Beyond Security: South Korea’s Rejection Towards Us Initiative of Trilateralism

ABSTRACT


INTRODUCTION
Foreign policy is always devoted to achieving national interests. Regarding the Realist perspective, international affairs must be considered with national security as requirement for a nation state to be called a sovereign country. Without security, it will be difficult for a country to run the government (Griffiths, Callaghan, & Roach, 2008). Therefore, every nation state tries to create security for its own., including the Republic of Korea (ROK or South Korea).
After the ceasefire that marked the separation of the two Koreas in 1953, there was no significant improvement in the Two Koreas relations. These two countries are still at odds with each other. For South Korea, North Korea poses a major security threat with its nuclear weapons. This threat applies not only to South Korea, but also to Japan as the two main alliances of the United States (US).` Disturbing by the threat of continuing nuclear weapons carried out by North Korea, the U.S. proposing a proposal to embody a military cooperation with South Korea and Japan, which was more formal and institutionalized, called the Trilateral Military Alliance. Considering this aims as an effort to deter Pyongyang, it was also carried out to create security in the East Asia region. The alliance is a form of concentration and institutionalization of security affairs of the three countries.
In international relations, trilateralism refers to relations involve three entities that have the same political goals and strategic vision of regional and international arrangements. Trilateral cooperation or also called trilateralism is often described more than bilateral cooperation but is a simple form of multilateralism (Kamphausen, Park, Sahashi, & Szwalwinski, 2018, p. 3). It believes that Trilateralism has a bigger potential to bring great benefits to each member in the security sector. It is the most minimized multilateral form and hence inherits some basic advantages of traditional multilateralism while avoiding the most serious problems (Zhang, 2020). Aliance will be able to save costs and multiply benefits through the division of responsibilities, the distribution of common assets, or only the protection provided by having a stronger country as an ally (Tetrais, 2004, p. 136).
Although an alliance can provide benefits for participating countries, President Moon Jae In made an unexpected statement. In his interview with Channel News Asia Singapore, President Moon Jae In stated, Why did President Moon Jae In firmly reject the invitation from US and Japan to join the Trilateral Military Alliance? His words represented South Korean foreign policy which seems neglected the best strategy to resolve the security problem.
This article will discuss the reasons for South Korea's refusal to join the trilateral military alliance with the U.S. and Japan by a qualitative approach on the library research methods. Using the wide spread materials, namely scholarly articles, books, reports, and news, this research also used a primary data from a deep interview with a senior scholar from South Korea who have firsthand knowledge of any number of experiences. It offers qualitative researchers a way to capture the lived experiences of participants (Janesick, 2014). The researchers believe that interpretive qualitative research does not reduce the value of research as a scientific work.

METHODS
In writing about foreign policy studies, researchers use literature study methods and interpretive approaches. This research is a qualitative study that aims to understand the reasons for South Korea's refusal to join the trilateral military alliance with the US and Japan. Some common approaches used are basic theory, ethnography, action research, phenomenological research, and narrative research. Despite some similarities, each approach emphasizes different goals and perspectives. The qualitative researcher also considers himself an "instrument" in research, so all conclusions, perceptions, and views are interpreted through his personal lens. Therefore, when writing about qualitative analysis methods, it is important to focus on your strategy and provide a detailed description of the choices made in collecting and evaluating data.

Benefits of Trilateralism and Military Alliance
Trilateralism is a burden sharing strategy. It may be hold in separated sector, such as economic, social, and security. This collaborative works become popular in the US-led structured of international relations in East Asia (Zhang, 2020). In the military sector, it is closely related with the term "alliance".
Dr. Sangit Sarita cites the opinion of Arnold Wolfer to define an alliance as a promise of joint military assistance between two or more sovereign states. Alliances play a central role in international relations because they are seen as an integral part of statehood. An alliance is formed between two or more countries to fight a common enemy. Weak countries enter into alliances when they need protectionagainst strong countries, also in order to defend themselves. Strong countries enter into alliances to fight other powerful countries. The state expects its allies to help militarily and diplomatically during the conflict (Dwivedi, 2012, p. 1-2).
The main benefits of the alliance are obviously security, but many non-security benefits can also be obtained from the alliance. The benefits of security in a joint defense alliance include a lower possibility of deterrence, have greater strength in terms of attack (defense) and prevent the formation of alliances between allies and one's enemies (preclusion). The Alliance provides a substantial increase quickly. Increasing military capability alone will take a long time, while alliances become a reliable choice (Chun, 2000, p. 76).
