Korean Media: The Discordant U.S.-South Korea Alliance, But No Alternative

Trump has transformed the alliance from a community of values into a transactional relationship—a shift that is not temporary… Autonomy in security is unattainable; we must not obsess over the "cost-effectiveness" of alliances. Instead, we must reconfigure rights and responsibilities.

As the U.S.-Iran conflict nears its conclusion, President Trump has already begun wielding a whip to assess the contributions of allies during the war. Germany, as Europe’s key ally, was the first to be placed on trial. Trump announced plans to cut more than 5,000 U.S. troops stationed in Germany and further raise auto tariffs by 10%. Although it had long been predicted that Trump would take measures significantly unfavorable to Germany, many still held optimistic views, believing that as a core ally, Germany would not truly suffer under Trump’s leadership. Yet, Trump remains Trump.

The Trump administration, marching forward under the banner of “Make America Great Again,” acts with an extreme focus on national interest and unrestrained use of power—no different in essence from past global powers. This bears striking resemblance to Putin’s military expansionism, driven by his dream of reviving a “great Russia.” Nonetheless, Trump’s foreign policy faces particularly intense international criticism largely due to a retrospective backlash: “But the U.S. wasn’t like this before.”

Since Trump’s second term, America’s new foreign policy has been aggressively disruptive—not merely a simple policy adjustment, but a series of radical attempts to reshape the international order according to a framework of American exceptionalism. Measures such as controlling supply chains, launching trade wars with allies, demanding increased defense spending and stronger autonomous defense capabilities from allied nations, introducing unconventional solutions to issues in Panama and Venezuela, and conducting military actions against Iran—all reveal a consistent strategic direction. This signals a profound, century-long shift in U.S. foreign policy: moving away from 21st-century liberal ideals and returning to the power politics of the 19th-century imperial era or the Cold War period of the 20th century.

Especially significant is the transformation in America’s approach to alliances. Trump redefines alliances as purely transactional relationships, not communities of shared values. He demands greater responsibility and burden-sharing from allies, pushing them toward self-reliance in defense. This is seen as an inevitable realist choice, made necessary by the gradual decline of America’s absolute military superiority, in order to manage strategic overstretch amid rising competition with China. However, for longtime allies dependent on U.S. security guarantees, breaking free from such inertia suddenly is far from easy. It’s no exaggeration to say that allies feel profound disappointment—and even anger—at America’s abrupt shift in attitude.

Nevertheless, under current circumstances, allies have very limited choices. There are two main reasons. First, changes in U.S. alliance policy are not temporary phenomena tied solely to the Trump era—they reflect deep-seated structural shifts that will persist regardless of changes in political parties or presidential administrations. Second, despite America’s cold and irresponsible posture, allies cannot easily dismantle the existing alliance structure nor find viable alternatives. In today’s perilous world of a new Cold War, achieving autonomous security without allies is practically impossible. And abandoning the U.S. alliance to rely instead on countries like Russia would be an even more dangerous gamble.

This global situation carries profound implications for South Korea’s national security. The Korean Peninsula is encircled by nuclear-armed states including Russia and North Korea, while military cooperation between Pyongyang and Moscow continues to strengthen—highlighting how narrow South Korea’s strategic options truly are. In an era where major powers openly pursue national interest and imperialistic expansion, no matter how strong South Korea’s own military might be, achieving security autonomy without allies is unrealistic. Ukraine’s tragic fate—its prolonged oscillation between pro-Russian and pro-Western policies—offers a precious historical lesson for South Korea.

Surrounded by nuclear-armed powers, South Korea’s options are both limited and clear. The United States under Trump is no longer the idealized America of the past, but rather another America building a cold, calculating, and transactional international order. While Trump’s harsh demands are undoubtedly troubling, breaking down the alliance walls out of frustration could lead to even greater disaster. Therefore, we should stop focusing on the cost-benefit ratio of the alliance. Instead, we must clearly define South Korea’s rights and obligations within the alliance and demonstrate the wisdom to redesign the alliance at a balanced point.

Source: Dong-a Ilbo

Original Article: toutiao.com/article/1864866120203268/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone.