Implications of the Israel-Hamas Conflict for Korea

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MSq2UZcFuE

Park Won-gon, Director of the EAI Center for North Korean Studies and Professor at Ewha Womans University, analyzes the background of the recent armed conflict between Hamas and Israel, the U.S. stance in supporting Israel, and the implications of this event for the Korean Peninsula. Park points out that the current situation occurred while the Biden administration was reducing U.S. involvement in the Middle East to counter China and strengthen its capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region. He explains that the U.S.'s focus shifting to Europe and the Middle East could increase the possibility of North Korean provocations while simultaneously diminishing U.S. attention to the Korean Peninsula, making it more difficult for North Korea to achieve its political objectives through provocations.

■ Park Won-gon_Director, Center for North Korean Studies, East Asia Institute. Professor, Department of North Korean Studies, Ewha Womans University.

■ Managed and Edited by: Park Ji-soo, EAI Research Fellow

    Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 208) | jspark@eai.or.kr

Video Script

If the conflict between Israel and Hamas, or Israel and Palestine, escalates, North Korea will undoubtedly exploit the situation. By strengthening cooperation with China and Russia, they will raise anti-U.S. voices and use this to legitimize their nuclear program. Hello and thank you for watching "North Korea and the World." Today, we will inevitably have to discuss the Middle East. A major event has occurred, and its future progression will have a significant impact on global politics. Ultimately, it is having and will likely continue to have a significant direct and indirect impact on the Korean Peninsula. Of course, I am not a Middle East expert. I used to work at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA), where I did look into Middle East issues. At the time, as the junior member, my seniors assigned me the Middle East region because it was complex, difficult, and somewhat challenging to handle. So, I ended up covering the Middle East for about 10 years. Even after that, I have continued to pay attention to the Middle East region, but I am not an expert. Today, I will primarily discuss the Middle East, but also how the United States views these issues and how North Korea will exploit the Middle East situation to its advantage. First, the U.S. position has become very awkward, especially in its relationship with Israel. Let's start with the Obama administration because that's when the U.S. began to seriously withdraw from the Middle East, a strategy known as "pivot." The financial crisis occurred in 2008. This crisis was a crucial period that signaled the beginning of America's relative decline. It was also a time when China began to shed its "peaceful rise" and "hide its strength" approach and actively pursue its ambitions.

Crucially, starting with the Obama administration, there was an official stance that the U.S. would no longer act as the "world's police." For example, the 2010 National Security Strategy clearly stated that domestic issues, such as economic recovery and deficit reduction, should be prioritized. And as you well know, President Obama's rhetoric was very eloquent, filled with many slogans and pronouncements. At the time, he used the phrase "lead from behind."

This meant that the U.S. would no longer act as the world's police but would cooperate with allies to solve global problems. Furthermore, in 2012, during his re-election campaign, Obama's campaign slogan was "Nation building here at home." This indicates the emphasis placed on domestic affairs. The U.S. withdrew from the Middle East and Afghanistan, intending to focus its remaining capabilities on the Indo-Pacific region, essentially to counter China. However, this ultimately failed.

There were several representative failures. Notably, in 2011, the focus of military and diplomatic strategy shifted to Asia, a "pivot to Asia." A key element was the withdrawal from the Middle East, but this failed in two ways. First, regarding the Assad regime in Syria at the time, President Obama clearly stated that if the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its own people, the U.S. would intervene militarily. However, it was later confirmed that chemical weapons were used. Despite confirmation, the U.S. did not intervene.

Amidst this, Russia intervened, significantly diminishing U.S. prestige and credibility. Moreover, the U.S. did not completely withdraw from the Middle East. The Middle East policy during the Obama administration was, in many ways, a failure. Another example is Afghanistan. The Obama administration increased troop levels in Afghanistan with the aim of stabilizing the country and rebuilding it. However, stability was not achieved, and the U.S. remained mired in the quagmire of Afghanistan. Therefore, the strategy of withdrawing from the Middle East attempted by the Obama administration was largely unsuccessful. Then, as you know, Donald Trump emerged. He was a very unique U.S. president who consistently pursued unconventional foreign policies. His approach to the Middle East was also unconventional. A prime example is the relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

This move deeply offended Arab nations and provoked significant backlash. Furthermore, President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, served as a senior advisor in the White House and was instrumental in formulating Middle East policy. One of the key outcomes was the Abraham Accords, which were largely realized. Through the Abraham Accords, the UAE and Bahrain normalized relations with their long-standing adversary, Israel. This was highly significant, although a framework for a Palestinian solution was also proposed, it was not accepted by the Palestinians. In any case, the fundamental Middle East policy of the Trump administration was to isolate Iran, a long-standing adversary. As you know, the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) was signed in 2015, but President Trump unilaterally withdrew from it. Thus, Iran remained isolated, while the administration sought to improve relations between Israel and other Middle Eastern countries to achieve a more stable balance of power in the region.

