Ben Morgan’s Pacific Update: South Korea’s political crisis, a cause for concern?
Last week’s crisis in South Korea, initiated by President Yoon Suk Yeol’s invocation of martial law, caused considerable concern around the world. South Korea is a large and powerful nation that is a lynchpin in US Indo-Pacific strategy. Political instability in South Korea could be very dangerous and destabilising for the whole region. For instance, on 9 December, the Guardian quoted Ewha University Professor, Leif-Eric Easley, who said that “Leaders in Russia, China, and especially North Korea, are likely watching the political turmoil in South Korea with glee, sensing a geopolitical advantage.” Essentially, any loss of confidence in South Korean governance carries a high level of risk.
Since 1988, South Korea has been democratically governed, but has history of military interventions in politics. During the Korean war martial law was imposed several times, and the country’s first president Syngman Rhee was an authoritarian ruler. Rhee was ousted by a military coup in 1961. Major General Park Chung-hee seized power, ruling until he was assassinated in 1979. Tanks and soldiers entered Seoul later that year as Major General Chun Doo-hwan led South Korea’s second military coup. Another authoritarian he brutally suppressed opposition to his regime, that was eventually ousted by mass protests in 1987.
This history meant that many commentators and observers were very concerned about the situation. However, in this case, democratic checks and balances operated effectively and the crisis was resolved quickly and peacefully, the nation’s parliament immediately countermanding the decree. Although there is still political debate about details like managing the transition of power and whether the military should have responded to the president’s decree. My assessment is that this crisis demonstrates the strength of South Korean governance. The fact that the decision was protested immediately by the wider population, that the parliament acted quickly and effectively and that the military easily acquiesced are indications that South Korea’s democratic institutions are strong.
India distancing itself from Russia
India is an emergent power in the Pacific region the nation’s ‘Act East’ foreign policy doctrine starting to take effect with Indian politicians and warships visiting the region. Reinforcing existing links with Japan and Australia via the Quadrilateral Dialogue (the Quad). Additionally, this year, India announced its plan to build an embassy in Timor Leste. All factors that make India a country that people interested in the Pacific should study.
Recently, the Institute for the Study of War reported that “India is reportedly attempting to decouple its defense industry from Russia as it increases cooperation with Western defense companies and builds up its own defense industrial base (DIB).” The Institute quoted an article in Bloomberg, dated 3 December.
This reporting indicates that India is reducing military equipment orders from Russia, choosing instead to develop defence industry links with US and European suppliers. It was reported that India has cancelled plans to collaborate with Russia to build helicopters and fighter planes. Further, that plans to lease a Russian nuclear-powered submarine for training purposes are unlikely to proceed.
It is also noteworthy that in August, Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi visited Ukraine and the Institute for the Study of War reports that after this visit the US purchased Indian artillery ammunition and shipped it to Ukraine. If this reporting is correct, it indicates India is politically distancing itself from Russia.
Although India and Russia have a long history of defence partnership, it is no surprise that India wants to look at other arrangements. In a commercial sense, the war in Ukraine has proven that Russian equipment is second-rate and not suitable for the modern battlefield. Further, any defence industry partnership requires a high-level of trust, and Russia’s corrupt state infrastructure impacts on commercial governance. Military procurements are often expensive, and include long-term training and maintenance requirements so it is important that a defence partner is going to deliver on these commitments.
At a political level, Russia is rapidly losing international influence, both India and China have expressed their concerns about Putin’s nuclear threats. Putin’s use of nuclear threats is de-stabilising and undermine Russian diplomacy because Russia is either a rogue state that may be willing to use nuclear weapons, or Putin is a posturing bully. And, neither option represents a good choice for an international partner.
In the Pacific, the impact is likely to be India’s increasing participation in the region’s security architecture. Leveraging off the Quad, and commercial alliances it is likely that Indian will become more engaged with Pacific powers like the US, Australia, Japan, and South Korea. Nations with strong defence industries that will be keen to partner with India. Defence companies work closely with the home nation militaries, and this will encourage more shared training with India. Therefore, expect to see India developing closer defence ties with the Pacific’s larger powers.
Sweden, an example of NATO’s increasing interest in the Pacific
Recent statements by Swedish Defence Minister Pal Jonson indicate that his country is keen to develop stronger defence ties with the Pacific. Sweden’s position is indicative of a trend for NATO nations to become more engaged in the Pacific. Since the 2022 NATO Strategic Concept expanded the alliance’s area of interest to in include maritime trade in the Indo-Pacific region and highlighted China’s risk to European security, European nations have become more engaged in the Pacific.
Likewise, key Pacific nations, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand have been provided with greater access to NATO decision-making, policy setting and military information sharing.
Speaking at Tokyo University, Jonson discussed how the war in Ukraine, specifically China and North Korea’s support for Russia highlights the interconnectedness of modern security discussions. Sweden recently released a new defence policy, and plans to increase its participation in international defence arrangements. Regarding the Pacific, Sweden plans to engage both through the alliance and bi-laterally with specific countries.
In the Pacific, Sweden’s activity will probably include more discussion about defence policy, military exchanges, liaison and training in the Pacific. Another important change is likely to be a significant increase in Swedish commercial activity. Sweden has an impressive armament industry that produces everything from ammunition, to submarines, warships and aircraft. Since 2022, Sweden already has a defence technology and equipment transfer deal with Japan, and will certainly be looking for other partners in the region.
One opportunity for partnership may be the Global Combat Air Programme, a project to develop a 6th Generation fighter aircraft that currently involves, the UK, Italy and Japan. Sweden previously investigated a partnership with the UK, but withdrew but may want to engage in the programme. It is likely that we will see more integration of programmes like this as technologically capable Pacific nations like Japan, South Korea and Australia start to work together with NATO countries.
After the announcement in November that the European Union is signing defence agreements with Japan and South Korea, the Swedish Defence Minister’s comments are further evidence of European/NATO security interest in the Pacific. We should expect to see more, whether it is NATO’s Pacific partners (South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) participating in policy develop, commercial collaboration or joint training exercises. A dynamic that will influence security discussions in the region.
Melanesian update
A regular update on the Pacific’s least reported trouble spot; Melanesia.
Papua New Guinea’s police budget increases
The release of Papua New Guinea’s 2025 annual budget includes a noteworthy increase in police funding. Key highlights include a 19% increase in the staff budget, Papua New Guinea’s Treasurer Ian Ling-Stuckey stating the aim is to increase the police force’s size by 10,000 officers in the next five years. Additionally, the force’s operation budget will increase by 67%, allowing for modernisation of key equipment.
The Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary faces a huge task, the nation is large, rugged and riven by tribal feuds that can escalate into violence. Recently, firearms have become more accessible meaning that inter-tribal warfare has become bloodier.
Increasing the police budget is a step in the right direction, providing more resources so that the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary can enforce the law more effectively, providing people across the nation with greater safety and stability.
Australia increases police support for Solomon Islands
This week the Australian government announced it will increase support for the Solomon Islands police force. Solomon Islands, is a small nation to the north-east of Australia, that in recent years has become diplomatically closer to China. This situation means there is intense Sino-Australian competition for influence in the nation.
Solomon Islands has a history of political violence, and between 1998 and 2003 the island was racked by warfare between rival ethnic groups. The Australian led Regional Assistance Mission Solomon Islands (RAMSI) stopped the fighting, disarmed the various militant groups and supported the re-establishment of government. Internal security remains an important issue for the government.
Solomon Islands has discussed increasing the size of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force since early this year, to a total of about 3,000 staff. In late November, Police Minister Jimson Tanangada and a group of officials, ministers and army officers visited Townsville to discuss security matters. Townsville is the garrison town for Australia’s 3rd Brigade, so is the likely launch pad for future Australian security assistance to Solomon Islands.
Since then, Australia has announced plans to increase the number of staff deployed to assist with training, and will increase amount of equipment it supplies to Solomon Islands. This discussion is noteworthy because it may indicate a closer relationship developing between Solomon Islands and Australia.
Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer, a former Officer in NZDF and TDBs Military Blogger – his work is on substack
India’s choice of non Russian weapons is mainly due to Russia’s inability to supply rather than the dubious quality or performance of the equipment (eg French Rafale fighter jets as replacements for the MIG 29’s ordered but not delivered and the urgent need for maritime fighter jets for the two Indian aircraft carriers).
It would be mistake to interpret South Korean political instability as a military weakness. When push comes to shove and North Korea thinks it has the military upper hand due to political instability in the South, expect nothing but a united reply. Like squabbling siblings, South Korea will unite to defend and attack any mutually perceived threat from the North.
A nation not on the list of influence for the Pacific region is Indonesia. Where does she sit in regards the Pacific turmoil? Was not that long ago Australia was building defenses against an invasion from its North (after Malay emergency – 1960, East Timor – 1999 and Bali bombings – 2002). Indonesia and Australia recently (Aug-24) signed a defence cooperation agreement so that frees up Australia pacific visions further east and north.
At some point the frozen conflict in Korea will resolve itself. Nort Koreas political system of a tyrannical dictatorship is quite obviously past it’s use by date. The fact that the South Korean democratic system resisted the coup must have been noted by all Koreans. I’d hope that the reunification will follow the German model, but for as long as the US has troops there and for as long as the new cold war carries on it won’t happen.
German reunification happened even with US troops stationed in West Germany. Wall fell due to 10,000 people (backed by 500,000 strong protest rallies) simply walking up to the wall, breaching a lone sentry point and pulling the wall down. This is in the era where Reagan and Gorbachev where in direct consultation regarding ending the cold war. Reagan utter the famous word “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall” and the East Germans did. Once the one point was breached both East and West exercised people power to bring the iron curtain down.
Worth a read for the East German people were fed up (forcing Honekers resignation) and people power proved to much; https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/fall-of-the-berlin-wall/
“Thousands of civilians massed at critical points along the Berlin Wall, demanding that Grepo guards honour the government’s promise and open the gates. Uncertain of their orders and under pressure from the crowd, the guards relented and threw open the barriers. Thousands of East Germans streamed across the border. Others scaled the wall and embraced Berliners from the other side, sitting atop the structure and drinking beer and champagne. ”
I cant see North Koreans simply walking up to the DMZ and opening up the border. Be interesting to see what the new leadership will look like if the current KIM “falls under a bus” or suffers a medical failure. Younger sister is next in line but will the Generals obey? Conditions need to change markedly before any North Koreans will think for themselves. No tension for change in the hermit kingdom. Irrespective of US deployment in South Korea.
It’s more likely that South Koreans will emulate the West Germans. The Soviet fell when the Soviet people recognized that the regime had lost purpose and legitimacy. Re the fall of communism it was not the “liberal” West that collapsed the system, it was the contradictions within that could not be reformed. Western liberalism wars a mere beneficiary, not the victor it claims to be.
We have pretty much known since the 1980s that Russian equipment is rubbish. Cockburn’s “The Threat” was published around 1984 I think, and he took the somewhat obvious course (which few if any had really thought of before) of interviewing Russians who had left the USSR and the served in the military. I guess it’s nice to have it confirmed though.
So GS, who has developed, deployed and demonstrated hypersonic weapons (something the US have attempted and failed)? Must be more rubbishy Russian weapons. Cockburn’s book is a long time ago.
Problem with powered horizontal flight path hyper sonic weapons is the flight control / guidance system. A horizontal hyper sonic missile function in the lower atmosphere is subject to extreme heat and atmospheric buffering. Requires an incredibly advanced control system to maintain flight.
Worth a read; very technical but shows what computations are required,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936121004167
“However, compared to traditional aircraft, the engine-fuselage integrated design of AHV results in a strong coupling between the propulsion system and aerodynamic system. In addition, the characteristics of static instability, strong nonlinearity, and uncertain aerodynamic parameters bring huge challenges to its control system design. Not only that, the complex flight environment of hypersonic vehicle is easy to produce external disturbance, which will cause actuator failure, saturation and engine thermal choking of vehicle, resulting in system instability.”
This is versus a non powered vertical hyper sonic missile the US, Germany, UK, France, Korea (North and South), Japan, etc. have developed over the years. Take a missile into space on a rocket and let gravity do the rest with small retro rockets to make final targeting adjustments. Much simpler and more accurate.
Problem for horizontal hyper sonic missiles is their perceived strength, speed. For the GPS system required to place them on target has a lag factor (ie signal to satellite, back to missile, onboard calculations, repositioning maneuvers – using flight control surfaces – relative to target) All required in a milli second else target overshoot is a huge possibility. This constant flight stabilisation requirement can set up over correcting oscillations and induce flight “wobbles”.
Add to that flight friction induced heat effect on the multiple flight control surfaces and actuators you are spending a lot of energy that can be simply reproduced in a non powered missile launched into the upper atmosphere and coming down vertically.
Big challenges eh Gerrit. Yet the hypersonics have been highly accurate. Have a read of Andrei Martanyovs books on the revolution in rocketry. He’s Russian so ignore the bias and sarcasm.
One example is all you’ve got? Hypersonic missile technology is relatively new, even if research began in the 1930s. The US has been expected to deploy at least one of them this year, even the North Koreans are claiming to have them.
On the other hand – stuff like tanks – Russian tanks breakdown more often, blow up more often, and are more difficult to maintain, in spite of Russian propaganda to the contrary. Last I checked they were still following the design philosophy that a tank would only last a few months on the battlefield so it is not worth making it properly. And they are still using many of the weapons mentioned in Cockburn’s book.
It remains to be seen how many sophisticated weapons like the hypersonic missiles they can actually put in the field. I mean in theory they should be thousands of those “sophisticated” T 14 tanks right? They’ve been withdrawn from the front line after a very short period of “testing”.
I think you’ll need more evidence than hypersonic missiles to convince me.
GS suggest you use Dr Google especially about the US hypersonic test developments. They failed, the program was scrapped and told to start again. It is estimated that the USA is around ten years behind.
In terms of weaponry I’d suggest that nations forces fight according to doctrines that are supported by appropriate weapons. Every single example of Western equipment sent to Ukraine has been destroyed. Obviously the Russian weapons do the job.
I suggest you use it Nick. The program was cancelled, but the missile tests were successful. The main reason the US is behind – certainly not 10 years for Christ’s sake – is because conventionally armed hypersonic weapons are much more complicated, because they need to be more accurate than nuclear hypersonic missiles.
Your other point is a nonsense. There is no invulnerable piece of equipment, Western or otherwise. But on the whole the Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard tanks have proved far more resistant to Russian weapons than Russian tanks to pretty much anything. For one thing there are no catastrophic ammunition explosions which kill the whole crew and send the turret metres into the air. Largely because of course there are no blowout panels. And the performance against slightly older Russian weapons in previous wars has been outstanding. Given that the Russians are rapidly running out of more modern weapons and having to rely on stockpiles of older technology, I can’t see any huge problems.
I have done your work for you on hypersonics…read carefully you will note US plan to deploy 2027….China deployed 2019. https://thediplomat.com/2024/01/hurdles-in-the-hypersonic-race-the-united-states-failed-arrw-program/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20on%20three%20occasions,of%20this%20hypersonic%20missile%20program.
On tanks why is my point nonsense? Who cares which is better or worse or how they blow up? The point is that they do get destroyed. And it would appear that expensive Abrams, Leopards and Challengers are remarkably easy to destroy with cheap new weapons like drones. Both sides do it, watch the countless videos.