How to deal with Donald Trump
There are two approaches to restoring South Korea–U.S. relations under President Donald Trump. The first, most superficial view, sees Trump as a fleeting anomaly and expects the U.S. to soon revert to its typical pro-democracy, market-driven norms. If this optimistic scenario unfolds, negotiations between South Korea and the United States will involve step-by-step discussions about reciprocal investments, military commitments and tariff rates. Will the 15 percent tariff rate unilaterally granted by the U.S. to South Korea imports remain stable? Trump may change his mind, as he often does.
Moreover, those tariffs would be extraordinarily difficult to apply when any product or service these days is a link in a chain of production with no specific origin. Tinkering with tariffs at the next Washington meeting would only save time and save face. Until when? Until Trump gets tired with MAGA?
This is the reason why I will gladly recommend the second hypothesis, which is that of a radical transformation of the nature of the United States. Nationalism, isolationism, protectionism, hostility to immigration and anti-scientific posturing are the characteristics of the Trump era. This is a clear and widely accepted definition of the MAGA ideology. Those traits are not new in the history of the United States. On several occasions, this country has closed itself off entirely to immigrants and exchanges, with total contempt for the rest of the world. This traditional isolationism and white supremacy only ceased to be dominant in 1945 and onwards when the Americans became the world's policemen by accident, in Europe against communism and in Asia in order to contain China's ambitions and prevent local conflicts from degenerating into a third world war.
Trumpism is thus, basically, a return to U.S. origins. If this ideological Trumpism proves enduring, as I suppose it will, South Korea may need to proactively develop new economic, military and foreign policies to address the challenges of an evolving global landscape. The solution to this challenge should be based on Asian geography and civilization. To start, Japan could potentially become the closest ally of South Korea, provided efforts are managed by leaders, scholars and NGOs from both nations. It is essential to acknowledge that the futures of South Korea and Japan are closely interconnected. Building on this understanding, it is conceivable that these two nations could serve as the foundation for a new Asian free trade and democratic area, an “Asian Union,” drawing inspiration from the Franco-German partnership. A Seoul-Tokyo axis may play a role similar to that of the Paris-Berlin axis in Europe. Removing all customs duties between South Korea and Japan could set an example for regional partners like the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore and Indonesia.
What about China, the elephant in the room? Mutual recognition and respect may promote peaceful coexistence between China and a developing Asian Union. Such regional cooperation that reduces dependence on the United States will signal Asia's independence from American interests. If the U.S. chooses unpredictability, let it do so alone at its own risk.
What about U.S. protection vis-a-vis North Korea? It is important not to overstate the risks posed by either China or North Korea, nor rely forever on a shaky U.S. umbrella. If confronted with nuclear threats from North Korea, South Korea and Japan might consider possible responses, including the option of developing their own tactical nuclear weapons. This technical and diplomatic threat would bring North Korea back to more wisdom.
Beyond North Korea, an emerging Asian Union should consider developing a coordinated military strategy, if not establishing a joint military force. This is the current European pattern as an answer to unreliable U.S. military plans. By initiating a comprehensive diplomatic, economic and security partnership — broader than existing frameworks like ASEAN — South Korea would be better positioned to address its key geopolitical challenges regarding China and North Korea. These concerns are interlinked, given North Korea’s reliance on Chinese support; consequently, fostering stable relations with China will be fundamental for the success of any prospective “Asian Union.”
Such an initiative would differ from prevailing narratives in the United States, where Trump’s team suggests that China seeks regional hegemony through military dominance. This Trumpian interpretation aligns with certain benefits within the American defense sector but does not necessarily reflect the best interests of Asian nations. Actually, China’s primary aims appear to be dignity, respect, a restoration of its international standing and the advancement of living standards for its population. An Asian Union could easily live with that.
What about Europe within this new world order? Productive relations between the new Asian Union and European Union would benefit both, as the E.U. seeks only democracy and prosperity and is open to sharing these values with Asia and the world.
Of course, in case South Korea alters its alliances, it must inform the U.S. president in advance to avoid misunderstandings or unnecessary tensions.
When in Washington, the South Korean president, Lee Jae Myung, should not approach Donald Trump from a position of weakness nor beg for reassuring treatment. On the contrary, he could lead the conversation, explaining that from now on, Asia will follow its own priorities and rely on its own strength.
To achieve this new global order, Asia still needs leaders who will support such a necessary long-term strategy. Building an Asian Union also depends on public backing and clear communication. Otherwise, the region risks remaining subject to the unpredictable decisions of any U.S. president.
In a nutshell, the next meeting between Donald Trump and Lee Jae Myung should be seized as a unique opportunity not to play along with Trump’s rules but to change the rules by promoting a new Asian Union that can replace the nearly defunct U.S. security umbrella. A polite "no deal" with Donald Trump could prove the best deal. Trump would understand — he respects strong men. At the Washington summit, President Lee could make history or break it.
Guy Sorman is a French philosopher and economist, and the author of "Economics Does Not Lie" and "Diary of an Optimist."