[Russia-Ukraine War 1 Year Later] IV. Three Factors Determining the Level of Support for Ukraine

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spf_mFX6sYk

Lee Sook-jong, Senior Fellow at the East Asia Institute (EAI), explains that while many countries share the common goal of Ukraine's reconstruction and pursuit of peace, there are differences in the level of support for Ukraine. She presents considerations for international law, national security, and democracy as the three main factors determining the level of support for Ukraine, and emphasizes that although South Korea is currently refraining from providing weapons, government and private organizations should both step forward to provide humanitarian and material support for Ukraine's reconstruction and democratic development.

■ Lee Sook-jong_ Senior Fellow and Director of EAI, Professor at Sungkyunkwan University. She holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from Harvard University, USA, and has served as a Research Fellow at the Sejong Institute, Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution (USA), Lecturer at Johns Hopkins University, President of the Association for Modern Japanese Studies, Policy Advisory Committee Member of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Director of EAI. She is a member of the Steering Committee of the World Movement for Democracy (WMD) and founded and operates the Asia Democracy Research Network (ADRN). Her recent edited volumes include Populism in Asian Democracies: Features, Structures, and Impacts (co-edited, 2021), Collaborative Governance in East Asia: Evolution Towards Multi-stakeholder Partnerships (co-edited, 2020), "Solving Social Problems Together: Cases of Conflict and Cooperation" (co-edited, 2019), Transforming Global Governance with Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea’s Role in the 21st Century (edited), Public Diplomacy and Soft Power in East Asia (co-edited), "The Second Act of Globalization: Korean-Style Globalization and New Concepts" (co-edited), and "Conditions for Presidential Success in 2017" (co-edited).

Video Transcript

February 24th marked the first anniversary of the war in Ukraine. I recall the immense anger felt by myself and many intellectuals and democracy advocates when this event first unfolded last year. Over the past year, there have been numerous casualties and over 2 million refugees. Despite this, the entire nation is fighting valiantly to defend its territorial integrity and achieve victory against Russia, and this effort is being actively supported. The war in Ukraine has overturned common sense in many international relations. As you know, after two world wars, there had been no instances of major powers invading neighboring countries by force. Therefore, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has indeed been a major shock.

However, there seem to be several perspectives on how to view the war in Ukraine. One perspective is based on the strong principle of international law that the sovereignty of a territorial, independent state must be defended. This principle of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of independent states is also the foundation for peace and security, which the UN holds in high regard. That is one dimension. The second dimension is national security. And the third dimension is democracy. In some regions, these three pillars are intertwined, while in others, they are not. For example, in Europe, as you know, Eastern Europe and Western Europe formed a dividing line during the Cold War, structured by ideology into the Eastern Bloc and the Free World. Therefore, in Europe, there is not only strong opposition to the violation of sovereign territory but also concerns about national security.

Consequently, Sweden and Finland, which were not NATO members, have joined NATO. Poland, while not a model democracy, is providing extensive support for Ukraine's victory, accepting many refugees and providing weapons. This is because Poland's future national security is dependent on the future of the war in Ukraine. Therefore, in Europe, respect for territorial sovereignty, international law, and regional security are closely linked, and this has further strengthened the relationship between the United States and Europe, particularly NATO.

In Europe, beyond these two aspects, the Cold War was also a systemic confrontation between communism and liberal democracy. Thus, the defense and support of democracy are combined with the respect for territorial sovereignty and regional security issues. One can think of it as supporting a single chair with three legs. However, when we look at other regions, this linkage weakens. For instance, in India, maintaining good relations with Russia is crucial for its national security. Therefore, the issue of national security is not entangled with the war in Ukraine.

Furthermore, many Asian countries perceive this as a war in a distant region, not closely related to their own national or regional security. While there is a general consensus that democracy is important and that sanctions should be imposed on Russia for its war crimes and inhumane actions, and thus, immediately after the war began, a resolution condemning the war was passed in the UN General Assembly, and a majority voted to expel Russia from the Human Rights Council. However, the extent of material support and encouragement for Ukraine's system varies greatly by country, even among those who support democracy. Fortunately, South Korea, like Japan, is a country that highly values liberal democracy in Asia and has been actively supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia in the war. Nevertheless, South Korea is avoiding direct support, such as weapons provision, and instead is demonstrating a commitment to addressing human rights issues in Ukraine, the protection of democracy, and the reconstruction of Ukraine after the war ends.

South Korea is showing a stance of actively working on human rights issues, the protection of democracy, and the reconstruction of Ukraine once the war concludes. The recent South Korean strategy report also includes a statement about actively working on human rights and reconstruction issues in the context of the Ukraine war. Therefore, although direct military aid from South Korea may be difficult, and the war does not seem likely to end soon, I believe that substantial material support should be provided. Rather than expecting South Korean construction companies to profit from reconstruction after the war, I believe that South Korea, both government and private sector, should actively contribute to the reconstruction of Ukraine's economy and infrastructure through purely humanitarian aid and ODA, and to the restoration of democracy for the Ukrainian people.