In 2015, British journalist Tim Marshall published Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Tell You Everything You Need to Know About Global Politics. This book breaks the globe into ten regions, analyzing how geographical features like rivers, mountains, and seas influence political decisions, military strategies, and economic development. Tim Marshall is praised for making a complex topic accessible and engaging. However, his book also faces criticism for certain omissions. Critics point out that by focusing solely on geography, Marshall sometimes neglects other significant factors in political decision-making. In any case, it is useful to learn from the ideas in Prisoners of Geography.
Below, there is a summary of the eighth chapter of the book, which focuses on Korea and Japan. You can find all available summaries of this book, or you can read the summary from the previous chapter of the book, by clicking these links.
Addressing the issue of Korea is less about finding a definitive solution and more about managing an ongoing problem amid various global concerns. The region from Malaysia to Vladivostok is particularly anxious about the North and South Korea situation, fearing it could escalate and impact neighboring countries and their economies. China, for example, is wary of both supporting North Korea and the prospect of a unified Korea with American bases near its border. The United States, while reluctant to fight for South Korea, cannot abandon an ally. Japan, given its historical involvement in Korea, must navigate the situation cautiously.
The ideal path forward involves compromise, but South Korea shows little interest in this, and North Korea’s leadership is completely opposed. The way ahead remains unclear, perpetually out of reach.
Contrastingly, the USA and Cuba have managed to quietly rebuild diplomatic relations, unlike North Korea, which remains hostile to external engagement. North Korea, a destitute nation of about 25 million people, is ruled by a corrupt communist monarchy and supported by China to prevent a refugee crisis. The USA maintains around 30,000 troops in South Korea to deter North Korean aggression, while South Korea hesitates to jeopardize its prosperity by pushing for reunification.
The risk of forcing a solution at an inopportune moment could lead to disastrous consequences, including potential nuclear conflict and humanitarian crises. If North Korea collapses, it could lead to widespread instability, with war, terrorism, and refugee flows affecting the region. Thus, the resolution of the North Korean issue is deferred to future generations.
Open discussions about North Korea’s collapse are avoided to prevent hastening such an event, for which no one is prepared. North Korea continues to exploit its precarious position, playing global powers against each other to avoid a united front against it. Domestically, it propagates an image of strength and defiance against foreign adversaries, despite being a totalitarian state marked by severe human rights abuses.
The North Korean government’s control over information makes it difficult to gauge the true sentiments of its people. Observations of mass public displays of grief, such as during Kim Jong-il’s death, suggest that genuine emotions may be mixed with orchestrated performances for state propaganda.
Korea’s historical context adds another layer to understanding its current situation. The country, known as the “Hermit Kingdom” in the eighteenth century, tried to isolate itself after repeated invasions and occupations by neighboring powers. However, this isolation was ultimately unsuccessful, leading to Japan’s annexation in 1910 and subsequent cultural suppression. These historical grievances still affect relations between Japan and both Korean states.
Post-World War II, Korea was divided at the 38th parallel, creating a communist north under Soviet influence and a pro-American south. This division, initially an arbitrary decision made during an emergency meeting by junior American officers, became a permanent and contentious border.
In 1948, the Soviets withdrew their troops from North Korea, followed by the American withdrawal from South Korea in 1949. This left an emboldened North Korean military to cross the 38th parallel in June 1950, aiming to reunify the peninsula under communist rule. North Korean forces advanced nearly to the southern coast, prompting a strong response from Washington.
The North Korean and Chinese leadership correctly assessed that Korea was not strategically vital to the U.S. in purely military terms. However, they underestimated the geopolitical importance for the U.S. to defend South Korea to maintain global confidence among its allies during the Cold War. Failing to protect South Korea could have jeopardized U.S. alliances worldwide, much like its modern commitments to East Asia and Eastern Europe. In response, the U.S. led a United Nations force to push the North Koreans back, almost to the Chinese border.
China, alarmed by the proximity of U.S. forces, intervened by sending troops across the Yalu River, leading to intense fighting. After thirty-six months and heavy casualties, the conflict ended with a truce along the current border near the 38th parallel, not a peace treaty. This artificial division of the peninsula remains, with the geography showing little natural separation between the north and south.
Technically, the Koreas are still at war, with tensions always at a critical point. The threat of North Korea’s nuclear weapons is a concern for Japan, the U.S., and South Korea, but South Korea faces an additional threat from North Korea’s conventional military capabilities. Seoul, just 35 miles south of the DMZ, is home to nearly half of South Korea’s population and is within range of North Korea’s artillery.
