South Korea’s military deployments and economic incentives
An increasingly mercantile approach to the use of force raises questions on the blind acceptance of South Korea as a reliable alliance partner.
English language commentary on South Korea emphasizes its role as a middle power strategic actor and reliable alliance partner. Like Australia, Canada, Sweden and Norway, it is assumed that South Korea supports the U.S-led international order, global governance and rule of law - values.
Reflecting these assumptions, we’d expect South Korea to support Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. South Korea has to date limited its support to non-lethal aid despite increased Russia - North Korea cooperation.
A closer look at South Korea’s military involvement in international conflicts demonstrates that participation stems not from values; or even a combination of strategic alliances and geopolitical interests; but rather predominantly from economic incentives. In five instances of South Korea’s decisions to deploy or withhold armed forces abroad—Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the UAE, and Ukraine—the underlying motivation that influenced each choice was economic incentives.
South Vietnam. The deployment of South Korean troops to Vietnam had significant economic implications beyond its military objectives. South Korea sent combat troops, including elite infantry and marine units, who played a significant role in front line operations. This large-scale deployment not only met strategic alliance obligations but also provided direct financial rewards that accelerated South Korea’s post-war economic progress.
South Korea’s support for the U.S.-backed South Vietnamese government was closely tied to securing American economic aid and investment. During this period, the South Korean economy was still in its early stages of development, heavily reliant on external assistance to fuel industrialization and modernization efforts.
The U.S. provided substantial financial incentives to South Korea for its involvement in Vietnam, including military aid, economic grants, and favorable trade terms. The South Korean government received around $1 billion in economic support from the U.S. during the conflict, which contributed directly to the country’s rapid economic growth and industrial development. Additionally, Korean companies benefited from lucrative contracts related to construction and supply chains in Vietnam, laying the foundation for South Korea’s later emergence as an industrial powerhouse.
Afghanistan. South Korea’s presence in Afghanistan was largely non-combat, focusing on medical, engineering, and reconstruction support. This approach minimized risks to South Korean personnel while maximizing the country’s reputation as a contributor to global peace and stability, indirectly supporting its economic aspirations in other sectors.
Although the deployment to Afghanistan was primarily driven by the strategic alliance with the United States after the 9/11 attacks, economic factors also played a role. By participating in the NATO-led efforts, South Korea aimed to solidify its status as a reliable partner in international security, which in turn helped bolster economic and trade relations with the Western countries involved in the coalition.
South Korea’s contribution to the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan opened opportunities for South Korean companies to engage in infrastructure projects, particularly in construction and technology. The country’s participation was also seen as a strategic move to gain favor in U.S. policy circles, which could translate into support for South Korea’s economic and security interests in other regions, particularly concerning its trade relations and technological exports.
Iraq. The Zaytun Division in Iraq was primarily tasked with peacekeeping, reconstruction, and humanitarian efforts rather than direct combat. Dispatched in 2004 after the invasion, to the northern Kurdistan region, the focus on reconstruction facilitated South Korean companies’ access to significant economic opportunities, reinforcing the deployment’s dual purpose of alliance solidarity and economic benefit.
The deployment of South Korean forces to Iraq was significantly influenced by potential economic gains, particularly in the oil and infrastructure sectors. As the U.S. sought allies for its post-invasion reconstruction of Iraq, South Korea seized the opportunity to position its companies for contracts in rebuilding Iraq’s war-torn infrastructure. South Korean businesses, including major construction firms and energy companies, sought to capitalize on the demand for new roads, buildings, and oil facilities.
Iraq’s rich oil reserves made it a key focus for South Korea’s economic ambitions in the Middle East. By deploying the Zaytun Division to northern Iraq, South Korea not only supported its ally, the United States, but also strategically positioned itself to gain a foothold in Iraq’s oil industry and infrastructure development. South Korean companies secured contracts worth billions of dollars, further integrating the nation into the Middle Eastern economy and ensuring a stable supply of energy resources.
United Arab Emirates. The Akh Unit’s primary focus is on training and special operations support rather than direct combat. This deployment strategy is tailored to foster a cooperative military relationship that aligns with South Korea’s long-term economic and strategic goals in the UAE.
The deployment of the Akh Unit to the UAE marked a clear example of South Korea’s strategic use of military presence to secure economic interests. In this case, the decision was closely tied to South Korea’s ambitions in the energy sector, particularly its role in the UAE’s nuclear power projects. South Korea won a landmark $20 billion contract in 2009 to build four nuclear reactors in the UAE, a deal that represented a significant milestone in the country’s efforts to expand its influence in the global energy market.
The presence of South Korean military forces in the UAE, tasked with training and joint operations, was aimed at deepening bilateral ties and ensuring the long-term success of South Korean businesses in the region. By enhancing its defense diplomacy, South Korea aimed to solidify its position as a reliable partner in both security and economic spheres, leveraging its military deployment to support broader commercial objectives in the Middle East.
Ukraine. South Korea’s contributions have been limited to humanitarian aid and non-lethal military assistance, such as protective gear and medical supplies. This approach reflects a cautious strategy to maintain economic flexibility while supporting the principles of international law and territorial sovereignty.
South Korea’s decision to not donate lethal armaments to Ukraine following Russia’s 2022 invasion was influenced by its need to balance economic relations with Russia and its obligations to its Western allies. Russia is a critical supplier of energy resources to South Korea, including natural gas and other raw materials essential for South Korea’s industrial sector. Any direct military involvement against Russia would have risked disrupting these vital economic ties.
South Korea’s aim in maintaining a neutral stance in terms of direct military engagement was to protect its economic interests while still aligning diplomatically with the broader international condemnation of Russia’s actions.
South Korea has sold armaments and armament platforms to the U.S. and European states that are then donated to Ukraine. This has been interpreted by some European commentators and politicians as highly mercantile - a willingness not to donate but rather to sell. The willingness to accept the end result, but not the economic responsibility.
These five instances reveal that economic incentives have been a recurring and significant factor influencing South Korea’s decision-making process regarding military deployments. This includes:
Leveraging alliances. In the cases of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, South Korea’s alliance with the U.S. not only served strategic and military purposes but also acted as a gateway to substantial economic aid, favorable trade deals, and reconstruction contracts. The economic gains from these deployments played a crucial role in South Korea’s post-war development and industrial expansion.
Strategic deployment. The deployment to the UAE is a clear illustration of South Korea’s strategy to use military engagement as a tool to secure high-value economic contracts, particularly in the energy and construction sectors. This approach highlights how South Korea has adapted its military strategy to support economic objectives, particularly in regions with significant resource wealth.
Avoiding economic impact. In the case of Ukraine, South Korea’s decision not to deploy combat forces underscores the complexity of balancing geopolitical alliances with economic dependencies. The need to maintain stable energy imports from Russia while supporting Western allies led to a nuanced approach that demonstrated a willingness to forgo values-oriented diplomatic considerations in favor of economic interests.
South Korea’s military deployments abroad reveal a pattern of decisions shaped by an order of (i) economic incentives; (ii) strategic alliances; and (iii) values. While its alliance with the United States has often driven initial commitments, the pursuit of economic gains, particularly in infrastructure, energy, and trade, has been a consistent underlying motivation.
South Korea’s approach also demonstrates a changing balance between military engagement and economic strategy. The increasingly mercantile approach to the use, or support for the use of force, raises questions on the blind acceptance of South Korea as globally actor and reliable alliance partner. How important are values such as the international order, global governance and rule of law to South Korea?