Trilateralisme between the U.S., South Korea, and Japan is a necessary and effective approach to address many of the challenges of traditional and non-traditional inside and outside Asia. The most successful trilateral initiatives happen when they are based on resisting joint threats and promoting concrete common interests, rather than being done only for three countries wanting to do something together (Kamphausen, Park, Sahashi, & Szwalwinski, 2018, p. 2).
The intrinsic value of trilateral relations is a legitimate form of regional cooperation that benefits all participating parties. Muhui Zhang argues that because the number of cooperative partners is relatively small, minilateralism is widely known for efficiency, considering that complications and transaction costs are expected to be proportional to the number of actors involved in multilateral arrangements. It is not unusual for members with very different interests decide to stop multilateral cooperation because of the high bureaucratic burden and administrative costs (Kamphausen, Park, Sahashi, & Szwalwinski, 2018, p. 5). Trilateralism also offers many of the same benefits as traditional multilateralisms. In the first place, to ensure a stable and effective communication flow by institutionalizing the contact point for partners. Trilateral cooperation also facilitates long-term policy planning and fosters institutional development among the countries involved.
After trilateralism, it is also necessary to discuss the importance of a military alliance. This is to focus the discussion not only on the benefits of the alliance, but also on the military alliances planned to be formed by the United States. The perceived benefit of joining a formal military alliance is the belief that because such a form of collective defense enhances security by providing formal military commitments and other elements of national power among signatories, the alliance hinders the actions of potential enemies (Cook, 2013, p. 561). In the case of the U.S., South Korea and Japan, the potential enemy is North Korea as threats to the stability and security of the East Asian region.
There is also a symbolic dimension to the formal alliance, which was briefly captured by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright when she stated that NATO was an expression of indispensable transatlantic relations. Advocates of an alliance believe that this official agreement promotes peace and avoid war. Another benefit of the military alliance, which also mentioned earlier, is that they facilitate burden sharing among members. For example, NATO carried out Article 5 of the Washington Agreement after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and then carried out military forces to Afghanistan in its first "outside the territory" operation. The involvement of the alliance allowed the establishment of the International Security Assistance Force Afghanistan (ISAF) which eventually grew to have 50 member states. In February 2013, there were more than 100.000 ISAF troops serving in Afghanistan. An alliance offers a greater perception of "legitimacy" in the international system, especially when it is compared to unilateral actions by one country −no matter how big or strong. Alliance also offers access to geo-strategic (ie, rights, flight permits, etc.) to main areas where the national interest is at stake (Cook, 2013, p. 563).
Back in the discussion about the trilateral military alliance, if South Korea is included in this military alliance, there will be many benefits that can be obtained. The combination of the benefits of trilateralism which "makes it easy" and the military alliance that provides strength and deterrence factors, coupled with the factor of common goals between the U.S., South Korea and Japan where all three want peace in the East Asia region. So the formation of this alliance is worth considering.

South Korea's Domestic Politics in Moon Jae In Administration
Moon Jae In replaced Park Geun He and inugurated in May 2017. Coming from the liberal Democratic Party, Moon was the first elected president of the liberal party after about a decade South Korea was led by a conservative party. He won by gaining 41.1% of the vote (Mosler, 2017, p. 1).
After he was elected as the President of the Republic of Korea, Moon Jae In has been faced with challenges both domestically and internationally. Moon's victory was supported by his success attracting the attention of the South Korean people who asked the presidential candidates to focus on domestic issues, especially the issue of corruption, economic inequality, unemployment especially for youth and the amount of political influence given by conglomerates in South Korea (Altbach, 2017, p. 1). Altough not defining, domestic condition, especailly relates to the Nastional Assembly and public opinion has getting influential to the decision making of foreign policy (Snyder, 2018).
Regarding the views of the South Korean people about North Korea, reported by the Asan Public Opinion Report, the view on reunification with North Korea continues to increase from year to year. The image of North Korea has been changing, which was initially negative. People viewed the country as a threat and they always solve problems in a hardcore way. Now it is gradually becoming more positive. The community also supports reunification efforts and states that reunification is the main goal for South Korea at this time. It may said that there is a release of historical trauma (Chun, 2021).
