South Korean Media: Trump Asks: Is the Korea-U.S. Alliance Free of Charge?

¬ The era of unilaterally benefiting from the alliance has come to an end; for Trump, alliances are transactional relationships…

In world history, the history of alliances between nations is as old as that of nations themselves. In an international order dominated by power logic, no country can protect itself alone— even the strongest powers cannot independently confront all external threats. Thus, weaker nations need protection from stronger powers to survive under external pressures, while stronger powers require allies to expand their influence and deter potential challengers. This is how alliances became an inevitable outcome of practical necessity within a survival-of-the-fittest international system.

The nation that most effectively leveraged the alliance system to expand its power in history was Rome during its republican era. Starting as a city-state, Rome unified the entire Italian peninsula and expanded into a Mediterranean empire. This process was not achieved by a single nation alone but through a coalition of allied states, autonomous territories, and provinces. Even during the period when Rome ruled over the Italian peninsula and Sicily, its directly administered territory remained limited—the vast northern and southern regions were still governed by allied states with diverse ethnic compositions and political systems.

The main reason why Rome’s allies remained loyal throughout countless wars and civil conflicts was Rome’s remarkably lenient treatment. Rome did not demand heavy war reparations or territorial cessions from defeated states. Defeated nations could retain their original rule and were not required to pay taxes to Rome. The only requirement Rome imposed was signing a treaty of alliance. In return, these allies merely needed to provide military support when Rome went to war, while Rome would immediately dispatch troops to defend them if they came under foreign invasion. This reciprocal structure formed the core engine behind Rome’s continuous expansion.

This principle of reciprocity in alliances found a modern manifestation in the liberal democratic bloc led by the United States during the Cold War. The U.S., as a hegemon with overwhelming power, differed from other great powers in that it did not threaten the sovereignty of its allies or seize their territory and interests. Instead, it provided massive, unconditional aid and military protection—South Korea being a prime example. During the 6.25 War (Korean War), the U.S. deployed 1.8 million American troops to Korea, including 37,000 killed in action. Since then, the U.S. has continued providing more than two decades of substantial, grant-based economic and military assistance, and today approximately 28,500 U.S. troops remain stationed in South Korea to ensure its security.

The U.S. has dispatched various military forces to around 60 countries worldwide, but only South Korea has hosted over ten thousand U.S. troops for decades, specifically to counter a particular nation. Although the U.S. maintains larger troop deployments in Japan and Germany, those forces serve as regional defense units responsible for securing Europe and the broader East Asia region. Of course, the U.S. has consistently supported South Korea’s security and economic development because this aligns with American values and strategic interests. However, the current Trump administration redefines alliances as calculable transactions based on cost and benefit, casting uncertainty over the future of such partnerships.

Today, South Korea finds itself caught in a dual structural reality: relying on the U.S. for security while simultaneously facing significant political and economic influence from neighboring major powers. As competition between the U.S. and China intensifies and America-first policies grow stronger, this structural balance becomes increasingly unsustainable. If South Korea remains content with strategic ambiguity between the U.S. and its adversaries, the foundation of trust in the alliance will inevitably weaken. Recently, as the U.S. restructures its foreign strategy around countries like Iran, it has raised expectations toward South Korea—but South Korea’s responses have remained cautious and limited. Seoul has refused to get involved in issues concerning the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, recently declined participation in joint air exercises among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan in the East China Sea, and has not responded to U.S. requests to deploy naval forces into the Strait of Hormuz.

In real-world international politics, alliance relationships are mutual exchanges between states—absolutely not free lunches. This truth is especially pronounced under the harsh conditions of a new Cold War and an America-first global order. For over 70 years, South Korea has enjoyed one-sided benefits from the Korea-U.S. alliance, but that golden era has passed—and will not return. If South Korea clings to nostalgia and neglects its reciprocal obligations under alliance treaties and moral responsibilities for cooperation, then initiatives such as building nuclear-powered submarines, revising nuclear agreements, securing U.S. deterrence against North Korea’s nuclear threat, or large-scale deployment of American troops in case of crisis on the Korean Peninsula may become unattainable. What South Korea’s diplomacy needs now is not vague, flowery rhetoric, but credible, concrete actions.

Source: Chosun Ilbo

Original Article: toutiao.com/article/1861416542917632/

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