China, Japan, South Korea Three Countries with Long-Standing Grievances Attempt to Set Them Aside
Is there any chance East Asian security could serve as the common thread to allow three historic adversaries a way forward in cooperation?
The 11th Trilateral Foreign Ministers’ Meeting between China, South Korea, and Japan was held in Tokyo on March 22, 2025. South Korea and Japan were clearly seeking reassurance from China regarding the increasingly unpredictable and threatening behavior of North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong Un, particularly concerning his nuclear ambitions. While the foreign ministers made little progress on this issue, there are indications that Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping may be more inclined to support South Korea and Japan if doing so results in economic gains for China.
Recent Meeting Between China, South Korea, and Japan
The meeting between China, South Korea, and Japan is notable for the effort in bridging historical divisions in pursuit of mutual goals. However, these discussions aren’t likely to yield deep cooperation or substantial agreements, as all three cultures are honor-based and there is notable perceived dishonor among the nations. Confucianism influences each, ingraining the value of filial piety, respect for ancestors, and maintaining honor in both personal and professional life. This cultural framework ensures the past is not just remembered, but actively informs identity and future decisions. Furthermore, the differing strategic priorities of the three nations—China’s competition with the U.S., South Korea’s alignment with Washington, and Japan’s cautious engagement with Beijing—create additional fundamental obstacles.
Regardless of the outcome, China will use the opportunity to assert regional dominance and reinforce the need for regional relationships in lieu of U.S. influence. China will seek an opportunity to secure long-term commitments, while South Korea and Japan will be more pragmatic in seeking immediate relief from current security concerns.
Historical Problems Between China, South Korea, and Japan
These countries have old axes to grind and deeply entrenched historical grievances. Given these obstacles, the likelihood of sustained cooperation is extremely low. China’s perception of Japan is deeply tied to the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), with atrocities like the Nanking Massacre shaping Chinese perceptions of Japan. Territorial disputes also muddy the waters and exacerbate tensions. The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are a great example of this hurdle. These will continue to be working tools for garnering domestic support in both governments. On the other hand, South Korea and Japan also have longstanding issues. Japan’s colonial rule over Korea (1910–1945) included forced labor and sexual slavery—these unresolved violations fuel resentment, with South Korea demanding justice and reparations. Likewise, South Korea and China have the obstacle of North Korea, as well as the economic sanctions China imposed during the THAAD missile defense system deployment. These varied historic difficulties now hinder a coordinated effort to address North Korea’s nuclear program concerns.
North Korea’s Nuclear Program
North Korea’s nuclear program is the beacon of instability in East Asia. It represents direct challenges to both regional stability and global security. Kim’s regime continues to advance intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capabilities, lauding North Korea’s ability to reach the U.S. mainland with the Hwasong-18 missile’s improved range and reliability. North Korea’s production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium remains undiminished, with current estimates suggesting quantities for 20–60 nuclear warheads.
While both Japan and South Korea would be much more comfortable if China were to apply pressure on Kim, the reality is that North Korea is unlikely to abandon its nuclear ambitions. They will remain central to a security strategy that relies on the military element of national power to be heard. Diplomatic pressure will not lead to denuclearization, but with the right carrot, it could secure a temporary limit on testing or expansion. However, Iran is a consideration. The relationship between these two unpredictable regimes underscores a broader network of military cooperation that continues despite international pressure.
Iranian-North Korean Military Cooperation
Technology and expertise exchange is fundamental in missile development for both countries. Historically, they have shared ballistic missile designs originating from the A.Q. Khan network, and recent reports indicate military collaboration is unabated. This partnership is a key counterbalance to Western influence and sanctions. While Iran may use North Korean expertise to advance its missile capabilities, North Korea is receiving less benefit from nuclear-specific collaboration. While US and Israeli attempts to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program might weaken the effects of cooperation, Kim’s network of illicit procurement will remain resilient.
Potential Impact of Targeting Iran’s Nuclear Program
South Korea and Japan may feel that Chinese political intervention would better serve regional stability than that of a U.S. or partnered targeting of Iran’s nuclear program, believing a military operation could yield mixed outcomes for North Korea’s behavior.
A successful strike on Iran’s program might temporarily sever technology-sharing links between the two nations, weakening North Korea’s procurement networks and setting Iran back years. Additionally, the response would align with the current U.S. action-based approach to instability, letting the discussions occur after the consequences are clear. Such actions could signal international resolve, potentially deterring North Korea’s near-term negative behavior. Or it could force North Korea to entrench its relationship with Russia and challenge China to demonstrate support by doubling down on its nuclear strategy.
Examples of Political Engagements with North Korea
A review of previous political engagements with North Korea reveals their inherent limitations:
- The Six-Party Talks (2003–2009) failed to produce lasting results, with North Korea using the talks to extract concessions while continuing nuclear development. Realistically, North Korea views such negotiations as opportunities to stall, while using the international stage to legitimize its regime rather than as a pathway to compromise.
- In 2018, the Singapore Summit between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump temporarily suspended nuclear tests but again lacked binding agreements. Kim leveraged the summit to garner global attention and assert his view of international legitimacy without committing to substantive denuclearization.
- Kim again used the Inter-Korean Dialogue (2018 Panmunjom Declaration) to gain visibility on the international stage. Still, North Korea quickly abandoned the temporary military de-escalation zones for its more aggressive rhetoric.
Final Thoughts
Historical grievances in East-Asian cultures like China, South Korea, and Japan are deeply ingrained and unlikely to be genuinely resolved. Cooperation on North Korea’s nuclear threat is more a necessity than ideological alignment. The best they can hope for is compartmentalizing tensions for short-term gains, while retaining underlying mistrust. Progress will be incremental, driven by immediate needs rather than enduring partnerships. Ultimately, China’s outreach to Japan and South Korea is not just about North Korea but part of Xi’s broader effort to reshape regional influence amid U.S. strategic expansion in Asia.
(Disclaimer: Thoughts and assessments in this work are those of the author and are not meant to reflect organizational opinions of the Warrant Officer Career College or the Army.)
