[The Editors' Verdict] Quad Participation or Non-Participation: It's Not Just Black and White

What concerns arise when South Korea participates in the U.S.'s efforts to contain China? It would be economic retaliation from China. Conversely, if South Korea refuses the U.S.'s demands, there is concern about a rift in the “South Korea-U.S. alliance.” Amid this dilemma, the position the South Korean government is taking is “ambiguity.” Is that truly the only answer?

The Quad (QUAD, Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) is an informal multilateral security forum involving four countries: the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia. While it presents the goal of a free and open Indo-Pacific, it is in fact perceived as the U.S.'s military front against China. The U.S. wants South Korea to also participate in the Quad and play a certain role in containing China. China views this as a challenge to itself and there are concerns it could retaliate.

The U.S.'s perception regarding this was largely revealed at the recently concluded South Korea-U.S. Foreign and Defense Ministers (2+2) meeting. South Korea drew a line by stating that the Quad issue was not discussed at the meeting. The joint statement also excluded any mention of it. Does this mean the U.S.'s pressure for South Korea to join the Quad is untrue? Rather, it is a more reasonable interpretation that the U.S. is considering South Korea's position and giving it time to think about “what South Korea can do in containing China.” But what would happen if South Korea ultimately declares non-participation in the Quad? South Korea's standing in the U.S.'s Indo-Pacific strategic framework would be limited. The rift in the South Korea-U.S. alliance, the North Korean nuclear issue slipping out of our hands, and the outcome of regional diplomatic waves that we do not lead are all painful lessons we experienced a hundred years ago.

Conversely, what situation would South Korea's participation in the Quad bring about? It could be worse than the “Hallyu ban shock” experienced during the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). However, not only South Korea but also Australia, which participates in the Quad, has a very high dependence on trade with China. India even shares a border with China. Like South Korea, they have more to lose than gain by provoking China. The recent Quad summit dealt only with non-military issues such as climate change, COVID-19 response, and technological cooperation. While there is a strong possibility that discussions will lead to military cooperation in the future, it remains to be seen whether Australia or India will actively participate. For example, India participates in the Quad but consistently remains passive regarding military actions. Experts advise that a smart decision for the government would be to join the Quad proactively and then lead discussions in non-military fields.

The participation of the U.K., Germany, Vietnam, and New Zealand in the Quad is also being discussed. This could expand the Quad into a Penta (five-member) or Hepta (seven-member) group. However, the interests of these new member countries do not necessarily align with those of the U.S. or Japan. South Korea would have very little room to lead discussions in a Hepta group it was pushed into late. Being late is already problematic, but even proactive participation is not an easy task. This is because Japan, the founding country of the Quad, may not welcome South Korea. South Korea is seen as the “weak link” in the China containment line, and Japan would not want the unified front to be shaken by South Korea's participation.

Former President Park Geun-hye, who was conflicted between the South Korea-U.S. alliance and watching China’s reactions, decided to attend China’s Victory Day military parade, fueling Washington’s “South Korea leaning toward China” theory. Such courting did not lead to a hopeful outcome where China would tolerate South Korea’s position that could not reject the THAAD deployment. Sending signals to both sides can be read by all as a “rejection.” The strategy of taking an ambiguous stance in the middle carries the same implicit message.

Shin Beom-su, Chief of Political Affairs

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.