The Russo-Sino-North Korea Triangle: The American Factor and Policy Implications for Korea

Jung Chul Lee, Jun-Kee Baek, Jae-Kwan Kim, and Nam-Ju Lee

The purpose of this work is to provide the Park Geun-hye administration with policy implications in response to the current diplomatic situation in the East Asia region: a rising China, the US “Pivot to Asia”, Japan’s reversion to conservatism under the Abe administration, and North Korea’s revisionist behavior. To this end, this research paper seeks to highlight the Russo-Sino-North Korean triangle that is the historical legacy of the region and how it affects the current state of affairs, through certain elements of path dependency and eliciting features of and prospects for a newly established trilateral relationship. We are entering the age in which the Northern trilateral relations are indispensible to the peaceful unification of the North and South Korea and the diplomacy of coexistence through trust, upon which Park’s administration places special emphasis.

The Russo-Sino-North Korea triangle which was established in the 2000’s has become less institutionalised and the interaction among three parties involved has also been declining in terms of frequency and intensity compared to the trilateral regime established in the 1950’s. The Russo-Sino-North Korea triangle once characterized as a military alliance has been considerably weakened by the elimination of the automatic-military intervention clause from the treaty involving those three nations; and the close association between the parties and governments regarding domestic and international affairs is no longer in place. Nevertheless, China-Russia and Russia-North Korea concluded treaties of friendship in the 2000’s which included a specific clause stipulating that the parties work closely with each other in case the other party is faced with immediate threat, and the Sino-North Korea treaty of friendship effectively maintained the clause for automatic military intervention. In other words, although there is no explicit treaty including all three nations, there is a probable mechanism among three parties which allows tripartite consultation or common action in case of a crisis arising in one party. In fact, it is an undeniable reality that the Russo-Sino-North Korean triangle has strategic significance in North East Asian geopolitics in light of the fact that they have been cooperating, albeit loosely, to deal with key issues such as the North Korean nuclear issue.

In this regard, the structure of the Russo-Sino-North Korean triangle identified by this research is as follows. Firstly, the triangle is not a systematisation or institutionalisation of the tripartite consultation but it comprises the total sum of the bilateral relations. There is, however, a dynamism as this triangular character is in operation with respect throughout the bilateral relations between the three countries, which can be seen in the interactions between Sino-North Korea and Russo-North Korea in particular. Nonetheless, the state of the Russo-Sino relationship also exerts a strong influence on the position of North Korea within the triangle. Secondly, each bilateral relationship has its own separate status within the triangle and it is the different interactions among those bilateral relations that create its dynamism. The Sino-Russian relations can be said to be the stabiliser of the triangle. Sino-Russian relationship provides a foundation as China is the most important actor within the triangle and Russia also happens to be a global power. Without the stabilizing force of the Sino-Russian relationship, the triangle would lose its unique strategic value. In view of the fact that China and Russia are reinforcing their strategic alliance, it seems that a Sino-Russian relationship is likely to serve as an impetus for the development of the triangle in the future as well.

The Sino-North Korea relationship takes the position of a conduit within the triangle. The Sino-North Korea relationship brings more strategic value to the triangle and shows greater variation in comparison to Russo-North Korea relations. Since 1992, when North Korea came into serious conflict with China, there have been three phases which led to the restoration of relations eventually, but this actually demonstrates the instability of the relationship. Increased cooperation between China and North Korea would amplify the impetus gained from Sino-Russia relations, and decreased cooperation would cause the opposite result. The Russo-North Korea relations plays a role of a balancer within the triangle. North Korea makes full use of the Russo-North Korea relation in order to achieve balance vis-a-vis the Sino-North Korea relationship while Russia endeavors to make the best use of its relationship with North Korea in order to prevent the triangle in Northeast Asia from being replaced entirely by the Sino-North Korea relationship.

With regard to future prospects for changes in the triangle, a number of possible scenarios can be predicted considering the roles of internal and external variables. The most important internal variable is the value of the triangle, which is complementary to national strategies. Higher level of cooperation within the triangle would lead to more complementarity and vice versa. The research result shows that the level of complementarity within the triangle is still not very high and quite a few factors remain for conflicts and competition in development and economic relations. Therefore, it would be unlikely that the internal impetus of trilateral cooperation will develop into something similar to the trilateral regime in the 1950’s based on ideological identity, given that the trilateral regime in the 1950’s was itself an exception. However, it is worth paying attention to the possibility of increased complementarity within the triangle economically since the economic benefits, not ideology as in the past, can raise the level of cooperation. Such a change is particularly noticeable in the China-Russia relationship. For example, bilateral trade volumes within the triangle is rising rapidly and energy cooperation is being pushed forward vigorously. Regarding Sino-North Korea relations, North Korea’s degree of dependence on trade with China is increasing but is far from complementary. Besides, the level of economic exchange between Russia and North Korea remains very low, which implies the possibility of rapid expansion of cooperation. Especially, the pace with which North Korea opens itself to the world will be the most decisive factor. Nonetheless, it should not be a matter of concern to us that the level of cooperation within the triangle is increasing under such circumstances because the three parties are in need of external capital and technology from South Korea, Japan, and the USA for economic cooperation within the triangle. Russia and China are seeking a policy which is compatible with national interests of South Korea, who has a positive perspective on open-door policy for regional cooperation activities. Therefore, as the triangle pivots around the possibility of North Korea’s opening to the world, other actors are given sufficient ‘space’ for cooperation and, by utilizing this space as a medium, South Korea can raise the level of regional cooperation in Northeast Asia. South Korea’s strategy should be to effect such a change in this direction.’’

