South Korean media: [Editorial] U.S. Blocks South Korea's Access to AI — "Trusted Partner" Under Scrutiny

¬ To curb China, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command reverts to its original name: "Pacific Command"

+

Media outlets including The Washington Post reported that the U.S. government’s decision to restrict foreign access to Anthropic’s latest cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) model was triggered by a South Korean telecom company’s alleged ties to China. At the same time, U.S. Commerce Secretary was discussing with major countries such as those in Europe at the G7 summit in France on establishing a “trusted partner” framework—granting selective access to the newest AI technologies. This can be interpreted as the U.S. attempting to treat advanced AI like nuclear energy and semiconductors, classifying it as a “national strategic asset,” implying that “only allies adhering to U.S. ‘security guidelines’ will share in the AI civilization.” At this sensitive moment, South Korea has been singled out as a potential channel for technology leakage, placing it squarely under the test of becoming a “trusted partner.”

Before questioning the “China connection,” conservative U.S. think tank experts publicly discussed the uncertainty of the U.S.-South Korea alliance in a column in The Wall Street Journal, characterizing the South Korean government as pursuing a “hardline left-wing trajectory.” Early this month, The New York Times cited a report from a U.S. defense counterintelligence agency stating that South Korea was listed as a top-tier counterintelligence concern, on par with Israel. Although agencies such as Cheong Wa Dae have rebutted these claims as “completely baseless” and “serious distortions,” it is difficult to deny that the U.S. is closely monitoring South Korea’s security situation.

This series of developments presents South Korea with two urgent challenges: “diligent diplomacy” and an independent strategy aimed at technological self-reliance. The South Korean government must transparently assess the current state of cybersecurity among South Korean enterprises, eliminate grounds for distrust, and demonstrate through high-level channels that South Korea is the most secure AI ally. Immediate targeted diplomatic efforts are needed to prevent unfounded suspicions from becoming stumbling blocks in the technological alliance.

At the same time, the government must accelerate the development of small language models (sLLMs) led by public institutions, ensuring that essential systems in finance, defense, and administration can continue operating normally even if external AI supply chains are disrupted during emergencies. Possessing an “emergency generator” capable of minimizing reliance on specific foreign tech giants has now become a matter of national security.

In an era where “you can only use advanced AI if the U.S. approves,” the fact that South Korea—a friendly nation—is being treated as a target of suspicion demands serious attention. The South Korean government should urgently reorganize the national AI policy command structure—including the previously vacant position of Chief of AI at Cheong Wa Dae—due to personnel shortages caused by elections, while simultaneously strengthening diplomacy with the U.S. and advancing self-sufficiency in core technologies.

+

On the 17th, the U.S. Department of Defense (War Department) announced it would restore the name of the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) back to its original designation: “Pacific Command (PACOM).” On that day, the Department stated: “Established by President Harry S. Truman on January 1, 1947, the Pacific Command operated under that name for over 70 years, becoming the oldest and largest unified combatant command in the U.S. military.” Headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii, the Pacific Command is led by a four-star general and oversees more than 30 nations, including South Korea, Japan, Guam, and Alaska.

Regarding the name restoration, the Department said: “The purpose is to honor the command’s deep historical legacy and to inspire pride and unity among all service members across the Pacific region.” It added that “the Pacific Command played a central role in building the regional security architecture after World War II, and was responsible for commanding joint forces during the Korean War, Vietnam War, and countless humanitarian operations. The name carries decades of military heritage and enduring regional partnerships.”

In 2018, during President Donald Trump’s first term, the command was renamed from the long-standing “Pacific Command” to the “Indo-Pacific Command,” citing that “the Indian Ocean and the Pacific have become a single strategic domain.” Analysts suggest this renaming was intended to emphasize the U.S. strategic vision of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” (FOIP) aimed at countering China’s rise. However, after eight years, the name has now reverted to its original form. The Department clarified: “The geographic scope of the Pacific Command remains unchanged—from waters near the U.S. West Coast to the western borders of India,” and “the fundamental mission of the command, along with its steadfast commitment to maintaining freedom and openness in the region alongside allied and partner nations, remains unchanged.”

Source: Chosun Ilbo

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1868303183347722/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.