In recent history, two global powers – first the United States in Iraq and later Russia in Ukraine – initiated conflicts that were widely regarded as controversial, if not outright illegal, by much of the international community. Both of these conflicts generated intense debate and scrutiny, not only for the actions of the aggressor nations but also for the responses and alliances they prompted from around the world.
Two responses, in particular, stand out for their similarity and geopolitical irony: the decision by South Korea to send troops to Iraq in 2004, and North Korea’s recent move to send support to Russia in Ukraine. This parallel in the decisions of two opposing Korean states reveals complex layers of international relations, allegiances, and the evolving norms surrounding foreign military interventions.
A tale of two invasions
When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, the world was sharply divided. The official US rationale for the invasion was the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq—a claim that was later debunked. Nevertheless, the Bush administration went forward, citing a desire to promote democracy and eliminate threats to global security.
The United Nations did not approve of the invasion. The UN secretary general and many individual countries, including several European allies, criticized the intervention as illegal under international law. Despite global protests and political opposition, the invasion proceeded, sparking what would become one of the most contentious wars of the 21st century.
Almost two decades later, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unfolded in a similar atmosphere of international condemnation. Russia claimed it was responding to security concerns, alleging threats from NATO’s eastward expansion and the mistreatment of Russian-speaking populations in Ukraine. Supporters differentiate the two, stating that Iraq was a sovereign state on the other side of the world that did not threaten the US, while Ukraine is a neighboring state allied to Western states impinging on Russia’s immediate security.
Regardless, the majority of the world’s nations, particularly in the West, denounced Russia’s actions as unprovoked aggression and an unlawful violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly condemned the invasion, and countries across Europe and beyond imposed sanctions on Russia while extending support to Ukraine.
South Korea’s support for the US in Iraq
Eighteen months after the US invasion of Iraq, South Korea made the decision to send troops to support the coalition. This decision was significant because South Korea, as a close ally of the United States, was under considerable pressure to show its support for Washington’s policies. The deployment of the Zaytun Division – around 3,600 South Korean soldiers – to Iraq made South Korea one of the largest contributors of troops to the coalition, second only to the United Kingdom. However, the decision was not without controversy domestically.
South Korea’s decision to support the United States and send troops was also driven by significant economic incentives. This included continued US military (including technology) support, favorable trade conditions crucial for an export-driven economy; and lucrative contracts in construction, energy and telecommunications in Iraqi reconstruction. At the time, these economic benefits substantially aided South Korea’s expansion into Middle East markets.
In South Korea, public opinion on the Iraq War was deeply divided. Many South Koreans viewed the war as a misuse of power by the United States and a violation of international norms. Nonetheless, South Korea’s government argued that the alliance with the US was paramount, especially given the ongoing military tension with North Korea. Supporting the US in Iraq was thus seen as a way for South Korea to strengthen its strategic ties with Washington, hoping for continued security guarantees and political backing on the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea’s support for Russia in Ukraine
Now, over 30 months into the conflict in Ukraine, North Korea has sent military support to Russia. Although the exact nature of this support remains somewhat opaque, evidence shows North Korea has provided artillery shells and other ammunition to aid Russian forces, and has now deployed military forces – although the exact nature of the role they will play remains unclear. For North Korea, this support signals a deepening alliance with Russia amid the global sanctions and isolation both countries face.
In supporting Russia, North Korea has likely secured vital energy supplies, food assistance and potential access to advanced military technology, which are crucial for its struggling economy. Additionally, it is likely that direct cash or in-kind payments would add to the leadership’s capacity to maintain control within the regime.
The decision also reflects North Korea’s longstanding anti-Western stance and its desire to counterbalance US influence in East Asia. By supporting Russia in Ukraine, North Korea sends a strong message of defiance against what it perceives as Western imperialism. Furthermore, aligning itself with Russia gives North Korea an important ally in a world where it has few, and where its economy and resources are heavily constrained by international sanctions. Russia, in turn, gains from North Korea’s artillery supply, easing its own ammunition shortages on the frontlines in Ukraine.
Norms are dead, long live geopolitical irony!
The irony of these events is not lost on observers. Each of the Korean Peninsula’s two rival states found itself aligned with a superpower facing accusations of illegal aggression. The decisions were not necessarily rooted in agreement with the aggressors’ justifications but were strategic moves that underscored the Koreas’ respective geopolitical alliances.
South Korea’s participation in Iraq, while controversial, demonstrated its alignment with the Western world and its dependence on the US security umbrella, a crucial factor in its security strategy against North Korea. Similarly, North Korea’s support for Russia highlights its resistance to Western influence and a desire to maintain the balance of power in East Asia by aligning itself with a powerful, albeit embattled, Russia.
These parallel decisions also raise broader questions about the role of international law and norms in shaping state behavior. Despite overwhelming global condemnation and the potential for diplomatic fallout, both superpowers – first the US and later Russia – acted in ways they believed served their national interests. South Korea and North Korea, likewise, prioritized their strategic alliances over strict adherence to international legal standards, underscoring the limits of international law when national security is perceived to be at stake.
The two cases make a strong argument that “middle power” norms are, and always were, dependent on national interest. There is no such thing as “good international citizenship.” It is wholly dependent on national interest.
In the end, these cases demonstrate that international alliances often exert a stronger influence on state behavior than adherence to global norms or concerns about the legality of military actions. South Korea’s support for the US in Iraq and North Korea’s support for Russia in Ukraine both highlight how secondary states navigate complex webs of power and influence. The priorities of both Koreas remain their national interestw and the maintenance of alliances that offer them some leverage and stability in an unpredictable world.
The decisions of South Korea and North Korea to involve themselves in wars widely viewed as illegal demonstrate the complex nature of international relations and the powerful sway of alliances. The two Koreas, though ideologically opposed, responded similarly when they were pressured – and offered incentives – by their superpower allies. In an increasingly multipolar world where great power competition has resurged, these choices illustrate how small states continue to play strategic roles, often prioritizing geopolitical advantage over universal principles.
Jeffrey Robertson is an academic, consultant and writer focusing on foreign affairs, diplomacy and the Korean Peninsula. This article was originally published on his Substack, Diplomatic Seoul, and is republished with permission. Read more here.
