Analysis: Institutionalizing the trilateral partnership amid leadership instabilities
A trilateral partnership with not one, not two, but three states (South Korea, Japan, and the United States) in the midst of domestic political uncertainty!
Event or Trend: The leaders of South Korea, the United States, and Japan announced the establishment of a trilateral secretariat during the APEC summit in November 2024. This institutionalization aims to strengthen security cooperation.
Significance: The establishment of a trilateral secretariat is a landmark development for cooperation in East Asia. Its creation signals a commitment to deeper integration in an era of heightened geopolitical tension, marked by North Korea's provocations, Russia’s re-emergence, and China's assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific. However, its potential success hinges on domestic political stability among its stakeholders.
Leadership uncertainties in the U.S. under Donald Trump, Japan under Shigeru Ishiba, and South Korea under Yoon Suk-yeol risk undermining the continuity and efficacy of this initiative. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for policymakers and businesses to assess the prospects of sustained cooperation and its broader implications for security, commerce, and diplomacy.
Analysis: The trilateral secretariat represents a formalization of U.S.-Japan-South Korea relations, intended to streamline collaborative efforts on shared security threats and economic integration. The decision emerges amidst increasing geopolitical instability, including North Korea's strengthening ties with Russia and China's growing influence in the Indo-Pacific.
Institutionalization of the trilateral partnership increases stability and resilience against political opposition. By embedding the agreement into formal structures and processes, parties create enduring frameworks that transcend short-term political fluctuations. Institutions foster trust through transparency, predictable enforcement, and clear mechanisms apportioning responsibility. They also neutralize opposition by demonstrating mutual commitment and minimizing perceptions of favoritism or inequity.
The secretariat is poised to deepen trilateral ties, but its future effectiveness is jeopardized by the domestic political climates of its members.
United States: Donald Trump's presidency marks a potential pivot from traditional alliance strategies. His “America First” policies previously strained multilateral relations, and a similar approach will deprioritize or politicize trilateral initiatives, creating inconsistencies in commitment and resource allocation.
Japan: Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's leadership is undermined by domestic electoral instability and financial misconduct allegations within his party. Such internal instability will limit Japan's focus and resources for trilateral efforts, delaying key decisions or reducing its influence in the partnership.
South Korea: President Yoon Suk-yeol's administration faces declining public support due to allegations of incompetence and spousal misconduct. More recently, there is also widening support for domestic political action in street protests calling for the president to resign. These together will preoccupy the administration and distract from South Korea’s ability to fully engage in the secretariat's activities, weakening trilateral coordination - particularly if trilateral coordination becomes a target of the protests.
While these domestic leadership challenges present a significant risk, continued institutionalization will build resilience against political volatility.
The secretariat's success will rely on embedding multilateral decision-making processes that transcend individual leadership. To facilitate this, the secretariat will not have a permanent base but will be hosted by each state for periods of two-years with South Korea taking taking the initial phase. One benefit of this is the ability to build interaction at lower levels of policymaking. As lower-level policymakers move into positions of power, they then further strengthen cohesiveness and integrity. This distinguishes the secretariat from the China-Korea-Japan Trilateral Secretariat with a permanent facility located in Seoul and its tendency towards top-down management.
Diplomats should monitor signals of policy shifts from Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul during periods of administration changeovers. Indicators include changes in funding for secretariat operations, participation in trilateral military exercises, and public statements emphasizing (or neglecting) Indo-Pacific cooperation. Particular attention should be paid to attenbtion given to trilateral cooperation in South Korea’s domestic opposition and growing street protests.
Outlook: In the short term, political distractions will slow the secretariat's progress. Over the medium term, sustained instability risks stalling initiatives. Long-term prospects hinge on institutional mechanisms outlasting leadership changes.