Many things underlie the desire for reunification with North Korea, 33.3% stated it is for economic growth and 28.7% said, to stop the threat of war. In addition, some of them also voted for reunification because it was seen as reducing human rights abuses both in North Korea and in South Korea, and bringing peace to the East Asia region (Miller, 2018). This is inversely proportional to public opinion about the United States. Asan Public Report launches, the initially positive turned negative starting from the reign of Roh Moo Hyun to the current Moon Jae In the community began to see the U.S. as an obstacle and even a threat to South Korea, the obstacle for the reunification of two Koreas. The U.S. is considered unable to help Seoul to reconcile with Pyongyang.
In contrast to North Korea and the U.S., relations between South Korea and Japan are always overshadowed by dark experiences in the past. The wound about the cruel colonization of Japan in South Korea is difficult to eliminate by Korean society. They still see that Japan is a cruel country. They still demand Inrernational Journal of Social Service and Research https://ijssr.ridwaninstitute.co.id/ IJSSR Page 1306 an official apology from the Japanese government for victims of comfort women. More than that, history as a collective memory has been develop and memorize from one generration to the next (Ernst, 2020).
Various demonstrations and rejection of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) installation in Seongju, efforts to normalization of Japan, and blow up media on surveys conducted by many institutions were conducted to show the public voice of the South Korean community.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party (Minjoo Party), where Moon Jae In takes shelter, has long been known to oppose the THAAD installation from the start and prefers to improve relations with North Korea through peaceful means and negotiations. Now the Democratic Party is the party that won the election which also has the highest number of seats in parliament, so that decisions and parliamentary approval will be more influenced by this group (Time, 2016). Parliament in the camp of Moon also expressed his desire to reopen the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC) and re-run the Sunshine Policy which had been terminated for 2 periods (Mosler, 2017, p. 10).
However, this does not signify the withdrawal from the position of state ally with the U.S., instead, Moon's administration continues to see Washington as the most important guarantor of state security. At the same time, there will be more autonomy for South Korea to tackle problems in the region. Thus looking for partnerships among equals. The aim is to ensure that North Korea stops its nuclear weapons program and, finally, leaves it (Mosler, 2017, p. 11).
When discussing about cooperation between South Korea and Japan, this discussion is always complex. The most frequently cited challenge for effective trilateral policy coordination is the difficult relationship between Seoul and Tokyo (Smith, 2017, p. 11). Experts argue that the bilateral cooperation is only in the aspect of economic cooperation as both are countries with high economic growth rates in East Asia. However it will be difficult for both to expand this collaboration to other fields such as politics and the military. Expectation regarding the progress of cooperation between the two is very small. South Korea's sentiment for owning the Japanese military on Korean soil continued to limit the full integration of planning military alliances. Keeping all the three countries in line at a time when diplomacy takes place will be difficult (Smith, 2017, p. 11-12).

The Influence of External Politics
Not only domestic factors, external factors can also influence a policy making process. The factor of international politics referred in this journal is the behavior of the People's Republic of China (PRC).The trilateral military alliance formation is aimed at facing a joint threat for the U.S., South Korea and Japan, namely the threat of nuclear weapons from North Korea, a threat that has continued to lurk since the end of the cold war.
The efforts to establish a trilateral military alliance have existed since the 1990s and over time relations between the three countries has increased. Recognizing an increase in relations between South Korea-U.S.-Japan, Beijing began to feel uncomfortable, coupled with efforts to form a military alliance between the three countries. China considers the trilateral military alliance will actually bring security instability in the East Asia region (Easley, 2017). Since the 1990s, China has been worried that the U.S. wants to form an alliance like NATO on its doorstep (Perlez, 2017).
Previously, the U.S. and South Korea had taken into consideration how to deal with the nuclear threat. One of the ways taken by these two countries is by installing Terminal High Altitude Area Defense or commonly called THAAD. Then it was added with the agreement of the Trilateral Information Sharing Agreement (TISA) to share information between intelligence conducted by South Korea and Japan. But this is a dangerous step in the eyes of Beijing, because it can knit Tokyo and Seoul closer in military cooperation. Then the other possibility is that a military alliance between South Korea-U.S.-Japan is truly formed. Song Zhongping, a Chinese-based military analyst more clearly conveyed, "This could mean a three-party alliance, rather than two-party alliances [of the U.S. and Japan, and the U.S. and South Korea], and this would pose a threat threat to the stability of Northeast Asia," (Zhou, 2016) Former Major General of the People's Liberation Army in China, Xu Guanyu, said that if an alliance between South Korea, the United States and Japan was formed, it would not give Chinese leaders any choice but to lean towards the Beijing-Moscow alliance in an effort to counterbalance. However, this could be a trigger to an arms race in East Asia (Zhou, 2016).
