UkraineWorld spoke to Natalia Butyrska, expert on East Asia.
Key points – in our brief, #UkraineWorldAnalysis:
1. On the origins of the Korean Armistice
- Let us circle back to the end of the Second World War. The Korean Peninsula had been occupied by Japan since 1910. In 1945, American and Soviet forces took over the peninsula from the Japanese. The Soviet Union came in from the North and American forces from the South, meeting up along the 38th parallel with the idea that each side would withdraw its troops and Korea would gain its independence.
- Since these forces were on the peninsula, military administrations were needed. The Soviet Union installed Kim Jong Il, while the US put Syngman Rhee in power. The military forces were withdrawn from the region, but each of the established powers wanted to unite the peninsula in its own way. An ideological contradiction between communist North and western-backed South emerged. Thus, in 1950, the Korean War began.
- A UN peacekeeping contingent was deployed to South Korea, and a Chinese contingent of 270,000 troops was deployed to North Korea. In 1953, the US-led United Nations force, and China came to an agreement to stop hostilities. South Korea, however, refused to sign on, as Syngman Rhee wanted to unite Korea under Seoul's rule. The 38th parallel became the most mined delineation between the communist and western worlds.
2. On the large misunderstandings of the historical background
- We heard a call for a "Korean scenario" from the Indonesian Defense Minister during the Shangri-La Dialogue, an Asian security summit held in Singapore on 2-4 June. Immediately after his speech, the South Korean Minister of Defense took the floor and discussed the problems his country faces: it is in a constant state of war, and faces dangers from North Korea's missile tests, drone launches, and intensified threats of nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, the world does not understand the lessons it should have learned in the 70 years since the armistice.
3. On why a Korean scenario does not make sense for the Russo-Ukrainian war
- First, the UN Security Council has already demonstrated its inability to resolve post-war conflicts.
- Neither Ukraine nor Russia are willing to negotiate. Ukraine is defending its territory, while Russia demands that Ukraine recognize so-called "territorial realities" in order to even start negotiations. Instead of pressuring Russia, which is much weaker than the Soviet Union was in the 1950s, some states want to freeze the conflict.
- Moreover the nature of Russo-Ukrainian war is drastically different from the Korean War. Ukrainians are not facing a civil war, and this is not a war between Ukrainians. While Koreans constitute one nation, Ukrainians and Russians are two tremendously different societies.
- And unlike Korea, Ukraine has no economic, religious, or ideological cleavages dividing the nation. Although pro-Russian politicians have tried to divide us by language, origin, and social status, Ukrainians have been more interested in economic development than in the narratives that Russia has tried to push through its "Russian world."
- Failure to understand what is happening - that Russia has seized another country's territories in violation of international law - and attempts to justify the aggressor - as a sort of Russian fight against NATO troops and the West - lead to completely unviable proposals for resolving this war which would only freeze this tragedy.
- By the way, we have already had a frozen conflict where, under the pressure of the Normandy format and the Minsk talks, the territory of Ukraine's Donbas was subject to unbearable conditions of living due to Russia's hybrid aggression, and more than 10,000 people were killed.
Daria Synhaievska, Analyst at UkraineWorld
Natalia Butyrska, expert on East Asia