North Korea has around 10,000 artillery pieces positioned in the hills above the DMZ, many in fortified positions. While not all can reach central Seoul, those that can would cause significant damage in the event of an attack. Even though South Korean and U.S. air forces could eventually neutralize these artillery positions, the initial assault would devastate Seoul, leading to massive casualties and widespread chaos.
Experts estimate that North Korean forces could launch up to 500,000 artillery rounds at Seoul in the first hour of conflict. Even a fraction of this would result in catastrophic damage. South Korea would face the dual challenge of fighting a major war and managing the resulting humanitarian crisis, with millions fleeing southwards.
The geography between the DMZ and Seoul is relatively flat, allowing North Korean forces to advance quickly in a surprise attack, supported by Special Forces and sleeper cells. North Korea’s military plans include submarine landings south of Seoul and the activation of these covert operatives, making its Special Forces a significant threat.
North Korea has demonstrated its capability to reach Tokyo with ballistic missiles, having launched several over Japan into the Pacific. Its armed forces, over a million strong, are one of the largest in the world, and even if many are not highly trained, they serve as a formidable force for Pyongyang.
In the event of conflict, the U.S. would fight alongside South Korea, China would be on high alert, and Russia and Japan would closely monitor the situation. A major war would be devastating for all parties involved, as demonstrated by the Korean War, which resulted in up to four million deaths. Modern conflict could be even more destructive.
The South Korean economy is significantly stronger than the North’s, and a combined South Korean and U.S. military force would likely defeat North Korea, assuming China does not intervene. However, the aftermath would be chaotic, with little planning for post-war scenarios. The economic and political implications of reunification would be vast, with South Korea bearing most of the costs, potentially holding back its economy for a decade.
China would likely intervene to secure North Korea as a buffer zone, while the U.S. would need to secure North Korean weapons of mass destruction. Japan would have to weigh the implications of a powerful, unified Korea but would probably support reunification despite historical tensions.
Rebuilding the north would be a monumental task, far exceeding the costs of German reunification, due to North Korea’s lack of infrastructure and development. Despite the potential long-term benefits from the north’s natural resources, the immediate economic burden would be significant.
For now, both sides continue to prepare for potential conflict, locked in a mutual state of fear and suspicion, much like India and Pakistan. The situation remains tense, with no clear resolution in sight.
South Korea has evolved into a dynamic and integrated global player with a foreign policy reflecting its modern identity. Surrounded by open waters and possessing few natural resources, South Korea has developed a formidable navy over the past thirty years to protect its interests in the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea. Like Japan, South Korea relies heavily on foreign energy sources and monitors regional sea lanes closely. It has also strategically strengthened diplomatic ties with Russia and China, much to North Korea’s displeasure.
Any miscalculation could lead to a devastating war affecting not only the Korean Peninsula but also the regional economies and the U.S. economy due to its strategic importance. The U.S.’s initial Cold War stance against Russia has grown into a critical economic and strategic concern for multiple countries.
Relations between South Korea and Japan remain strained due to historical grievances from Japan’s occupation. Even when cooperating, their interactions are often only cordial. In 2015, when sharing military intelligence on North Korea, South Korea chose to route sensitive information through the U.S. rather than directly to Japan, reflecting lingering distrust. Additionally, both countries have a territorial dispute over the Dokdo (Takeshima) Islands, currently controlled by South Korea but also claimed by Japan. Despite these disputes and historical tensions, both nations recognize the need for cooperation.
Japan’s history diverges significantly from Korea’s, shaped largely by its geography. An island nation, Japan consists of four main islands and thousands of smaller ones. The largest, Honshu, includes Tokyo, the world’s most populous city. Japan’s proximity to the Eurasian landmass has prevented successful invasions, with natural barriers like the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan providing protection. Historically, Japan fended off invasions, such as those by the Mongols in the 1300s, with the aid of storms, which they believed were divine interventions.
Japan’s self-imposed isolation lasted until the modern era, after which it expanded aggressively. By the early 20th century, Japan had become an industrial power with a formidable navy, engaging in wars to curb Chinese and Russian influence in Korea. Viewing Korea as a strategic threat, Japan annexed it in 1910 and later occupied Manchuria. Japan’s expansion was driven by its need for resources, lacking in coal, oil, gas, rubber, and metals necessary for industrialization.
