中文
By Imran Khalid
In an intriguing move, South Korea, the United States, and Japan are set to convene in a trilateral summit on August 18 at Camp David, the U.S. presidential resort in Maryland. Western analysts are fervently stoking anticipations of a potentially "historic statement" emerging from the summit, aimed at countering China's burgeoning aspirations in the Asia-Pacific region.
While the trio has engaged previously in 12 three-way discussions, only three of those were direct exchanges between South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, U.S. President Joe Biden, and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, typically on the sidelines of larger diplomatic conferences. The timing of this upcoming trilateral meeting among the three leaders raises piercing questions about the evolving dynamics among Seoul, Washington, Tokyo and the broader international landscape.
Ironically, the shift from a customary sideline engagement during international gatherings to a solo summit is being presented as a momentous event, obscuring the underlying currents at play. This orchestrated narrative of a "historic breakthrough" conveniently sidesteps the strategic calculations behind the scenes. By agreeing to gather as a trilateral meeting at Camp David, Tokyo and Seoul appear to be shifting the power balance at the behest of Washington, masking the U.S.'s true intentions in a veil of cooperation.
This ill-timed event presents a calculated attempt to project autonomy while concealing the complexities of their relationship and its interaction with the global power matrix. Although the proclaimed agenda says Washington and its two principal partners in the Asia-Pacific will discuss transnational challenges in the region, skepticism lingers around underlying motives.
While closeness between these countries may grow rapidly, hurdles such as historical conflicts, divergent interests, and nuanced China policies hardly bode well for a formal alliance. Instead, it could very well remain a trilateral partnership, marred by complexities. The Biden administration's push to court Tokyo and Seoul falls in line with its "Indo-Pacific" agenda, which revolves around bolstering alliances like QUAD and AUKUS.
Could bilateral ties grow into a trilateral alliance? But, a pricking query arises: Will the dual U.S.-Japan and U.S.-South Korea alliances morph into a trilateral entity? Though convergence of trilateral ties appear growing in recent times, formidable hurdles and challenges lie ahead that may put a damper on Washington's hegemonic thrust in this region.
A formal trilateral alliance seems distant, obscured by the practical intricacies. What unfolds is a trilateral partnership, a nuanced political cooperation rather than a cohesive alliance. The U.S.-sponsored rapid deepening of ties cannot eclipse the intricacies that have long hindered closer relations, making it a calculated geopolitical twist rather than an imminent triple alliance.
The trilateral summit's ultimate success pivots on many factors. Despite support from Washington and Tokyo toward President Yoon's outreach, formidable domestic opposition shadows his push for stronger Japan ties. Beyond the historical memory's politicization, new fault lines are emerging prominently.
Japan's Fukushima contaminated water discharge strains relations. Concurrently, sovereignty over disputed islets, called Dokdo by South Korea and Takeshima by Japan, serves as a festering political flashpoint. This saga underscores the complexities lurking beneath the surface of seemingly congenial partnerships. The summit's outcome depends on navigating these deep-seated divisions and power plays, spotlighting the precarious dance between public gestures and deeply entrenched geopolitical realities.
The pursuit of this aspiration grapples with persistent challenges arising from politics, history, and strategic interests, revealing a narrative characterized by cautious collaboration instead of seamless cooperation.
Japan's unease centers on the durability of Yoon's pledges. The Kishida government acknowledges Yoon's intent to strengthen ties, yet concerns linger about its permanence. The ongoing Korean administration's trajectory raises doubts about continuity, casting uncertainty over future agreements, especially beyond Yoon's term in 2027.
A scarcity of strategic perspicuity in defense and political flux domestically has perpetuated South Korea's passive role in trilateral dynamics. These are worsened with internal political uncertainties that underscores the alliance's fragility. The Camp David summit's effectiveness hinges on safeguarding Japan and South Korea commitments from domestic political upheavals ahead.
The key problem lies in forging a pact immune to the whims of future leadership, illustrating the impact of domestic politicking. The question looms: Can an agreement made at Camp David outlast Yoon's term, wary of his successor's stance post-2027?
Geographically and economically tied to China, South Korea is certainly hesitant to fully engage in economic rivalry. Amidst the "decoupling" trend, it's the weakest link in the trilateral chain. Unlike the more adversarial postures of the U.S. and Japan, South Korea sees prospects for cooperative avenues within China, reflecting a different path.
South Korea also acknowledges the profound influence that its multifaceted interactions with China wield over its broader interests. That is why the path ahead for the Washington-Tokyo-Seoul ties evolving into a cohesive alliance remains elusive.
Imran Khalid, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs.
