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. But with the U.S. president becoming ever more unilateral, as illustrated in the exercise of a "prerogative" in threatening 25 percent "reciprocal" tariffs against South Korea and various rates for 13 other nations, his latest remarks weigh heavily on Seoul policymakers regarding Korea's defense cost sharing. The timing of Trump's defense spending comment maximizes pressure on Seoul. Top Korean officials — President Lee Jae Myung's national security adviser Wi Sung-lac and top trade negotiator Yeo Han-koo — were in Washington to discuss wide-ranging trade and defense issues. Also adding to the defense pressure, Gen. Xavier Brunson, commander of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), has increasingly been talking up "strategic flexibility" or redeploying U.S. forces stationed in Korea to other conflict zones.
Even as the world grows wearier of Trump's aggressive negotiation tactics, what is undeniable is that Trump is finally and in earnest detailing his demands for Korea on tariffs, the specifics regarding the military alliance and other nontariff barriers.
As a result, the Korean negotiators are expected to be kept busy in the three weeks before the Aug. 1 deadline. Trump's hostility toward Seoul shows that allies will not be an exception. Negotiations in the future will be of a mercurial and transactional nature foremost. The pressure from the U.S. president amounts to a focused and targeted strike on allied nations. Watchers point out how divergent it is from trade negotiations and agreements produced after years of discussions. How Trump's aggressive tactics actually evolve may well be detrimental also to the U.S., and for this reason the top working-level officials from the two countries must do whatever they can to prevent that from happening.
In an effort to revitalize the U.S. manufacturing industry and create jobs, while curbing China's rise, Trump is willing to drive a credible ally into a corner, in an effort to recoup any benefit that is perceived as gained unfairly. The differing perceptions over what is fair should be discussed methodically between the two allied nations. There may be need for a new process of trade negotiations that is more structured than the one driven unilaterally by Trump. The U.S. president would do well to lessen the volatility and uncertainty in his words and actions. The recent announcement that the U.S. would slap "reciprocal tariffs" on 14 nations came without clear explanations as to why the nations were selected and how the rates were calculated.
A certain outline of the U.S. demands is taking shape in both tariff and nontariff barriers, so Seoul must pounce to craft various scenarios to protect its interests. Among the nontariff barriers are the issues of defense cost sharing as well as subjecting USFK to "strategic flexibility" as the U.S. rivalry with China deepens. Other nontariff demands include deregulation of Korea's online platform laws. There is also pressure to open Korea's domestic markets to more U.S. beef and agricultural products.
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.