Among other external variables, it seems that the US factor will have a huge impact on the triangle. From the standpoint of the dynamic inside the triangle, there is little likelihood of a Russo-Sino-North Korean triangle developing into exclusive cooperation. However, there is a possibility that the triangle might come into a conflict with other powers from outside, contingent on the way in which U.S. factor comes into play. Given the circumstances, this research pays special attention to US “Pivot to Asia” strategy and the reactions of Russia, China, and North Korea to the strategy. Since the USA expressed its intentions on the“Asia shift”, Russia, North Korea, and China have become more wary and, if this trend continues, it might lead to closer security cooperation within the triangle as a result. In particular, the closer cooperation in security among South Korea, the USA, and Japan will be a decisive factor affecting such circumstances. The USA will likely seek ways to avoid such a confrontation that might place a heavy strain strategically as it adjusts rebalancing policy while maintaining separate relationships with China and Russia. However, Russia and China will remain vigilant towards America’s Asian policy because it is clear that the USA’s intention is to make use of the ROK-USA alliance and Japan-USA alliance more effectively.

Given these circumstances, there is a high likelihood of competition between countries of the ‘triangle’ and the USA, and cooperation within the three countries relations will continue to increase unless the North Korean nuclear issue emerges as an obstacle within the triangle. It is necessary that we brace ourselves for such a situation where North Korea’s efforts to enhance its relationship within the triangle expedites exclusive cooperation.

In summary, it is highly likely that increased economic cooperation within the triangle might leave more room for South Korea to engage its constituent countries. On the other hand, it would be a highly undesirable scenario if the US “Pivot to Asia” strategy resulted in increased conflict between the USA and China; and leads to security cooperation within the triangle to counter the South Korea-America-Japan military cooperation. This would reduce the role of South Korea and confirm the exclusivity of tripartite relations as a result.

Based on the analysis above, the following policy responses are necessary if the Russia-North Korea-China relationship is to accord with South Korea’s interests.

1. Economic cooperation
It is recommended that Korea actively utilize economic means in dealing with the Russo-Sino-North Korea triangle, in line with South Korea’s national interests and strategy. The ROK should also take practical measures to take the initiative by making full use of favourable elements that are already present within the Russo-Sino-North Korea triangle; as the three nations are focusing on economic development as their main priorities and they have great interest in the Russia-North Korea-China joint development such as the Greater Tuman Initiative(GTI). To this end, they are looking forward to the participation of other actors who are capable of providing capital and technology, as well as relaxing competition among themselves. Thus it is possible for Korea to take the lead in encouraging cooperation from the nations involved by vigorously exploring elements that could promote cooperation. South Korea should play an active role to facilitate changes as an insider rather than passively responding as an outsider who could easily be ostracized as an outsider in that area. Korea should also be prepared to launch a project which can bring about changes and give impetus to development. Especially, it is vital that South Korea take the initiative in forming “the East Sea rim and the Pan Yellow Sea economic bloc” simultaneously, with the Korean Peninsula taking the centre stage.

2. Security cooperation
Recently, the security environment in Northeast Asia has deteriorated to its worst state since the Cold War. There is the possibility of military conflict between China and Japan, along with advances in North Korean nuclear capability and as well as unstable USA-China relationship since America’s “Asia Shift” strategy. At this point, it is important to note that creating an impetus for cooperation in Northeast Asia is possible only when current conflicts between China and Japan does not lead to actual military clashes. South Korea should vigorously speak out and criticize Japan’s rightward shift and distorted view of history, and strengthen diplomatic ties with Japan and USA in order to prevent Japan from turning further to the right. Under these delicate circumstances, Korea should remain prudent in its diplomatic responses since there is a high probability that strengthening South Korea-Japan military cooperation might exacerbate the rift in the region, thereby pitting the Russo-North Korea-China triangle against the South Korea-USA-Japan triangle. At the same time, we should also demand that China refrain from military posturing.

3. South Korea-North Korea-USA relationship
Given the current circumstances, it is necessary to prevent North Korea’s nuclear program from worsening, to maintain a stable East Asia. Simultaneously, South Korea needs to encourage USA to actively engage in efforts to keep the peace by emphasizing that the US show strategic patience in dealing with North Korea. It is very likely that, if inter-Korean relations continue to grow worse and consequently North Korea reverts to behavior which disrupts the status quo, USA-China relations will grow worse again and America’s diplomacy policy will shift from rebalancing to containment, which will cause conservative swing in the US in favor of acknowledging Japanese claims of its right to military action.

In this regard, managing stable North-South-USA relations will be an important element in ameliorating the ‘hardness’ of the Russo-Sino-North Korea triangle, as South Korea becomes an insider in the northern triangle while playing the role of a balancer. This would mean that South Korea-USA-Japan relations would not be in opposition against Russo-Sino-North Korea triangle. Therefore, it is important to realise that stable management of inter-Korean relations is the key to positioning South Korea at the centre of efforts to moderate between all parties in North-South Korea-USA, Russo-Sino-China, and South Korea-USA-Japan relations.