Category: US-ROK Alliance

Despite the current trade and defense spats with the Trump administration the people of Korea still hold a very pro-US view according to this survey:

Nine out of 10 South Koreans regard the United States as their most important ally, with only a small minority viewing it as a significant threat.

According to the latest findings from the U.S.-based Pew Research Center, released Tuesday local time, 89 percent of South Korean respondents identified the United States as their country’s most vital ally.

The survey, conducted between Jan. 8 and April 26, included 28,033 respondents across 25 major countries. In South Korea, 1,042 adults aged 18 and older were interviewed by telephone during that period. (……….)

South Korea ranked second overall in pro-U.S. sentiment, following only Israel, where 95 percent of respondents named the U.S. as their most important ally. In comparison, 78 percent of Japanese respondents said the same, falling behind South Korea in terms of favorable views toward the U.S.

Korea Times

You can read more at the link.

One commentator at the Korea Times thinks so:

Just a day after stirring a beehive for Korean negotiators and the government engaged in tariff talks with the United States, U.S. President Donald Trump said that Korea pays “very little” for America’s military support and should pay much more for its defense. Under a bilateral military alliance, there are 28,500 U.S. military personnel stationed in Korea.

“We rebuilt South Korea. We stayed there. It’s OK. We rebuilt it and we stayed there, and they pay us very little for the military,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting. “South Korea is making a lot of money and they are good … But you know, they should be paying for their own military.”

It’s the latest in a series of dramatic comments that the U.S. president has hurled at Korea. Trump on the campaign trail had said that Korea would be paying $10 billion a year if he were in the White House. (……..)

The time has come for officials to engage in talks based on data and numbers but also in a mutually beneficial and respectful manner. The U.S., for its part, should seriously consider the adverse impact its excessive demands on traditional allies such as South Korea will have on the deterrence against North Korea and — more profoundly for the U.S. — China. Alliances should not be sacrificed for the unilateral and transactional pursuit of short-term national interests as sought by the Trump administration.

Korea Times

You can read more at the link, but the alliance will survive the Trump administration. However, if the ROK does not agree to the strategic flexibility that the Pentagon is looking for then this could cause some changes to the alliance.

The rhetoric from President Trump has shifted from NATO to now South Korea in effort to get them to increase defense spending:

 U.S. President Donald Trump said Tuesday that South Korea pays the United States “very little” for America’s military support and should pay for its own defense, amid expectations that he would demand the Asian ally shoulder a greater security burden.

Trump made the remarks during a Cabinet meeting, reinforcing speculation that his administration might demand that Seoul sharply increase its spending on national defense or its share of the cost for stationing the 28,500-strong U.S. Forces Korea (USFK).

“We rebuilt South Korea. We stayed there. It’s okay. We rebuilt it,” Trump said. “And we stayed there, and they pay us very little for the military.”

He cast South Korea as “making a lot of money” — a remark that further raised pressure on Seoul to jack up its defense spending.

Yonhap

You can read more at the link, but the ROK government had to know this was coming considering President Trump’s past rhetoric demanding the ROK to pay more for the upkeep of USFK. We should soon see how they respond to the demand from Trump.

Here is the latest on enhnancing strategic flexibility of U.S. military forces in Korea and Japan:

In a contribution made to a Japanese daily newspaper, The Asahi Shimbun, Jost said, while stressing more cooperation with the Japanese Defense Forces, that the USFJ’s primary task would shift from “alliance management missions” to “operations that span the spectrum of operations from humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and armed conflict” over time. He referred to an expanded role for the USFJ in countering China’s threat in the Indo-Pacific region, writing, “The security, freedom and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific face increasing challenges from adversarial nations, primarily the People’s Republic of China … These threats are only intensifying.”

In tandem, local media has reported that the USFK was using a training map of the Asian region drawn upside down to illustrate the proximity of Korea to Taiwan and the Philippines, suggesting U.S. forces possibly being deployed, should a conflict arise centered on Taiwan or in the South China Sea. Gen. Brunson is expected to meet the Korean press this month to speak about the “strategic flexibility” of U.S. forces in Korea.

The combination of these comments signals that the Trump administration’s claims of strategic flexibility may materialize in not only deployment of U.S. forces in South Korea to other areas, but also a changed status for USFK command. Many eyes are watching the forthcoming U.S. National Defense Strategy, which will detail the U.S. administration’s defense posture globally as competition with China deepens. Additionally, there are reports that have some officials within the Trump administration proposing to elevate the commander of the USFJ to a four-star general level while demoting the status of the current USFK commander to a three-star general’s post.

To be sure, the USFJ has about 55,000 soldiers stationed in Japan and is considered a strategic command for Indo-China as well as bilaterally, while the USFK has 28,500 forces in South Korea. However, joint operations with the Japan Self-Defense Forces will not reach the capabilities of the USFK and the South Korean military anytime soon.

