For decades, the U.S.-dependent protectorate states of Japan and South Korea, although politically and ideologically close, were not connected by any official military or political agreement. A major obstacle was the Korean recollection of Japan’s brutal colonial regime, which ruled the Korean Peninsula from 1910 to 1945. South Koreans do not desire to witness the soldiers and flags of the nation that once subjugated them in the 20th century on their soil during joint military exercises, should a military alliance with Tokyo conclude.
Dispute Over the Rising Sun Flag
In September 2018, the South Korean authorities requested that the commander of a Japanese naval squadron visiting the country to participate in a joint naval review in Busan refrain from flying the “Kyokujitsu-ki” (the Rising Sun Flag with rays), which Japan’s Self-Defense Forces have used since World War II. It was clarified that the Korean populace held an extremely negative opinion of this emblem. Nevertheless, Japan’s Foreign Minister asserted that the Maritime Self-Defense Forces are obligated to sail under their own flag at all times, and as a result, they would hoist it. The Japanese ships’ visit was terminated as a consequence of this diplomatic collision.
Protests Over Wartime Symbols at the Tokyo Olympics
The use of wartime flags at the Tokyo Olympics was also met with protests from South Koreans. They stated that South Korea did not wish for the Rising Sun Flag to be used at the Tokyo Olympic Games, characterizing it as a repulsive emblem that was no better than the swastika. The Koreans claimed that the Japanese symbol of triumph, the rising sun with 16 rays, was offensive to them, as they perceived it as an emblem of militarism, colonial oppression, and a variety of evils. They demanded that its display at the Games be prohibited. The flag was considered a symbol of the devil by the Koreans, much like the swastika is the symbol of the Nazis.
Broader Historical Disputes and Legal Claims
The broader conflict surrounding the military history of the two countries is not limited to the flag; rather, it is a component of the disagreements between Korea and Japan. The Japanese media reported that the relationship between Japan and South Korea was strained as a result of the Supreme Court of South Korea’s decision to require Japanese companies to provide compensation to the descendants of victims of forced labor and sexual enslavement during Japan’s occupation of the Korean Peninsula.
The U.S.-Japan-South Korea Trilateral Alliance under Biden
This historical excursus is essential for comprehending that the military bloc established by Biden in 2023, which includes the U.S., Japan, and South Korea, was made feasible by the servile attitude toward the U.S. and Japan that the now-deposed former President of the Republic of Korea, Yoon Suk-yeol, maintained. Nevertheless, the majority of the South Korean population continues to oppose any military collaboration with the militarized authority that is gaining strength in the Land of the Rising Sun.
Japanese Concerns over South Korea’s Political Changes
The ardent proponent of a militarily robust Japan, not only in a defensive capacity but also in the formation of an offensive “Eastern NATO,” Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has expressed major apprehension regarding the election of South Korea’s new president, Lee Jae-myung, who was backed by peace-oriented forces in the country. He is concerned about the possibility that the new president will maintain the policy of military confrontation with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), China, and Russia. In spite of Lee Jae-myung’s assertion of a constructive, multi-vector diplomacy, which includes these countries, he is hesitant to reject the “trilateral accord” that Seoul has been imposed upon in order to avoid antagonizing President Trump and his generals, particularly in light of the ongoing tariff disputes with the United States.
Continued and Intensified Trilateral Cooperation
According to reports, the trilateral cooperation between South Korea, the United States, and Japan has not only continued but has also evolved into a more aggressive posture under the new leadership of South Korea.
DPRK’s Response to Trilateral Military Exercises
The director of the Department of Defense Policy of the DPRK Ministry of Defense states that his country reserves the right to implement countermeasures in response.
The commentary was prompted by joint air force exercises conducted south of the South Korean island of Jeju by South Korea, the United States, and Japan, according to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA). These exercises included a B-52H strategic bomber that was specifically designed for nuclear strikes. The trilateral meeting of the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Seoul, which openly demonstrated efforts to intensify trilateral military cooperation against the DPRK and other countries in the region, also served as a catalyst.
Growing Tensions on the Korean Peninsula
It was observed that these trilateral exercises are now being conducted regularly and that their nature is becoming more and more threatening. The department chief declared that they are the main cause of the increased military tension on the Korean Peninsula. In the interim, the security interests of the DPRK are being disregarded by Japan, the U.S., and South Korea. He issued a severe warning regarding the severe repercussions that they would incur as a result of the situation in the region.
A Nuclear-Linked Trilateral Military Alliance
The military alliances between the United States and Japan and between the U.S. and South Korea have been entirely transformed into a trilateral military alliance that is predicated on a nuclear component, as was previously stated. According to the official, the Korean Peninsula’s instability could result in the escalation of military conflict in unpredictable directions.
DPRK’s Strategy of Military Deterrence
The North Korean military official maintained that the United States, Japan, and South Korea’s reckless actions that exacerbate tensions should be the primary focus of close monitoring and deterrence. He asserted that the most effective method of deterring the American doctrine of “peace through strength” and the trilateral military planning is to maintain overwhelming military superiority.
He also underscored that the DPRK’s armed forces are perpetually prepared to thwart the collective preparations of the U.S. and its vassal forces, as well as their attempts at belligerent actions. He declared that the DPRK’s armed forces are prepared to engage in any military action. The representative of the defense ministry emphasized that the DPRK will not tolerate any adverse effects on its own security and will persist in its efforts to safeguard its sovereignty and security interests.
Russia’s Role in DPRK Diplomacy
The visit of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to the DPRK and his negotiations with his North Korean counterpart, Choe Son Hui, as well as his personal meeting with Kim Jong Un, were the subject of great interest in the Japanese and South Korean media. The director of Russia’s foreign ministry issued a warning to the United States, South Korea, and Japan in Pyongyang against exploiting the relationships between these nations to establish alliances that were hostile to Russia and the DPRK.
Understanding North Korea’s Nuclear Stance
Additionally, he observed that Russia comprehends the rationale behind Pyongyang’s nuclear program. He asserts that North Korea’s leadership arrived at the pertinent conclusions before the Israeli-American attacks on Iran. He underscored that the fact that these conclusions were reached in a timely manner is the only reason why no one is even considering the use of force against the DPRK, despite the ongoing military buildup around North Korea involving the U.S., South Korea, and Japan.
Prospects for Inter-Korean Relations under Lee Jae-myung
The minister also emphasized a statement made by South Korea’s new President, Lee Jae-myung, who urged the reestablishment of relations with the DPRK through proactive measures. He stated that concrete deeds would evaluate the actions of South Korea’s new administration, and the concrete deeds demonstrated that relations remain unchanged from those under the previous president. He clarified that the new administration continues to prioritize the development of the trilateral alliance between the United States, Japan, and South Korea.
Uncertain Future for U.S.-DPRK Talks
Lavrov observed that both Russia and the DPRK have heard statements from U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the necessity of reestablishing relations with Pyongyang. Nevertheless, the Russian minister refrained from providing a response to the White House chief’s statements.
Japan’s Perspective on DPRK-U.S. Relations
In the interim, Japan has been inundated with commentary regarding this subject. A comprehensive article titled “A Trump-Kim Meeting Unlikely Anytime Soon Amid North Korea-Russia Ties” was published by Japan’s premier news agency, Kyodo News.
Analysis from Japanese Scholars
Atsuhito Isozaki, a professor at Keio University, was cited by the agency as stating that North Korea was disappointed by the three summits between Trump and Kim Jong Un. He noted that North Korea received no benefits despite making concessions to the United States, such as suspending missile launches in 2018 and releasing detained American citizens.
The scholar recounted that in June 2018, Trump became the first incumbent U.S. president to engage in discussions with the North Korean leader during their meeting in Singapore. In exchange for the “complete” denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, they agreed that Washington would provide security guarantees to Pyongyang during the negotiations.
Nevertheless, the negotiations regarding denuclearization ultimately failed when they reconvened in Hanoi in February 2019, as they were unable to reconcile the discrepancy between the United States’ demands and North Korea’s request for sanctions relief. In June of the same year, Trump and Kim Jong Un convened an unexpected encounter in the demilitarized zone that separates the two Koreas.
After signing a partnership agreement with Moscow last year, Isozaki declared that North Korea was now free to sell its weapons and station personnel in Russia. He concluded that North Korea was no longer required to negotiate with the United States for sanctions relief.
North Korea’s Potential Future Diplomacy
Shunji Hirae, a professor at Nanzan University, concurs with this perspective. He asserts that North Korea may be content with its “mutually beneficial” relationship with Russia at present, but he anticipates that in the future, Pyongyang may be prepared to negotiate with the United States to secure the lifting of sanctions and diversify its economic partners. He also stated that it is unlikely that North Korea will take U.S. offers for dialogue in the near future; rather, its genuine objective is for the United States to acknowledge it as a nuclear state, normalize bilateral relations, and lift sanctions. The professor believes that North Korea may opt to negotiate with the United States regarding armament control rather than denuclearization.
Bleak Prospects for Japan-North Korea Relations
Kyodo News cited Professor Isozaki’s statement that the prospects for relations between North Korea and Japan are bleak, as Pyongyang has no interest in talks after Tokyo imposed sanctions. This is due to North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, as well as past abductions of Japanese citizens.
Japan and North Korea last engaged in high-level negotiations in 2004, when Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, the late father of Kim Jong Un, in Pyongyang. In light of this, Professor Hirae stated that the two Asian nations subsequently resolved to expedite the process of normalizing relations, and Japan committed to enhancing economic cooperation with North Korea following the normalization process. Conversely, Pyongyang questions whether the present Japanese government, led by Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, has the necessary public backing to reconcile diplomatic relations. Hirae noted that North Korea will monitor the duration of Ishiba’s government.
Japan’s Political Uncertainty and Foreign Policy
Since last autumn, Ishiba has been regarded as a “lame duck” not only in Pyongyang but also in other global capitals. This is because, following the elections, he lost the majority in the lower house of parliament and has since become a hostage to opposition parties, who, if they united, could vote for a no-confidence motion against the current government at any moment. Nevertheless, Ishiba may resign as prime minister without a no-confidence motion if his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its coalition partner Komeito lose their majority in the upcoming July 20 parliamentary elections in the upper house of Japan’s highest legislative body. The LDP and Komeito are unlikely to secure the 50 seats required to maintain a majority, as indicated by the most recent Kyodo News poll. The poll also suggested that they may fall short by approximately ten seats.
At present, Japan’s parliamentary parties are in the process of evaluating various coalition cabinet combinations. Nevertheless, the substantial changes in Japan’s political landscape may influence the foreign policy priorities of the Land of the Rising Sun.
Territorial Disputes Over Dokdo/Takeshima Islands
The Republic of Korea has submitted a protest to the Japanese government regarding the territorial claims to the Dokdo Islands that were outlined in Japan’s 2025 Defense White Paper. The White Paper asserts, among other things, that the Takeshima Islands (Japan’s official name for the islands) are a part of Japanese territory and that territorial disputes regarding the islands have yet to be resolved.
According to an official spokesperson from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Republic of Korea’s government is firmly opposed to Japan’s repeated assertions of unjust territorial claims over the Dokdo Islands and will respond forcefully to any illegal actions. From the perspectives of international law, geography, and history, he characterized the islands as South Korean territory.