Since the concern arose, the PRC had not yet gotten the right momentum to prevent the formation of the trilateral military alliance. Beijing needed to put pressure on one party and the most likely party in their eyes is South Korea (Perlez, 2017).
After TISA, which China believed would not be agreed by South Korea and Japan, in the leadership of President Park Geun Hye, South Korea has rejected proposals from the U.S. to install a more effective high-International Journal of Asian Education, Hasri Ainun Hakiem, Grace Lestariana Wonoadi IJSSR Page 1307 tech anti-missile system and incorporate its independent system into a comprehensive joint network (Klinger, The Importance of THAAD Missile Defense, 2015, p. 22). Plans to install THAAD in South Korea have become a momentum for China. There is a lot of controversy regarding the rejection of the THAAD installation and the pressure from China.
The PRC who was opposed to this and concerns about the formation of another, larger collaboration, gave unofficial sanctions to South Korea in several aspects, namely economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Several meetings between government officials were canceled unilaterally. From the economic sector, the PRC boycotted the entertainment industry and exports and imports of goods and services and tourism in South Korea (Easley, 2017). Some programs that feature South Korean pop music (K-pop) and actors are suspended or canceled without explanation. China Central Television (CCTV), a state-owned TV channel, reported that the government's broadcast regulator has banned the screening of South Korea TV shows. Since July 2016, China has blocked access to goods and services from South Korea. In March 2017 the Chinese Regulator banned the sale of several South Korean products, including certain types of air purifiers, high-tech toilet seats, and cosmetics, for security reasons. China also banned tourist visits to South Korea. Until 2017 the number of tourists entering South Korea fell by approximately 60%, because the majority of tourists came from the China (Meick & Salidjanova, 2017, p. 7) . As a result, the economic relations between the two countries were disrupted and had a significant impact on tourism in South Korea.
After President Park Geun Hye's demise, the elected President, Moon Jae In, was expected to be a new hope for South Koreans especially to improve relations with North Korea and overcome problems with China. Shortly after being elected in May 2017, Moon Jae In contacted the President of China, Xi Jinping. Both of them agreed to meet as soon as possible (Panda, 2017) .
After the election of President Moon Jae In, China began to show a change in attitude towards South Korea, the PRC's economic wrath seemed to have begun to decline. Although almost all of Lotte's stores are still closed, K-Pop music performances have begun to be held again in June. The Chinese airline, Spring Airline, began rescheduling flights to South Korea for the return of Chinese tourists traveling to South Korea (Meick & Salidjanova, 2017, p. 8).
Moon Jae In first met with Xi Jinping in July at the G20 Summit in Germany. Unfortunately, at the meeting both parties had not reached an agreement. However, he still continued to work in order to improve relations with China. In the APEC Summit held in Da Nang, Vietnam, Moon Jae In was again scheduled to meet Xi Jinping. At this meeting, he focused on improving and normalizing economic cooperation between the two countries. Moon also invited the PRC to actively participate in sanctions against North Korea's nuclear. This is due to the closeness between China and North Korea. Beijing has also previously refused to the development North Korean nuclear weapons and asked Pyongyang for denucliarize (Dong-A Ilbo, 2017).
In December 2017, Moon Jae In made his first visit to China and it was his third meeting with Xi Jinping. Quoted in the South China Morning Post interview, Moon Jae In said that the main purpose of this visit was to rebuild trust between the two countries as it had been for the past 25 years. In this meeting, it was also discussed about THAAD. The two leaders spoke heart to heart about his views on this issue. It was stated that Beijing understood the purpose of installing the anti-missile defense system and was convinced that the system currently installed was indeed not directed to China (Weibing, 2017) .
However, other concerns for China remain, namely the possibility of the establishment of another system similar to THAAD used by South Korea, the U.S. and Japan to "spy on" China (Perlez, 2017). Therefore, China agreed to make economic improvements and revoke sanctions but provided South Korea to be able to fulfill 3 conditions. Beijing then offered a new agreement called three nos: 1. there is no additional THAAD installation in South Korea; 2. there is no participation in a joint strategic missile defense system with the U.S.; 3. there is no establishment of the South Korea-U.S.-Japan trilateral military alliance (Panda, 2017). In response to this offer, South Korea stated publicly to comply with three nos (Abrahamian & Son, 2017). After the statement, South Korea seemed to keep a distance from the U.S. and Japan. Moon's decision was disliked by the U.S., South Korea was deemed to have surrendered to various pressures and bluffs from China. However, this decision was then supported by Moon Jae In's attitude in an interview with News Asia Singapore stating, "South Korea-U.S. military cooperation as well as Japan has become important, but the cooperation is aimed at North Korea's nuclear and missile provocations. But I don't think it is appropriate to develop cooperation to a level of (trilateral) military alliance. " (Yonhap News,

2017)
Based on the efforts made by President Moon to improve relations with China, after a meeting of the two heads of state, Moon Jae In and Xi Jinping in December 2017, the sanctions given by China began to ease.
