Strategic Diplomacy at the 2024 ARF: South Korea's Balancing Act in a Shifting Asia-Pacific

The 2024 ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Laos has concluded. The chairman’s statement this year set South Korea’s international relations issues as a core topic of discussion, and the political, security, and economic issues that heated Korea were addressed as agenda items. Considering this, the Sungkyun Times (SKT) aims to discuss the notable achievements, unresolved issues, and future directions that should be pursued following this year’s ARF Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.

Korea and Asia, Asia and the World

-Understanding the ARF

The ARF is an annual dialogue forum among 27 countries in the Asia-Pacific region that focuses on political and security issues. It is the only multilateral security forum where South Korea, the United States (U.S.), North Korea, and Russia participate together. It aims to expand the security framework of a coalition of smaller countries centered around the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to the world, sounding an alarm to the international security system previously dominated by superpowers such as the U.S. and the Soviet Union. As a founding member of the ARF, South Korea has been actively involved in various cooperation efforts, including assuming various ARF chairmanships. For the security of the Asia-Pacific region, the ARF consists of four meeting bodies, each issuing a chairman’s statement after the forum. The chairman’s statement, which can be considered the highlight of the ARF, is an official statement summarizing the results of the meeting discussions. Since the chairman’s statement reflects the unanimous consensus of all 27 participating countries, the process of the chair country coordinating differences among countries is crucial. In this way, the ARF and its chairman’s statement serve as essential mediators in opening a forum for multilateral cooperation and regional security dialogue, pivotal in coordinating each country’s position and deriving international consensus.

-Key Points in This Year's ARF

The 2024 ARF Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, hosted by Laos, began on July 26^th and concluded on the 27^th. However, the chairman’s statement was not immediately adopted after the meeting ended, as it took two additional days for an agreement to be reached. It was finally published on the website on the 30^th. This delay was due to sharply conflicting interests among participating countries and the resulting intense behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts. As South Korea’s international relations issues were a core topic of discussion this year, they received significant attention. According to the Hankook Ilbo, on July 28^th, North Korea’s recent “sewage balloons” incident, a topic widely covered in various media, caught the attention of countries such as China and Russia. In response, Minister for Foreign Affairs Cho Tae-yul raised his voice, criticizing it as “threatening the peace and stability of Northeast Asia and the entire world.” With this incident drawing significant attention to inter-Korean relations, the South Korean government has been engaging in diplomatic efforts at this ARF to urge a response to North Korea’s denuclearization and caution against the North Korea-Russia proximity in the chairman’s statement. However, these efforts have only partially succeeded. 

Mixed Results

-Achievements in the North Korean Nuclear Issue

1. The Grave Concerns

The chairman’s statement expressed grave concern over North Korea’s test launches, including Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), noting that these are threatening regional peace and stability. An ICBM is a ballistic missile capable of striking long-distance targets across continents. Theoretically able to reach the U.S. mainland, they have raised significant concerns in the international community. North Korea has been trying to gain more negotiating power through the launching of ICBMs, pressuring South Korea. Therefore, including the ICBM in this year’s chairman’s statement was a crucial agenda. This favorable attitude contrasts with North Korea’s uncooperative stance in previous ARFs. North Korea has been sending ambassadors rather than the Foreign Minister to the conference and even launched missiles during last year’s ARFs. However, the fact that the ICBM was included in the unanimously approved chairman’s statement suggests that even North Korea agreed, marking a step forward for international peace efforts.

2. A Win in the Long-Standing CVID Debate

The chairman’s statement published on the ARF website on July 30^th included the Complete, Verifiable, Irreversible Dismantling (CVID) principle for the Korean Peninsula, which North Korea vehemently opposes. The joint statement that ASEAN’s ten foreign ministers released immediately after the talks also included this principle. Before the finalization of the chairman’s statement, all four meeting bodies expressed severe concerns about North Korea’s ballistic missile launches and urged it to comply with all relevant United Nations (UN) Security Council resolutions. This year’s joint statement is particularly notable, considering that ARF statement adoptions in the past have disagreed on the North Korean nuclear issue due to conflicting interests between China and Russia, who shelter North Korea, and South Korea, U.S., and Japan, who emphasize denuclearization. CVID has been the U.S. government’s primary principle for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue since 2002. Still, North Korea has strongly objected to this term, claiming that “CVID is only necessary for defeated countries.” Considering these points, including the CVID principle in this ARF chairperson’s statement can be seen as an achievement, demonstrating the international community’s strong will for denuclearization despite North Korea’s opposition.

