A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
SEOUL, South Korea — A so-far unexplained explosion that wounded three South Korean soldiers in the Demilitarized Zone on Monday adds timely weight to Seoul’s resistance to U.S. pressure to deploy military assets to the Middle East.
The ever-present risk posed by its threatening neighbor is often cited by South Koreans as a reason to turn down risky overseas deployments or regional contingencies, such as defending fellow democracy Taiwan against a potential Chinese assault.
Despite the DMZ drama, South Korea still appears vulnerable to mounting U.S. pressure to deploy assets to the conflict-ridden Strait of Hormuz.
People were interested in these podcasts
Other U.S. allies, including NATO members, Australia and even pacifist neighbor Japan, have hedged against Washington’s demands.
South Korea has not.
Defense vs. deployment
SEE ALSO: North Korea touts new ‘hypersonic’ weapons system
Three South Korean soldiers were injured in an explosion just south of the Military Demarcation Line, the de facto inter-Korean border that runs through the center of the tense DMZ. According to South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, the exact cause of the explosion was unknown. Two soldiers with serious wounds were airlifted by helicopter, and a third soldier was also subsequently airlifted for treatment.
If the detonation was caused by a mine, it could have been laid by either side. Although infantry routinely patrol the DMZ along known trails, the surrounding landscape is strewn with land mines that can be shifted from their original positions by torrential rains or mudslides. Officials noted that recent torrential rains had altered the terrain.
The last time South Korean soldiers were seriously injured in a kinetic incident in the DMZ was in 2015, when two were wounded by a land mine. That incident was blamed on North Korea, which uses wooden box mines, resistant to metal detection devices.
A day before the DMZ incident, North Korea conducted a test-firing of two short-range ballistic missiles in the East Sea/Sea of Japan.
The splashdowns Sunday were the latest in a spate of ballistic and tactical missile tests by Pyongyang. Some believe the tests are designed to express the regime’s dissatisfaction with trilateral Japan-South Korea-U.S. aerial-maritime drills, which were held off Jeju Island earlier this month.
The recent events provide clear evidence of the threat South Korea confronts over its northern border. Some consider that threat a good reason not to dispatch assets off the peninsula.
“South Korea is still at war with North Korea, whether the U.S. wants to admit it or not,” Yang Uk, a research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a Seoul think tank, told The Washington Times. “It is saying its allies should take care of conventional deterrence — and we are doing that.”
“South Korea is geographically next to North Korea, and Korean citizens are focused on the security of the Korean Peninsula,” Jang Ji-hyang, director of Asan’s Center for Regional Studies, said in a separate briefing to Seoul-based foreign correspondents Monday. “That can be some excuse for the Korean government’s cautious stance.”
However, South Korea has conducted significant off-peninsula deployments in the recent past.
They include a brigade-sized contingent of troops to the Irbil area of the Kurdistan region of Iraq during the U.S.-led occupation of the country, and an ongoing rotation of warships and naval commandos to multinational anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden.
“I believe Korean citizens and the government are too focused on the security of the Korean Peninsula,” Ms. Jang said.
America’s uneasy allies
President Trump did not consult allies when U.S. forces teamed up with Israel in an aerial campaign against Iran in late February.
However, since Iranian forces expanded the conflict into the Strait of Hormuz, he has repeatedly expressed frustration that allies have not helped U.S. units to force open the strategic waterway.
Japan and South Korea, despite heavy national reliance on Persian Gulf oil imports — and despite flagged vessels of both nations being struck by Iranian projectiles in the Gulf — have so far resisted Washington’s entreaties to assist.
That leaves the two Asian powerhouses, both of which have powerful militaries, vulnerable to Mr. Trump’s indignation. Elsewhere, U.S. allies in NATO — frequently the target of his ire — and even Australia have aided Gulf states, albeit without joining the offensive Israeli-U.S. campaign against Iran.
London has permitted the U.S. Air Force to use bases on its soil and in the Indian Ocean. It has deployed fighter jets to defend Qatari airspace and ground air-defense units to Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar.
Paris sent a carrier strike group to the Arabian Sea and doubled the number of its fighter jets operating from Abu Dhabi.
Italy deployed fighter jets to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as well as reconnaissance drones and air-defense radars to Kuwait.
Canberra dispatched airborne early warning and control aircraft to the UAE and supplied the Emirates with air-to-air missiles.
Seoul and Tokyo have not sent assets, though South Korean-built air-defense missiles, sold to the UAE, have proved their worth in combat.
Tokyo, meanwhile, has covered its back on two fronts: political and economic.
In March, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi told Mr. Trump that she could not send troops to the combat zone because of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which renounces war and restricts overseas force projection. However, experts say her claim omitted important context.
Paul Midford, an American expert on Japanese foreign policy at Meiji Gakuin University, noted that in Diet deliberations leading to constitutional reinterpretations in 2014-2015, the Strait of Hormuz was specifically mentioned as a geographic area where “collective self-defense” might be exercised.
Mr. Midford suggested that Mr. Trump, who accepted Ms. Takaichi’s explanation, was improperly briefed on the constitutional issue.
Economically, Tokyo is also seeking to placate Washington.
Japan, which customarily runs multibillion-dollar annual trade surpluses with America, pledged a $550 billion investment package into the U.S. That pledge has so far reached approximately 20% implementation, with Stateside investments being made in an oil export terminal, modular nuclear reactors and natural gas facilities.
Korea has no such constitutional escape clause. Like Japan, Korea boasts an export-based industrial structure, runs annual multibillion-dollar trade surpluses with the U.S., and has also pledged to invest in America to the tune of $350 billion.
Yet amid disputes over profit returns and subjects of investment, the pledge remains stalled.
An announcement on the first tranche had been widely anticipated Friday after South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun held talks with Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington. Nothing was forthcoming.
On the defense front, leaks to media earlier this month suggested Seoul could send maritime reconnaissance aircraft, logistics vessels or clearance divers to the Middle East.
Nothing happened, and Seoul’s relations with Washington look conflicted at the highest level.
President Lee Jae-myung, who has been suffering a decline in his approval ratings, said in a televised press conference Friday, “There will be no troop deployments that participate in or intervene in war.”
On Saturday, however, apparently stung by headlines suggesting that Seoul was denying Washington, the presidential office issued a clarification.
“President Lee did not reject President Trump’s request for cooperation on Middle East affairs concerning South Korea at the [Friday] press conference,” it stated.
“The government has been reviewing practical ways to contribute … in close communication with the United States and the international community … under the principled stance of not becoming involved in war or combat,” it said.
The ambiguity reflects South Korea’s core national focus in recent decades. The democratic middle power has built up massive commercial and industrial muscle but has been reluctant to step into the international political arena.
Ms. Jang recognizes how unpopular any involvement in the Middle East conflict would be. However, she urged South Koreans to think broadly, particularly as the CRINK — the unofficial authoritarian grouping of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea — is heavily concentrated in its neighborhood.
“We need to widen our scope: All blocs, including the Middle East, Europe and Northeast Asia, are closely interconnected,” she said. “The CRINK is solidifying alignments, so democratic countries have to strengthen their solidarity, and we have to consider our national status on the global stage.”
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun’s last name.
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.