It can be observed that the THAAD installation then became a momentum for China to prevent the formation of alliances for South Korea, the U.S. and Japan (Perlez, 2017). Although in the end THAAD remained installed in South Korea with the understanding of China, but the installed batteries will not increase according to three nos agreement.
Seeing the efforts made by the Moon Jae In government to improve the country's relations with China, some observers attributed this to China's position on South Korea. As discussed in the previously that South Korea's domestic conditions prefer to improve relations with North Korea, this is a concern for Moon Jae In's government. South Korea considers that China the "close ones" to North Korea. Moreover, with Beijing's statement that they also agreed on the Pyongyang's denuclearization, this was seen as an opportunity for Seoul to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table and stop its nuclear test. Representatives from the Blue House stated, "The coming in South Korea-China relations, [the remarks] is significant in pressing China to emphasize its role and show more active attitude on resolving the North Korean nuclear issue," (Seong, 2017) In December, South Korea and China agreed on four principles to secure peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, which consisted of 1) the war on the Korean Peninsula was intolerable; 2) the principle of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula will be well maintained; 3) all problems, including denuclearization of North Korea, will be settled peacefully through dialogue and negotiation; and 4) improving inter-Korean relations will be very helpful in resolving problems involving the Korean Peninsula (McGuire, 2018). Beholding the attitude of South Korea that agreed on a three nos agreement with China, it can be said that it would be difficult for the trilateral military alliance to be formed between South Korea-U.S.-Japan (Park, 2017) .

CONCLUSION
Security is one of the factors needed by a country to be a sovereign country. However it is not the one and only factor. The rejection of South Korea to the US initiative on security trilateralism shows the development of non-security consideration to be the more important factors in its foreign policy.
South Korea, the United States and Japan because the three countries shared the same goal, namely the denucliarization of North Korea. The alliance can bring benefits for its members, all of whom are able to save the cost of cooperation, the sharing of the burden, the effectiveness of minilateralisme, as well as the effect detterence for North Korea if they are really going to break down the war. However, South Korea under the leadership of Moon Jae In chose to refuse to join the military alliance. This rejection is influenced by various factors. First, The Democratic Party that supports reconciliation with North Korea is the winner of the election and now dominates the parliamentary seats, so the policy is clearly a major concern in the country.
South Korean people ask the government to focus on domestic affairs. Through various demonstrations and surveys published in the mass media, the public voiced their opinions about the attitude that the government needs to take. The community agrees more if the government reconciles with North Korea. Negative views about North Korea have changed a lot. Originally considered a military threat, North Korea is now considered a brother by the community.
On the contrary, a positive view of the U.S. as a protector of South Korea has now begun to fade, replaced by the view that the US is an obstacle to the process of reconciling the Korean peninsula. Unlike Japan, since the end of Japanese colonialism in Korea, people's views on it have not changed much. Japan continues to be considered an aggressive country that has given a deep wound to the people of South Korea.
The next factor is from the international context. One of the things that has always been the concern of the Seoul government is North Korea's nuclear. Various ways have been done to stop it. One of South Korea's controversial policies is the installation of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in collaboration with the U.S. This THAAD installation received bad response, both domestically and internationally. China strongly opposed THAAD's policy arguing that the system would be able to reach China and South Korea could "spy on" its nuclear weapons project. China then gave unofficial sanctions to South Korea where they stopped exporting and importing goods and services, banned tourism and stopped broadcasting programs originating from South Korea. It become a driving factor for South Korea to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table for denucliarization without military means.
With Moon Jae In's efforts to improve relations with China, the sanctions began to loosen up. However, the PRC gave an offer in the form of an agreement called three nos, that are, there was no additional THAAD installation in South Korea; there is no participation in a joint strategic missile defense system with the U.S.; and there is no establishment of the South Korea-U.S.-Japan trilateral military alliance. South Korea then told the public that they agreed and chose to obey the three nos despite criticism from Washington. Since then, South Korea has kept its distance from the U.S. and Japan.