This resource-driven expansion led Japan to invade China in the 1930s and Southeast Asia in the early 1940s. As Japan’s empire grew, so did its need for resources, culminating in conflicts with Western powers. The U.S. ultimatum to Japan, demanding withdrawal or facing an oil embargo, resulted in Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, further escalating into a broad conflict across Southeast Asia.
Japan’s overreach led to its eventual downfall. The U.S. island-hopping campaign in the Pacific was costly and slow, ultimately leading to the decision to use nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan’s geography played a role in this decision, as the difficult terrain made a ground invasion too costly. The bombings forced Japan’s surrender and marked the beginning of the nuclear age.
Post-war Japan, with American assistance, rebuilt rapidly and became an economic powerhouse within three decades. However, its militarism and belligerence were deeply impacted by the war’s devastation. Japan’s new constitution limited its military to Self-Defence Forces, heavily restricted in size and capability, with defense spending capped at 1% of GDP. The U.S. stationed tens of thousands of troops in Japan, a presence that continues to this day with 32,000 American forces remaining. Despite these restrictions, Japan has maintained a significant role in regional security, balancing its pacifist constitution with the need to address modern security challenges.
By the early 1980s, a resurgence of nationalism began to stir in Japan. Older generations struggled to fully acknowledge the extent of Japan’s wartime atrocities, while younger generations were unwilling to bear the guilt for their ancestors’ actions. Many Japanese desired a prominent position in the post-war world. Consequently, a flexible interpretation of Japan’s constitution allowed for the gradual transformation of its Self-Defence Forces into a modern military unit. As China’s rise became more evident, the U.S. recognized the need for military allies in the Pacific and accepted Japan’s re-militarization.
In the 21st century, Japan has revised its defense policies to enable its forces to participate in overseas missions alongside allies. Constitutional changes are anticipated to solidify this legal framework. In its 2013 Security Strategy document, Japan explicitly identified China as a potential adversary, citing Chinese actions perceived as coercive attempts to alter the status quo.
Japan’s 2015 defense budget was the largest to date, amounting to $42 billion, primarily allocated to naval and air equipment, including six U.S.-made F-35A stealth fighters. In the spring of 2015, Japan unveiled a “helicopter-carrying destroyer”, which, despite official statements, was evidently capable of functioning as an aircraft carrier. This development signaled Japan’s intent to enhance its military capabilities.
Japan’s military infrastructure on Okinawa, guarding the approaches to the main islands, is set for upgrades, enhancing its ability to patrol its Air Defence Zone, which overlaps with China’s zone. This overlap includes the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, controlled by Japan but claimed by China. These islands are strategically significant, offering extensive territorial sea space and potential underwater gas and oil fields, motivating Japan to retain control.
China’s expanded Air Defence Identification Zone in the East China Sea, announced in 2013, encompasses territories claimed by multiple nations, including Japan. Beijing’s declaration that planes must identify themselves or face defensive measures was defied by Japan, South Korea, and the U.S., who flew through the zone without complying. Though China did not respond aggressively, this remains a potential flashpoint.
Japan also claims the Kuril Islands off Hokkaido, lost to the Soviet Union during World War II and still under Russian control. While Russia avoids discussing the matter, the dispute is less contentious compared to Japan’s issues with China. The Kuril Islands, with about 19,000 inhabitants and valuable fishing grounds, are strategically less significant. The dispute maintains a frosty relationship between Russia and Japan, but the issue remains largely dormant.
China’s growing influence is Japan’s primary concern, driving its close diplomatic and military ties with the U.S. Despite some resentment in Okinawa towards the U.S. military presence, the strategic necessity of countering China’s power and Japan’s declining population ensure the continuation of the U.S.-Japan alliance, albeit on more equal terms. Japan’s population is projected to drop below 100 million by mid-century, making strong alliances crucial.
The U.S. military presence remains vital in both Korea and Japan, forming a triangular relationship underlined by their shared intelligence agreements. Despite historical and territorial disputes, Japan and South Korea prioritize their mutual concerns over China and North Korea, ensuring cooperation.
While addressing the Korean issue remains challenging, the rise of China will continue to dominate strategic considerations. This ensures the U.S. 7th Fleet’s presence in the Bay of Tokyo and U.S. Marines stationed in Okinawa, maintaining vigilance over the Pacific and China Seas. The geopolitical waters are expected to remain turbulent.
You can read the summary of the next chapter of the book by clicking this link.
Leave a Reply