SEOUL, South Korea — The U.S. may have to count out South Korea and Europe as effective allies or responders in the event of a Taiwan crisis, based on the results of a recent war game.
The European Values Center for Security Policy think tank conducted a closed-door crisis simulation in Seoul to examine how a dual-theater crisis — one affecting both the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic — could affect responses to a Chinese move on Taiwan. Players gamed “gray zone scenarios involving Chinese and Russian operations against Taiwan and EU/NATO countries.”
“The central premise was that a Taiwan contingency would not be only a Taiwan contingency,” but would impact democracies across the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific, said Marcin Jerzewski, who heads the center’s Taiwan office.
“Our simulation looked not only at the military dimension, but also at the political, economic and humanitarian pressures that would emerge very quickly.”
The report found that “the magnitude” of a Taiwan crisis would “be amplified by the hostile geographic axis formed by China, Iran, Russia and North Korea.”
The war game was held in Seoul last year, with 50 players including diplomats, officials, think tankers and representatives from academia, business and politics.
The center released its findings through a briefing in Seoul this month and a report published by Germany’s Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom.
Fears about the unofficial alliance of the four authoritarian states have been watered down since the war game was staged, since the countries did not coordinate effective responses to the recent U.S. operations against Venezuela and Iran.
But Mr. Jerzewski suggested that a Chinese maritime quarantine of Taiwan could be supported by Russian pressure in the Baltic and Iranian disruption to shipping routes in the Middle East.
Though embattled Iran has been left out, a flurry of diplomatic activity in recent weeks has seen Russian President Vladimir Putin summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Mr. Xi visit North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
South Korea unwilling to help
The war game found that “during the early phase of a China-led escalation around Taiwan, China’s interest would be to keep South Korea out of a U.S.-led alliance.”
That is hardly surprising.
Many analysts suspect China could compel North Korea to raise tensions, possibly with military provocations, to pin down South Korean and U.S. forces on the peninsula.
But the war game reached a different conclusion.
Beijing “would likely … offer economic benefits” to Seoul to stay neutral, particularly given the latter’s dependency on China for coal, critical minerals [for batteries and chips] and clean-energy technologies.
At the recent Group of Seven summit, President Lee Jae-myung signed seven of eight joint outcome documents, but declined to sign the one on critical mineral supply — which takes aim at China.
China also could deploy information warfare and leverage social media influence “for manipulation purposes,” the scenario found.
Certainly, South Korea is economically dependent upon China, though the U.S. runs a close second.
The country exported $130 billion worth of goods to China last year, versus $123 billion to the United States,according to Trading Economics.
As for imports, the same portal found a wider disparity for the same year: South Korea bought $141 billion worth of products from China, versus $73 billion from the U.S.
Not only does China hold economic influence, but tensions are also bubbling between Seoul and Washington on the potential use of the approximately 23,000 U.S. troops in the country for operations going beyond the Korean Peninsula.
The commanding U.S. general in South Korea, Gen. Xavier Brunson, has repeatedly emphasized the peninsula’s strategic location for deterring Russia and China — troops, predominantly based on the west coast, are perfectly positioned to monitor or counter China in the Yellow Sea.
Seoul, however, wants U.S. Forces Korea to be exclusively used to deter North Korea.
Korean officials have reportedly complained about sorties over the Yellow Sea by U.S. fighter jets based in South Korea during the Chinese New Year holiday and also about Gen. Brunson’s May comment that the peninsula is “a dagger pointed at the heart of China.”
A retired Korean general told The Washington Times that he never heard of any plan for Korean forces to help defend Taiwan, though he said Seoul might provide background support for U.S. troops.
A defense pundit, speaking off the record, suggested that Taiwan’s downfall would generate economic advantages for South Korea. Domestic semiconductor companies could add to their global lead in memory chips by taking the top spot in advanced logic chips — a sector currently dominated by Taiwanese businesses.
The report recommended Seoul pre-plan responses to Chinese economic pressures, identify dependencies, prepare stockpiles and prepare to join a U.S.-Japanese blockade-breaking operation.
That would be challenging.
South Korea “is one of the most difficult places to talk about a Taiwan contingency,” Mr. Jerzewski admitted. “We are doing it because nobody else is.”
Europeans unable to assist
The war game’s findings on the European response was hardly better.
It found that the 27-member bloc, which prioritizes “internal consensus building, often at the expense of swift external action in crisis scenarios,” responded with “actions that lacked both effectiveness and coherence.”
The report’s authors recommended that when it comes to confronting China, Brussels needs to pre-draft sanctions packages and comprehensively assess the status of its strategic stockpiles and dependencies on China.
“The EU need [pre-planned] options due to the time taken” for internal consensus, Mr. Jerzewski said.
The war game report suggested that the EU, Korea and Japan jointly strengthen existing cyber-cooperation protocols and organizations, as well as joint evacuation plans for their nationals from Taiwan.
The unwieldiness of the bloc became clear in the Balkans crisis of the 1990s, during which the EU was unable to respond decisively without U.S. leadership.
In the early stages of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it was British N-LAW disposable anti-tank missiles and U.S. Javelin guided anti-tank missiles that proved critical in stemming Moscow’s armored spearheads.
Since then, Brussels has given the lion’s share of both aid and arms to Kiev. Per Germany’s Kiel Institute, the EU has provided more arms than the U.S. in every year of the conflict except for 2022 and more non-military aid in all years.
But in the Iran war, neither Israel nor the U.S. briefed allies before commencing strikes on Tehran on Feb. 28. Subsequently, after Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz, allies east and west declined to offer kinetic support to the U.S. — angering President Trump.
That response could provide a sobering reality for war planners in Washington.
For Taiwan — whose politicians and people talk of their place in a wider democratic family of nations — the report’s key finding could provide a grim reality check in an era in which the U.S. is acting with self-interest and allies are wondering if alliances as solid as NATO can be sustained.
“If every actor sees a crisis through different lenses, it’s harder to have a coordinated response … military planning is treated separately to building economic security, but they are interconnected,” Mr. Jerzewski said. “The key dynamic we found was a fragmented response.”
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.