Photo. ROK_MND / X
Copy link
Send email
Just when Tokyo and Seoul were carefully trying to rebuild defence ties after years of mistrust, an unexpected flashpoint has once again exposed how fragile this rapprochement really is.
What began as a seemingly technical decision about refueling a South Korean aerobatic team has escalated into the cancel of joint naval exercises – and reminded everyone that the unresolved territorial and historical dispute between South Korea and Japan still has the power to derail security cooperation in Northeast Asia.
In early November, Japan abruptly withdrew permission for South Korea’s Black Eagles aerobatic team to refuel at Naha Air Base in Okinawa, a planned stop on their way to the Dubai Airshow. Tokyo’s move came after it discovered that the Korean team had conducted training flights over Dokdo (called Takeshima in Japan), a group of small islets in the Sea of Japan administered by South Korea but claimed by Japan.
The Black Eagles had flown a special sortie from Wonju, drawing the Taegeuk symbol in the sky over Dokdo – a routine element of their displays, but over those islets it became a powerful visual assertion of Korean sovereignty. Although the flight was not publicized by Seoul, Japan detected it, likely via patrol aircraft or airborne early warning assets, and lodged a protest. The response was swift: refueling at Naha was cancelled.
Because the T-50B aircraft used by the Black Eagles cannot refuel in the air and have limited range even with external tanks, the team was unable to secure an alternative stopover in time. Their debut at Dubai was cancelled. Seoul, in turn, notified Japan that it would postpone – effectively cancel – a planned bilateral maritime search and rescue (SAREX) drill between the South Korean Navy and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. Additionally, Korean Ministry of Defence decided not to send its military band to the Japan Self-Defense Forces« music festival in Tokyo – a significant step, as this would have been the first dispatch of a South Korean military band in 10 years, since 2015.
The SAREX exercise was meant to be a highly symbolic step. Between 1999 and 2017 it had been held ten times, but it was frozen after the December 2018 radar incident over the Sea of Japan, when Tokyo accused a South Korean warship of locking its fire-control radar on a Japanese patrol aircraft, and Seoul counter-accused Japan of dangerous low-altitude flying. The planned resumption was supposed to signal that this chapter was closed. Instead, Dokdo has once again brought military confidence-building to a halt.
Why Dokdo is so sensitive
On paper, Dokdo is a small, sparsely inhabited cluster of rocks in the sea. In reality, it carries a disproportionate emotional and political weight, especially in South Korea.
For Koreans, Dokdo is closely tied to the legacy of Japanese annexation and colonial rule (1910-1945). The islets are widely seen as one of the first territories taken by Imperial Japan and thus as a symbol of both past occupation and the post-war restoration of sovereignty. Any hint that Korea might „share” or „soften” its claim is politically suicidal. Successive governments in Seoul, regardless of their political affixation, have therefore framed Dokdo as a non-negotiable territorial issue, leaving virtually no room for compromise.
In Japan, Dokdo/Takeshima is embedded in a broader narrative of post-war „incomplete” territorial settlements (alongside the Kuril/Northern Territories dispute with Russia). Conservative politicians and parts of the bureaucracy regularly reaffirm Tokyo’s claim in diplomatic or defence papers and school textbooks. For them, any South Korean military presence over or around the islets, especially highly visible demonstrations like aerobatic displays, is treated as a challenge to Japan’s legal position.
This asymmetry matters. In South Korea, Dokdo is an emotional symbol of victimhood and restored dignity; in Japan, it is a sovereignty claim but not central to the public’s identity. The net effect is that Korean governments feel compelled to respond strongly to any perceived slight – and cannot be seen as „backing down” in the face of Japanese protests. For this reason, Seoul regularly issues condemnation statements or summons the Japanese ambassador several times a year: for example, during the publication of Japan’s annual defence white papers in July.
Why this matters for regional security
The timing of this latest dispute could not be more problematic. Northeast Asia is entering a period of heightened tensions: North Korea continues to expand its nuclear and missile arsenal, apparently modernizing its Yongbyon nuclear complex and has deepened military cooperation with Russia, raising concerns about technology transfers and coordinated provocations. At the same time, China-Japan tensions over Taiwan and the East China Sea are rising, and the United States is pressing its allies to deepen trilateral cooperation. In this environment, closer defence cooperation between South Korea and Japan would be a crucial pillar of regional crisis management. Joint drills, maritime coordination, and the ability to rapidly share information on missile launches or airspace violations are essential for preventing escalation. When such mechanisms are halted because of historical and territorial disputes, the region’s security architecture becomes more fragile and unpredictable.
The Black Eagles episode illustrates how vulnerable the current South Korean-Japanese rapprochement remains. Despite three recent summits between leaders of both countries, and public declarations of „future-oriented cooperation,” defence ties between Tokyo and Seoul still lack the institutional resilience needed to withstand political pressure. A single decision over an aerobatic team was enough to reverse months of slow, careful progress, showing that defence exchanges lack the institutional resilience needed to withstand political tension. This vulnerability is especially troubling for Washington, which views South Korea-Japan cooperation as essential both for deterring North Korea and for any potential contingency involving China and Taiwan.
Domestic politics further complicate matters. In South Korea, Dokdo is inseparable from historical memory and national sovereignty, leaving leaders with very limited room for flexibility. In Japan, maintaining the Takeshima claim is embedded in bureaucratic routines and political identity, making it difficult for officials to ignore South Korean military activity near the islets. These structural realities make that dispute almost inevitable, even when strategic logic points toward closer cooperation.
Ultimately, the Dokdo issue is more than a bilateral irritant; it is a recurring vulnerability within the wider Indo-Pacific security system. Each flare-up risks slowing trilateral US-Japan-South Korea coordination at a time when North Korea-Russia cooperation and China’s increasingly assertive regional ambitions demand closer alignment among like-minded partners. The incident demonstrates how even small symbolic acts can have disproportionate strategic consequences, and why managing unresolved historical and territorial disputes remains essential for the stability of Northeast Asia.
AloJapan.com