This was the basic Middle East policy of the Trump administration. The Biden administration's policy, in my view, is not significantly different. During the election campaign, Biden strongly criticized the Trump administration's policy, particularly the withdrawal from the JCPOA. He pledged to rejoin the JCPOA if elected president. However, even three years into his term, the agreement remains stalled, and its restoration appears unlikely at present. Instead, similar to Trump, the administration has been pursuing normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. This is highly significant because Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Sunni world, and Iran, the leader of the Shia world, are the two core countries in the Middle East, both in terms of religious influence and national scale, economic power, and military strength. For Muslims, Mecca is a pilgrimage that must be undertaken at least once in a lifetime. Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Sunni world and a nation of such Islamic significance, normalizing relations with Israel carries immense weight and has a considerable impact on other Arab nations, particularly Sunni states.

The Biden administration has continued to pursue this policy, driven by a clear objective: similar to the Obama administration, it aims to reduce U.S. involvement in the Middle East and focus on the Indo-Pacific region to counter China. As you may recall, the unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 drew widespread international criticism. The decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, even at such a cost, signifies the U.S.'s determination to disengage from the Middle East and concentrate its assets and capabilities on countering China in the Indo-Pacific. However, the Hamas attack suddenly occurred. The Hamas attack is undoubtedly a terrorist attack comparable to that of ISIS. It is profoundly inhumane and constitutes war crimes involving the mass killing of civilians, which can never be tolerated. Israel's actions and counterattacks will likely continue, potentially leading to more civilian casualties, and it is unlikely to be resolved easily. This raises the question of whether the U.S., particularly the Biden administration, can easily disengage from the Middle East as planned. The relationship between Israel and the U.S. is very special. We refer to it as a "cognizant alliance." This means that while there is no formal alliance treaty between Israel and the U.S., unlike the Mutual Defense Treaty between South Korea and the U.S., the level of U.S. support and backing for Israel is higher than for any other ally or friendly nation.

Although there have been some disagreements with the current Netanyahu government, particularly regarding the Biden administration's attempts to revive the Iran nuclear deal, relations were restored through mediation efforts with Saudi Arabia. Crucially, in times of crisis, the U.S. is naturally compelled to support and back Israel. A prime example is Secretary of State Blinken's visit to Israel on the 12th, just after this major incident. In his first speech there, he stated, "I stand before you not only as Secretary of State but as a Jew, a husband, and a father." This statement was not merely formal but conveyed a deep emotional connection, emphasizing his Jewish identity and the strong common ground between him and Israel.

Regarding future political developments, we will have to wait and see. It remains difficult for the U.S. to easily disengage from the Middle East. The situation is complicated by its entanglement with the Ukraine conflict. The U.S. is supporting Ukraine against Russia's illegal invasion. If the conflict in the Middle East escalates from a dispute between Israel and Hamas to a broader conflict with Palestine, it will inevitably have a negative impact on support for Ukraine. U.S. Secretary of Defense Austin has repeatedly stated that the U.S. has the capacity to support both Ukraine and Israel in the Middle East. However, setting aside military capabilities, domestic public opinion in the U.S. regarding support for Ukraine is currently divided. As you know, in the unprecedented impeachment of the House Speaker, conservative Republicans, particularly the Freedom Caucus, hold a strongly negative view on supporting Ukraine. Therefore, even with military capability, it may not be easy due to these political circumstances. Furthermore, if the Israel-Hamas conflict intensifies, it raises questions about whether the U.S. can effectively manage the dispersion of its resources. If Russia achieves its objectives in the war, it would set a precedent where an authoritarian regime achieves its goals by annexing territory and invading a sovereign nation, which would have profoundly negative implications for the future global order.

In this regard, the Israel-Hamas conflict poses a significant burden for the U.S. and its allies who seek to ensure a victory for Ukraine within the framework of the liberal international order. Therefore, it is a cause for concern. Finally, let me discuss the implications for North Korea. North Korea will likely assess that the overall situation is not unfavorable to them. As I have mentioned on this program multiple times, North Korea declared a "frontal breakthrough" strategy at the 7th Central Committee's 5th Plenary Meeting in December 2019. A key element of this strategy is to maximize the advancement of their nuclear capabilities during the period of hostile policy towards the U.S. and South Korea. This creates a more favorable environment for their nuclear advancement. The U.S.'s foreign policy priorities have shifted significantly due to the war, and with the added complication of the Middle East issue, the Biden administration's capacity to address North Korea issues will continue to diminish. North Korea issues will inevitably be relegated to a lower priority in the Biden administration's foreign policy agenda. North Korea is likely to exploit this opportunity to continue pursuing nuclear advancement.

Secondly, if the conflict between Israel and Hamas, or Israel and Palestine, escalates and the U.S. maintains its stance of supporting Israel, criticism of Israel and the U.S. supporting it may grow. North Korea will undoubtedly exploit this situation. By strengthening cooperation with China and Russia, they will raise anti-U.S. voices and use this to legitimize their nuclear program. As I mentioned earlier, the more the U.S. focuses on the Middle East, the more North Korea will seek to exploit the resulting vacuum. This could lead to an increase in the intensity of North Korean provocations. However, not all of this is necessarily favorable to North Korea. The outcome could vary significantly. In a sense, it could be disadvantageous for North Korea if the U.S. does not prioritize them. For example,

when North Korea continues to launch missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, it is intended to pressure the U.S. If the U.S. does not engage, North Korea may fail to achieve its political objectives. Therefore, while the overall situation is not entirely unfavorable to North Korea, it is likely to develop in a way that benefits them in the broader context. This offers a lesson for us. While I cannot provide detailed policy recommendations, we must repeatedly confirm that neither the Ukraine war nor the Middle East conflict are distant issues. Especially when the Ukraine war first broke out, some viewed it as someone else's problem. But as we saw in September, with the meeting between Kim Jong-un and Putin, and recently, the transfer of North Korean weapons to Russia, and the potential for Russia to provide weapons to North Korea in return, this poses a direct threat to South Korea.

Therefore, South Korea, as a leading liberal democracy, must actively engage in global issues, raise its voice, and sometimes share the burden, thereby strengthening efforts to defend the liberal democratic order and the rules-based international order that are being challenged. I will conclude here for today. Please subscribe and like. Thank you.

North Korea will likely continue to pursue nuclear advancement. Another possibility is that if the conflict between Israel and Hamas, or Israel and Palestine, escalates, and the U.S. continues to support Israel, criticism of Israel and the U.S. may grow. North Korea will undoubtedly exploit this situation. By strengthening cooperation with China and Russia, they will raise anti-U.S. voices and use this to legitimize their nuclear program. As I mentioned earlier, the more the U.S. focuses on the Middle East, the more North Korea will seek to exploit the resulting vacuum. This could lead to an increase in the intensity of North Korean provocations. However, not all of this is necessarily favorable to North Korea. The outcome could vary significantly. In a sense, it could be disadvantageous for North Korea if the U.S. does not prioritize them. For example,

when North Korea continues to launch missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, it is intended to pressure the U.S. If the U.S. does not engage, North Korea may fail to achieve its political objectives. Therefore, while the overall situation is not entirely unfavorable to North Korea, it is likely to develop in a way that benefits them in the broader context. This offers a lesson for us. While I cannot provide detailed policy recommendations, we must repeatedly confirm that neither the Ukraine war nor the Middle East conflict are distant issues. Especially when the Ukraine war first broke out, some viewed it as someone else's problem. But as we saw in September, with the meeting between Kim Jong-un and Putin, and recently, the transfer of North Korean weapons to Russia, and the potential for Russia to provide weapons to North Korea in return, this poses a direct threat to South Korea.

Therefore, South Korea, as a leading liberal democracy, must actively engage in global issues, raise its voice, and sometimes share the burden, thereby strengthening efforts to defend the liberal democratic order and the rules-based international order that are being challenged. I will conclude here for today. Please subscribe and like. Thank you.