Corea del Norte y el Mundo: Cambios y Reconfiguración Estructural del Orden Mundial Desencadenados por la Guerra en Irán

Enlace de YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIbvofk0I8s

■ Autor: Park Won-gon Director del Centro de Estudios de Corea del Norte del Instituto de Estudios de Asia Oriental (EAI). Profesor de Estudios de Corea del Norte en la Universidad de Ewha.

■ Coordinación y Edición: Lim Jae-hyunInvestigador del EAI

    Consultas: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 209) | jhlim@eai.or.kr

Guion del video

Hello, and thank you for watching Park Won-gon's North Korea and the World. Today, I would like to continue our discussion on the Iran-Israel war. The reason we are continuing to cover this topic is its immense impact; it is considered a war of significance that could become a turning point not only for the Korean Peninsula but also for the world order. Following up on our previous discussion, I will elaborate on the broad implications of this war. Briefly on the current situation, following the first round of negotiations, a second round is highly likely to take place in Islamabad, Pakistan, between the US and Iran.

Regarding the process so far, the US presented about 15 to 20 negotiation conditions for a ceasefire, to which Iran initially responded with about 5, later adjusting to about 10, according to media reports. What is important is that after the first round of negotiations, there are reports that the issues have narrowed down to two or three points. The core issue is whether Iran will have the right to enrich uranium. The problem of how to handle approximately 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium, these two issues are the core matters.

Changes in the US-China Strategic Competition Framework

Beyond that, there are unresolved issues such as the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the counter-blockade initiated by the US during the first negotiation period, and thirdly, Israel's ongoing attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon. This is considered the most significant agenda item. Other issues, such as the lifting of economic sanctions and the release of frozen assets, will be discussed in conjunction with the nuclear issue of enriched uranium. Therefore, it is assessed that these three agenda items are likely to be discussed between the US and Iran around next week. Today, I will discuss the significant impact this war could have on the world order. I will cover about four aspects. The first is the apparent withdrawal of the US from the US-China strategic competition. In November last year, the National Security Strategy was released in the US, followed by the Defense Strategy in January this year. Both of these strategies clearly identified China as the primary competitor. Although the intensity is weaker than previously discussed, there are no expressions labeling China as an enemy or a threat, or defining China itself as a threat. However, the crucial point is that China is considered the US's greatest competitor, and responding to this has been designated as the most important response. Yet, due to this war, we are inevitably compelled to question whether the US has the capacity, will, and ability to effectively implement this. The strategy of focusing on the Indo-Pacific, ultimately to contain China, is bound to falter significantly. Firstly, a large volume of military supplies has been used. While not the entire Patriot battalion or THAAD battalion in Korea has been mobilized, a significant portion of missiles is likely to have been moved to the Middle East. Although US and South Korean authorities have not officially confirmed this, movements have been sufficiently observed. Therefore, it is clear that the overall US capacity, the military capacity intended to be focused on this region, has decreased compared to before.

China, taking advantage of this opportunity, is judged to be enjoying what is called a 'period of strategic tranquility.' While the US is preoccupied with the Middle East, China is making sufficient progress in various strategic directions it desires. It has gained an opportunity to eliminate its vulnerabilities and enhance its national strength. When China released its new five-year plan last time, three points were central: reducing reliance on external demand, advancing industrial technology, and increasing supply chain self-sufficiency. For example, in terms of artificial intelligence competition, the US is currently focused on generative AI, isn't it? In contrast, China is rapidly commercializing robot technology beyond generative AI and is leading the world in all aspects, including price competitiveness, and I believe the gap is widening considerably. This involves diversifying investments in areas like robotics, beyond 5G to 6G, and what is called cutting-edge AI. On the other hand, the US, due to the ongoing war, inevitably has significantly reduced financial capacity and political focus. China is exploiting this gap. Therefore, as the situation continues, there is a high probability that the balance of US-China competition will quietly tilt towards China. The advantages and capabilities of the US in its relationship with China are weakening due to this war.

Strengthening European Defense Autonomy

Secondly, I believe Europe's self-reliance may accelerate. The Wall Street Journal published an analysis article the day before yesterday, and its core objective appears to be creating a military structure that can at least sustain itself even if the US withdraws from NATO. Specifically, it is known that three pillars are being prepared. The first is the 'NATO without US scenario,' where the existing NATO command and logistics structure is used, but European countries can continue operations independently even if troops or strategic assets are withdrawn. Currently, NATO's existing command and logistics structure is led by the US. If the US were to withdraw, I believe NATO would lack sufficient influence to manage this on its own. However, following President Trump's strong remarks, the goal is to develop the capability to manage this independently in the event of US absence. This is the first pillar. The second is a rearmament plan at the European Union level. While EU plus the UK can be considered NATO, this is a rearmament plan at the EU level. This involves projects like 'Zeitenwende 2030' announced in 2025 and a European rearmament plan of approximately 800 billion euros. The active pursuit of this is being reaffirmed through this war, and defense spending is to be increased from 2.5% to 5% of GDP to 3% by 2030. President Trump strongly demanded 5%, which includes indirect costs.

In practice, this involves increasing it to about 2.5% to 3% and establishing a European defense industrial ecosystem, as well as developing advanced systems like drones and AI. A rearmament plan is being prepared at the European level. The third point, which I believe is very important, is the change in Germany's attitude. Germany has not been proactive in the past. However, through this Iran war, Germany is demonstrating that it can lead even in the absence of the US. A concrete manifestation of this is Germany's declaration to spend approximately $750 billion on defense over the next four years, as of 2029. Germany's annual defense spending is about $189 billion, which would place it third in the world.

The US spends over $1 trillion, followed by China with about $400 to $500 billion. $189 billion is comparable to a wartime economy. Spending this amount could become a significant asset for a new form of European self-reliance. The division of roles within Europe is also becoming more concrete. Germany's defense industry is very strong, isn't it? Currently, South Korean indigenous weapon systems appear to be ahead of German ones in some aspects, but German designs are prevalent in many weapon systems. Even after the Cold War and into the post-Cold War era, they did not revive their defense industry, but if they revive it following the Russia-Ukraine war and the Iran war, they are likely to possess considerable capabilities. Furthermore, Poland, as a country bordering Russia, will play a role in frontline defense. France and the UK, possessing nuclear weapons, will be responsible for nuclear deterrence and power. This indicates that Europe feels a sense of crisis. Therefore, through this Iran war, Europe is preparing with the mindset that it must stand on its own. Of course, this does not mean Europe intends to actively break away from the US; rather, it means that if the US withdraws, Europe must fill that void itself.

Increased Instability in the Global Energy Supply Chain

Third, the global energy supply chain is being shaken. We are all experiencing this, aren't we? Oil prices in Korea are rising, and global oil prices continue to increase. While President Trump often makes nonsensical statements, he claims that rising oil prices benefit the US as an oil exporter. However, oil prices are determined by the global economy, and US oil prices are also rising. Currently, the average price of gasoline at US gas stations is approaching $4.50 per gallon. This is very high. For reference, before the Iran war, the average price was $2.80, and it could exceed $5, nearly doubling. This directly impacts the perceived economic indicators in the US, making it highly likely to act unfavorably for Trump's political journey.

Not only the US but the global energy supply chain is being shaken. The Secretary General of the International Energy Agency has described this war as the greatest threat to global energy security in history. Within three weeks of the war's outbreak, oil prices surged by 55%. As you know well, the Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint through which about 20% of the world's oil and 33% of liquefied natural gas pass. Consequently, as these routes are disrupted, we are seeing instances of fuel rationing, reduced working hours, and factory shutdowns in various places, and South Korea is no exception. Countries worldwide are treating energy not merely as a commodity but as a weapon of survival and are increasing their strategic oil reserves. China is one of the most proactive nations in this regard. Europe is accelerating its transition to renewable energy, and South Korea is also seeking to reduce its dependence on the Middle East. Therefore, the energy supply chain, which previously operated on market principles, is transforming into a battlefield of survival competition between nations. This is the third impact of the current Iran war on the world order.

Restructuring of the Middle East Order and the Role of the US

Finally, the fourth impact is the restructuring of the Middle East order. The pro-US Gulf monarchies, which had effectively formed an alliance with the US and entrusted their defense to it, are now at a moment where they must coldly assess the value of this alliance with Washington due to this war. In the early stages of the war, the US deployed its anti-missile defense system to Israel, leaving the Gulf region's infrastructure relatively defenseless. We are seeing reports on TV of attacks on Gulf monarchies, and while many are intercepted by existing air defense systems, we also see instances where these systems are breached. Consequently, a distrust is solidifying among the Gulf monarchies that if a choice arises, the US will prioritize Israel's security over that of the Gulf states. This is not only in the current instance but also recalls the 2019 attack on Saudi Aramco facilities, where the US did not respond proactively. There was also the incident where the US ultimately failed to prevent Israel's strike on the Hamas negotiation delegation operating in Doha in 2025. The accumulation of such events is inevitably leading to increased distrust of the US among these Gulf nations. While it is unlikely that these countries will immediately turn their backs on the US, they are likely to move towards a strategic middle ground, departing from the US-centric order. I believe the implications of this will be highly significant.

South Korea's Complex Challenges and Response Strategies

So, what about South Korea? Our situation has also become very complex. In terms of security, cooperation with the US is irreplaceable. However, this war presents us with new challenges simultaneously from three directions: US-China competition, alliance autonomy, and energy restructuring. Therefore, I believe we seriously need to consider whether a strategy relying on a single pillar is appropriate. The world is rapidly moving from a rules-based order to a power-based order, and in this upheaval, a multi-layered and more complex response is becoming increasingly urgent. I will conclude my remarks here for today. Thank you.