and continually sent messages of goodwill to their neighbor.
They understand that this has fallen on deaf ears and that North Korea presents a serious security threat to their country.
Many South Koreans therefore feel that they have no choice but to strengthen their defenses and adopt a more confrontational posture.
South Korea apparently adopting the “offensive realism” model bodes ill for peace and security on the Korean Peninsula.
There is a distinct possibility that the tense relationship between North Korea and South Korea could boil over into military conflict.
This would be a disaster not only for China and Japan, but also for Taiwan.
Jason Lee has a doctorate in international politics from National Chung Hsing University.
Translated by Edward Jones
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS