Could South Korea play the role of knight on chessboard of international politics?

By Lee Jong-eun

International politics has sometimes been described as that of a great chessboard. The description has been controversial due to its implicit assumption that weak states are like "pawns" used by the great powers to engage in strategic rivalry against each other. Subsequently, while the image of a chessboard evokes, to some policy analysts, rational policy calculations driving the international system, to other analysts, it evokes the vulnerabilities of entrapment and the abandonment weaker states face in the international system.

Since its establishment, the Republic of Korea has also been portrayed as a small chess piece in regional geopolitics. One prominent explanation for the Korean War is that the USSR approved North Korea's invasion as a geopolitical strategy to test the resolve of the United States. The U.S., in turn, defended South Korea based on the domino theory, which stated that even the fall of a minor state to communism could lead to communist expansion in more globally significant states.

Seventy years after the Korean War armistice, there remain anxieties within contemporary South Korean domestic politics that their country is still a pawn in regional geopolitics. Many South Koreans perceive their country as vulnerable, sacrificed as a "vanguard" in the U.S.-China geopolitical conflict. They also fear South Korea is vulnerable to abandonment in the face of the DPRK's nuclear provocations, as the U.S. would not sacrifice Seattle for Seoul.

However, often an overlooked aspect of the chessboard analogy is that there is a wide range of chess pieces on a chessboard. There are bishops, knights and rooks, whose strategic values might be less significant than that of a king or a queen but critical to any successful chess strategy. Similarly, the binary comparison of a superpower and weak states overlook the role of medium powers influencing the superpower's grand strategy.

For the U.S. President, New York's security might be more important than that of Paris, but neither is Paris a city the U.S. government could easily sacrifice geopolitically. Nor can a superpower easily dismiss the objections of medium powers whose roles are critical to the success of the former's grand strategy. In the Russia-Ukraine War, the U.S. government is sensitive toward France and Germany's caution on escalating economic and military pressures on Russia. In Asia and the Middle East, the U.S. tolerates countries such as Turkey, India and Saudi Arabia pursuing, at times, foreign policies that are divergent from the U.S.' preference to keep them as strategic partners within NATO and Quad.

Today's South Korea, with the 10th largest economy and sixth strongest military capacity in the world, is undisputedly a medium power. Though in the past, Korea's strategic values were often defined solely as a geographic buffer for China or Japan, contemporary South Korea demonstrates strategic values by its own capacity. South Korea's growing contributions to the global economy, technology, entertainment and culture have been widely noted. Since the Russia-Ukraine War, South Korea's contributions to global arms procurement have also increased, as Europe and the U.S. rely on South Korean defense companies to replenish arms sent to Ukraine.

Contemporary South Korea is strategically too valuable, in both hard and soft power, for the U.S. to easily sacrifice or abandon it. Though this does not mean that South Korea faces no security vulnerabilities, South Korean policymakers can have reassurances that their country has greater leverage than in the past over the chessboard of international politics. Such reassurance should also encourage South Korean policymakers to play a more proactive role in influencing the chess game of geopolitical strategy.

Could South Korea then play the role of a knight in the geopolitical arena? In chess, a knight is a unique piece that neither moves diagonally nor linearly but combines vertical and horizontal movement in a flexible pattern. South Korea should also strive for the role of a flexible ally who encourages the U.S.-led alliance to explore both "soft" and "hard" breakthroughs in its geopolitical challenges.

There are situations when hard deterrence measures benefit the geopolitical interests of South Korea and the U.S.-led alliance. The establishment of the ROK-U.S. Nuclear Consultation Group and the ROK's commitment to "stability" over the Taiwan Strait are appropriate deterrence measures as a relevant security stakeholder in the Northeast Asia region. In different situations, South Korea should be open to playing the role of an arbitrator in diffusing geopolitical tensions.

For example, a more nuanced involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war preserves an opportunity for South Korea's future diplomatic overtures with Russia for the interests of Northeast Asian regional security. Despite current security tensions with North Korea, there might come a time when the South Korean government should again be at the forefront in advocating a diplomatic settlement with the DPRK.

To some readers, my proposal might appear to suggest strategically inconsistent behaviors that could undermine South Korea's credibility as an ally. Certainly, I recognize the importance of strategic trust and coordination between South Korea and the U.S., as well as with other security stakeholders, including NATO and Japan. However, I propose that the U.S.-led alliance and international security benefit from the diverse roleplaying of stakeholders. South Korea's role as a knight in advocating creative, flexible approaches to geopolitical challenges will complement other security stakeholders more fixed toward a particular strategic orientation. Furthermore, this role play could turn the perception of South Korea's fluctuating domestic politics into a positive trait of strategic adaptability.

With confidence that their country is not a pawn but potentially a knight on the geopolitical chessboard, I hope South Korea's domestic politics will also transcend the debate over "pro-U.S." vs "anti-U.S." foreign policy orientation. Rather, I hope South Korea takes "Yong-Mi"(用美), "pro-using U.S." approach in proactively making use of the U.S.-ROK alliance to cultivate a role South Korea could play to advance its strategic interests and contribute to geopolitical security.

Lee Jong-eun, Ph.D., is assistant professor of political science at North Greenville University.