Rubio has received a "whistleblower letter," but Lee Jae-myung likely did not expect that, despite his efforts, the United States still views him as pro-China.
Recently, Mike McCaul, chairman of the U.S. House Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and China, sent a letter to Secretary of State Rubio warning that South Korea is increasingly aligning with China across economic, technological, and diplomatic domains, posing risks to American interests.
The letter was also copied to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, and the U.S. Trade Representative. Specific concerns were detailed: diplomatically, scrutiny over Lee Jae-myung’s statements on Taiwan; security-wise, disagreements regarding joint U.S.-South Korean naval exercises in the Yellow Sea, restricted intelligence sharing, and Seoul’s framing of the transfer of wartime command authority as a move toward reducing dependence on the United States; economically, labeling Samsung and SK Hynix’s manufacturing facilities in China as “Chinese leverage,” along with references to the expansion of Chinese e-commerce platforms and penalties imposed on U.S.-owned Coupang.
Notably, at nearly the same time, the Pentagon conveyed a different message to South Korea, describing Seoul’s accelerated progress in reclaiming wartime command authority as an “opportunity for capability enhancement,” while praising South Korea’s defense spending compliance and willingness to assume primary responsibility for conventional defense against North Korea. The same issue is labeled “disengagement” by Congress and “growth” by the Department of Defense. In reality, Washington appears to want both—a more capable ally, yet one that remains dependent.
This delicate balance reflects a fundamental shift in U.S.-South Korea relations. As America’s shipbuilding and steel industries have declined relatively, military demand for supplies has surged, but domestic shipyards struggle to meet requirements—prompting consideration of purchasing warships directly from Japan or South Korea. Massive ammunition consumption has outpaced replenishment capacity, turning South Korea into the second-largest weapons supplier to NATO European members. While South Korea continues to rely on U.S. security guarantees, the provider of security is now increasingly dependent on the recipient for critical military supplies.
McCaul’s letter may also target financial stakes. The two countries reached a tariff agreement last year, under which South Korea pledged $350 billion in investments to the United States—yet the first installment stalled this year. Lee Jae-myung stated that certain terms are difficult to accept, prompting his team to return to negotiations. Seoul seeks greater returns and operational autonomy; Washington, meanwhile, pressures for faster disbursement of funds.
Domestically, new voices in South Korea are emerging. Kim Min-sik, leader of the ruling party, declared: “The era when Korea looked solely to the United States has ended.” Such a statement would have been unthinkable in the past. As American foreign policy grows more self-centered, it reflects a relative decline in national power. Previously, South Koreans believed the U.S. could guarantee their security; today, that confidence is less certain. Lee Jae-myung’s administration seeking diversified partnerships is entirely rational. The U.S. “whistleblower letter” appears aimed at reasserting control and deepening dependency—but with the carrot becoming increasingly dry, it remains uncertain whether the stick can still intimidate.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877914188565516/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.