The conflict between Russia and Ukraine had a turning point when Russia annexed the Ukrainian Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions. The development had a ripple effect across the world, including in South East Asia where clearly contrasting positions were taken by Japan, China, South Korea and North Korea.
The contrasting positions of the four Asian powers showed up in their reaction to the United Nations General Assembly’s resolution of October 12 which condemns Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory. The results of the vote held on the resolution were 143 Member States, including Japan and South Korea, in favor, with five, including North Korea, voting against, and 35 abstentions, including China.
Contrasting Positions
The positions taken by China, Japan and the Koreas on Russia’s annexations of parts of Ukraine are in line with their general stance regarding on the war in Ukraine. Their positions, however, showed their overall disagreement, explained here as follows:
1- China:
Beijing has been clear all along, siding with neither party to the war in Ukraine, although it would, on occasions, criticize some states for contributing towards the escalation by not taking into account the security interests of other states. In the wake of Russia’s annexation of the four Ukrainian regions, underscored the importance of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, their security concerns as well as the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
Beijing chose to abstain from voting on the resolution heavily lobbied and pushed to the Security Council by the United States to condemn the annexation. It also abstained from voting on the UN General Assembly recent resolution and emphasized the importance of negotiated solutions to the conflict which flared up over recent months leading to negative consequences. It called on the UN Security Council to play its due role to find a political settlement to the conflict, and to take carefully planned steps so as not to further complicate the conflict. China in its statement justifying its abstention from voting on condemning Russia’s action, called on all parties concerned to exercise restraint, refrain from actions that actually exacerbate tensions and leave space for a solution through diplomatic negotiations. These points represent a continuation of a firm position taken by China since the war broke out.
2- Japan:
While China’s position stopped short of siding with either party to the conflict - despite all the talk in the US and other Western countries about the nature of the Russian-Chinese relations- the other three Asian nations, Japan and the Koreas, took a completely different position. Japan described the referenda and Russia’s annexations of the Ukrainian regions as a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It further claimed that the referenda constitute a violation of international law, and shall never be recognized. Japan strongly condemned Russia’s action, saying that all purported referenda were implemented in these regions of Ukraine under a state of emergency caused by Russia’s aggression. It also stressed that Japan will not tolerate any attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by force in Ukraine because they are illegitimate and in violation of the international law and the Charter of the United Nations.
Tokyo further said that it will continue to strongly urge Russia to immediately cease its aggression and withdraw its forces back to Russia. We will also continue to work firmly on the two pillars of strong sanctions against Russia and support for Ukraine, in cooperation with the international community including the G7.
On October 7, Japan’s cabinet agreed to impose new sanctions on Russia following Moscow's move to unilaterally annex four regions in Ukraine. A total of 81 people and nine organizations will be added to a list of those subject to asset freezing. The move is likely to ramp up tensions between Tokyo and Moscow, especially after they engaged in tit-for-tat diplomatic expulsions. On October 4, Japan ordered an unnamed Russian diplomat to leave the country, in retaliation for Moscow’s detention and expulsion of the Japanese consul in Vladivostok, Tatsunori Motoki, for alleged espionage.
3- South Korea:
Seoul outlined its position in three points. Firstly, it does not recognize referenda held by Russia in the four Ukrainian regions and consequently does not recognize the annexation of these regions by Russia as legitimate. Second, it called for respecting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Third, Seoul strongly condemned Russia’s armed invasion against Ukraine as a violation of the principles of the UN Charter.
4- North Korea:
Pyongyang clearly threw its support behind Russia, and opposed international resolutions condemning Moscow. That is why it was only natural that Pyongyang backed Russia’s annexation of the four Ukrainian regions and claimed that the referenda held last week in Ukraine signified the will of the people and was "in keeping with the UN Charter." It even claimed that the Security Council is infringing upon the rights of sovereign states and that it is employing double standards in violation of the UN Charter itself. It further stressed that “the days are going never to return when the US can use the UNSC as its shield and means of aggression for maintaining its supremacy.”
Multiple Drivers
Based on the above mentioned policies of the four states, as well as on their points of agreement and disagreement, a number of factors, or dynamics, can be recognized. Most importantly, it is their ideologies, interests, as well as relations between each of the four states with parties to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
To begin with, the four states build on values and the legal aspect to justify their positions, which might be a little different from ideological convictions that constitute one of the determinants of their foreign policies. The best example here is North Korea. However, this does not apply to China. That is, although Beijing continues to talk about socialism, its foreign policy has become pragmatic. Still North Korea and China are outside the Western umbrella, unlike Japan and South Korea which are very much involved with the West.
The involvement of Japan and South Korea is shaped not only through principles governing economy and politics, but also by their political and defense options, which can go up to becoming allies to the United States and seeking closer ties with the NATO. This stands in complete contrast with the cases of China and North Korea which accuse the United States of perpetuating its dominance and pushing for a new cold war. The rhetoric they both use echoes that of Russia.
Not only is North Korea leaning completely on both Russia and China, to conduct its relations, but also is backed by the two major powers’ attempts to counter attempts to condemn Pyongyang or impose fresh sanctions against it. So it is only natural that Pyongyang sides with Moscow as a token of gratitude and also to receive more economic, political and military support.
In the case of China, it is not in the best interest of Beijing to take sides with Moscow and pay a very heavy price, not only regarding its relations with the United States and the West, but also regarding its domestic affairs, such as Taiwan and Hong Kong. Russia’s representative to the UNSC, during a discussion of Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory, noted that the United States, which never stops criticizing Russia over the annexation, has declared that it is committed to defending Taiwan, which is an integral part of China. Perhaps this note explains China’s cautious longstanding position on the conflict in Ukraine.
By the same logic, Tokyo and Seoul cannot move away from Washington and the West and sustain severe damage to their interests. It should be remembered that Japan continues to claim sovereignty on the Northern Territories seized by Russia during World War II. Because this dispute continues unresolved, the two countries have not yet signed a peace agreement.
Confined Reassessments
In light of the above mentioned dynamics, and based on observations on the positions of the four involved states on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the pattern of their interactions is likely to continue generally unchanged. However, there are still important issues that might mandate some reconsiderations, including the potential level of military escalation, whether the use of non-traditional weapons, including nukes, has now become imminent, as well as developments in the global energy markets.
These reassessments are unlikely to apply to North Korea because of its crucial ideological choices, the long-standing hostility with the United States and the risk of coming under tough sanctions pushed independently or through the UN Security Council by the United States, as well as Pyongyang's growing need for Russia.
China, however, can mediate and present a new initiative featuring de-escalation between Russia and Ukraine. In this case, all parties involved in this conflict will find themselves in need for such a step, as long as they do not give any core concessions. Regarding Japan and South Korea, the two countries will not be capable of putting forth initiatives, but at the same time, will find it difficult to unilaterally back down on imposing sanctions on Russia and providing support to Ukraine.
