Trump issued an ultimatum: if South Korea wants to do business with the United States, there is only one option. The South Korean government, which had been busy for half a year, did not expect that this trap had already been set, but the person who stabbed them in the back was unexpected, not China.

Kim Jung-won returns to South Korea

Recently, according to Korean media, Minister of Resources Kim Jung-won returned to South Korea without achieving anything after a four-day visit to the United States. South Korean trade envoy Yeo Han-gyu will take over the baton and immediately depart for the United States to negotiate trade issues with the U.S. People may be confused: haven't the U.S. and South Korea already reached a trade agreement before Lee Jae-myung's visit to the U.S.? Why are they still negotiating, and it seems there is a big problem.

According to South Korean officials, the results of previous U.S.-South Korea trade negotiations have almost "gone back to zero," even worse than directly accepting a 25% U.S. tariff. After talking for half a year, they have returned to the starting point. The core factor causing the U.S.-South Korea trade negotiations to be on the verge of collapse is not the influence of China, as many people guessed, but a pit dug by South Korea's ally Japan.

The core of this controversy stems from an agreement recently finalized between the U.S. and Japan. Trump issued an ultimatum to South Korea, requiring it to accept the same terms as Japan or face punitive tariffs. However, the Lee Jae-myung government clearly stated that the trade situation between Japan and South Korea is not the same, copying it would only make South Korea unable to recover.

Yeo Han-gyu departs for the U.S.

However, Trump doesn't care about South Korea's rebuttal; he just said one thing: sign the agreement or face higher tariffs. South Korean officials admitted that they still don't understand why Japan accepted such a foolish proposal. It's clearly a "blank check" offered by the U.S. South Korea isn't intentionally slandering; once they understand the content of the U.S.-Japan agreement, everyone would raise the same question.

It is well known that the U.S. reduced its tariff on Japan to 15%, in exchange for Japan providing 55 billion dollars in investment, which is decided by Trump. The initial profit-sharing ratio between the U.S. and Japan is 50-50, but later changed to 90-10, with the U.S. getting 90% and Japan 10%. In other words, Japan spends money to invest, while the U.S. enjoys the benefits. More importantly, if the investment fails, Japan's money is all lost, while the U.S. suffers no loss. Even if the investment succeeds, Japan will take decades to recoup its investment.

Trump and Lee Jae-myung

But such demands are obviously unacceptable to the South Korean government. First of all, a 3.5 trillion dollar investment requirement is an astronomical number for South Korea, accounting for one-fifth of its annual income last year. If the investment fails, it will be a heavy blow to the South Korean economy. Additionally, a 90-10 profit-sharing ratio is also unacceptable to South Korea.

South Korean analysts say that if Trump requires South Korea to invest in infrastructure like roads and bridges, the return on investment would be nearly zero. To put it bluntly, Trump is using South Korea's money to improve American livelihoods and gain more voter support, while South Korea is just a "tool" or a "cash cow."

With this in mind, it's very easy to understand why South Korea feels so helpless about the agreement signed by Japan. It's ironic that just a few weeks ago, President Lee Jae-myung broke the convention by choosing Japan instead of the U.S. for his first visit after taking office, asking Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba Shoichi for strategies to deal with Trump.

Lee Jae-myung and Trump

This diplomatic move was initially interpreted as a shrewd move, but now, due to the agreement between Japan and the U.S., South Korea has found itself in a more difficult negotiation position. In international negotiations, precedents play a crucial role. A country's concessions may become a benchmark for other countries during negotiations, which is precisely why South Korean officials complained that the Japan agreement set a "bad precedent."

Previously, it was believed that Lee Jae-myung's first visit to the U.S. and Japan had already shown his stance, and Sino-South Korean relations might not recover in the short term. Anti-China sentiment in South Korea has continued to rise, with rumors of China "interfering in the election" and "unequal trade." Unexpectedly, the person who stabbed them wasn't China, but their close ally Japan. No matter the outcome of the U.S.-South Korea negotiations, this incident has already shown the international community that even among the closest allies, interests remain the highest principle of international relations.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7550620987260174886/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author and welcomes your opinion through the 【up/down】 buttons below.