Korea Times

You can read more at the link, but reducing the USFK commander to a three-star would be a loss of prestige and influence for the ROK government with the United States. On the other hand, the USFJ commander becoming a four-star would be a positive for Japan. I can understand why the ROK government will want to lobby hard to keep the four-star position on the pen. However, why can’t they both just be three stars that work for the INDOPACOM four star commander?

In regards to strategic flexibility of U.S. troops in USFK this has already happened as the recent deployment of U.S. Patriot batteries from both Korea and Japan demonstrate.

It looks like the pressure is on for Korea to increase defense spending:

National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac said Thursday that South Korea is facing calls from the United States to align with the global trend of increasing defense spending, following a decision by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to raise its defense budget target.

Speaking to reporters after returning from the NATO summit held earlier this week in The Hague, Wi noted that NATO member states had agreed to increase their defense spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product by 2035, a move he said carries implications for South Korea as well.

Yonhap

You can read more at the link.

The U.S. has long sought strategic flexibility for its troops in South Korea and it appears USGK is close to achieving this goal:

As South Korea and the United States mark the 75th anniversary of the Korean War’s outbreak this month, their alliance appears headed for a crucial shift, with the Donald Trump administration seeking to “modernize” it amid a hardening Sino-U.S. rivalry. (…….)

“The use of ‘modernize’ in this context seems like an effort to put a positive spin on what is essentially unilateral U.S. pressure on Seoul to ‘reorient’ or ‘refocus’ the strategic focus of the long-standing U.S.-ROK alliance in ways that better align with Trump administration priorities vis-a-vis China,” Rapson told Yonhap News Agency. ROK is short for South Korea’s official name, the Republic of Korea.

“There’s also an implied threat that if the alliance is not ‘modernized’ in this way, it may not be ‘sustainable.'” he added.

Yonhap

You can read more at the link.

Unfortunately President Lee will have to wait for another time to meet with President Trump because he is busy right now trying to determine whether to end the Iranian regime:

 President Lee Jae Myung’s envisioned meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in Canada won’t take place as Trump abruptly left the Group of Seven (G7) summit earlier than scheduled, Lee’s office said. 

Lee’s office had been arranging the first in-person meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit, but the White House said Trump will return home Monday night due to the deadly Israel-Iran conflict, dashing hopes for Lee to have talks with Trump during the gathering.

“As Trump suddenly returned today, it has become difficult to hold the Korea-U.S. summit that was scheduled for tomorrow. It appears to be related to the military conflict between Israel and Iran,” National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac told reporters in Calgary.

Yonhap

You can read more at the link, but on the topic of ending the Iranian regime does anyone else find it despicable how many American leftists are on social media cheering on the Iranians against Israel? Ironically these same people cheering on the Iranians probably have coexist stickers on their cars and wave gay pride flags.

Nothing new here, Secretary Hegseth is just repeating what he and the President have said multiple times before:

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday reiterated President Donald Trump’s call for allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense burden-sharing, noting that America “can’t want their security more than they do.”

Hegseth made the remarks during a House Appropriations Committee hearing amid lingering speculation that the Trump administration could demand South Korea raise its share of the cost for stationing the 28,500-strong U.S. Forces Korea (USFK).

Yonhap

You can read more at the link.

I knew this was BS when I first read about it. Some planners in the Pentagon were probably working on different force structure options in the Pacific. Different options were developed and someone decided to leak this information even though no formal discussiosn or decisions on anything has been made:

South Korea’s military on Friday firmly denied that any discussions have taken place with the United States regarding a potential withdrawal of American troops from the peninsula, following a media report suggesting the White House was considering such a move. “Absolutely nothing was discussed,” the Ministry of National Defense said in a text message to reporters.

It emphasized that the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in the South remain a “core strategy” of the U.S.-South Korea alliance and a key deterrent to North Korean aggression. The statement came hours after The Wall Street Journal, citing two unnamed U.S. military officials, reported that President Donald Trump’s administration was evaluating a possible redeployment of 4,500 troops from South Korea to other Indo-Pacific locations, including Guam. The report said the idea was among several under consideration and had not yet been presented to Trump.

Stars & Stripes

You can read more at the link, but the USFK troops can’t move to Guam anyway because Congressman Johnson said it would tip over.

I tend to agree that it is likely not good for U.S. creditability to try and renegotiate a deal signed by the prior Biden administration:

The Trump administration will face credibility issues if it attempts, following the imposition of a 10% tariff on South Korea, to renegotiate the cost of stationing U.S. troops there, according to policy experts. President Donald Trump proposed a streamlined, “one-stop shopping” deal on defense and trade after a 30-minute call on April 8 with acting South Korean President Han Duck-soo, according to a Truth Social post from Trump that day.

But any attempt to renegotiate the defense spending agreement reached in November is premature until South Korea elects a permanent replacement for former President Yoon Suk Yeol in June, said Hwang Jihwan, a University of Seoul professor of international relations, by phone Friday. Yoon, impeached in December over his failed attempt to impose martial law, was formally removed from office on April 4 by the South Korean Constitutional Court.

Stars and Stripes

You can read more at the link, but I don’t see how the ROK can agree to any significant deal until after the next president is innaugurated in June.