-Failure to Address the North Korea- Russia Military Cooperation

1. Threatening Cooperation

The South Korean government tried to reflect concerns about the rapidly intensifying North Korea-Russia military cooperation following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to North Korea last June. However, this issue was ultimately not included in the joint statement. South Korea voiced apprehension regarding their growing mutual military and economic cooperation, reinforced by the “Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.” The problematic clause in this treaty is in Article 4, which states that “In case any one of the two sides is put in a state of war by an armed invasion from an individual state or several states, the other side shall provide military and other assistance with all means in its possession without delay following Article 51 of the UN Charter and the laws of the DPRK and the Russian Federation.” Since North Korea and Russia’s shared policies are unfavorable to South Korea, there are negative prospects that North Korea might restore its alliance from the Soviet era, which assumed military intervention in case of emergency. The exclusion of this close relationship from this year’s chairman’s statement implies that South Korea’s diplomatic efforts needed more support from the international community.

2. Collapsed Breakwater

Analysis suggests that the diplomatic policies generally held by ASEAN countries and the relationship between the chair country and North Korea played essential roles in the failure to reflect critical content about North Korea and Russia in the chairman’s statement. The first reason is that among ASEAN countries pursuing balanced diplomacy, only some countries have political and economic relations with North Korea. China and Russia maintain exchanges with North Korea and adhere to a balanced position. ICBM and CVID issues related to North Korea’s nuclear missile problem were reflected in the statement because even Russia and China cannot explicitly defend these policies as leading signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the North Korea-Russia military cooperation was not included due to the presence of countries such as Laos in the ARF, which has a socialist system like North Korea. Laos, the chair country mainly responsible for the chairman’s statement, has a pro-North Korea movement and long-standing diplomatic relations with Russia. 

For Peace

-The Future of North and South Korea

The ARF is the only regional security consultative forum that North Korea participates in, making its attendance a consistent topic of keen interest. If the ARF discussions can be a forum where all North Korea’s main dialogue partners and partner countries attend, it could encourage North Korea to consistently participate in the international community. Considering that North Korea’s cooperation with the ARF has been decreasing, making the ARF a forum for active discussion with North Korea could be a way to encourage continued dialogue. The complete attendance of its dialogue partners and major allies is also essential to move toward denuclearization. On the other hand, China plays a significant role in inter-Korean relations; South Korea should, therefore, closely monitor its actions. In this year’s ARF, China showed a slightly weakened pro-North Korea stance, as it did not side with South or North Korea and instead kept its distance. If China continues to adopt a constructive position of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, refrains from conflict with the U.S., and strengthens its role as a mediator, it could positively impact inter-Korean relations.

-North Korea and Russia, South Korea in Between

The most problematic clause under North Korea and Russia’s regime could become nominal. This mutual defense pact is said to be part of Russia’s strategy to overcome the international isolation caused by the current Russia-Ukraine war. It is likely a temporary cooperation relationship with North Korea, actively demanding solidarity. Even if the North Korean military cooperation becomes a threat, there are limitations to addressing the military collaboration between the two countries in the chairman’s statement. As such, a solution should be sought outside the ARF — possibly in the UN, where all countries participate. Russia does not recognize any sanctions imposed other than those by the UN. This is because Russia does not have the financial capacity to pursue different projects without the cooperation of other UN member countries. Furthermore, South Korea should engage with North Korea and Russia through multilateral diplomatic channels such as the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) while considering the China variable. Although both Russia and North Korea consider China a more important diplomatic partner than the other, China has not officially supported the current North Korea-Russia military cooperation. Thus, one solution for South Korea could be to strategically establish diplomatic relations with China, which maintained a neutral stance in the ARF. Therefore, South Korea should actively utilize the UN cooperation system where ASEAN countries and Western powers, including the U.S., can collectively respond to North Korea-Russia military cooperation. 

This year’s ARF took a small step towards peace on the Korean Peninsula by including North Korea’s ICBM launches and the CVID principle in the chairman’s statement. The issue of North Korea-Russia military cooperation requires further discussion. However, as former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said, “Diplomacy: the art of restraining power.” South Korea should wisely navigate its challenges through multilateral diplomacy and international cooperation.