Seoul, Washington diverge over joint drills as Korea signals flexibility, US stresses readiness

South Korean and U.S. troops build a pontoon bridge during a joint river-crossing exercise on the Namhan River in Yeoju, Gyeonggi Province, Nov. 20. Yonhap

The differences between Seoul and Washington over joint military exercises have become more pronounced. South Korean leaders have publicly suggested scaling down the exercises to bring North Korea to the negotiating table, while U.S. officials oppose the idea and emphasize their importance for alliance readiness.

Scaling down or postponing joint military exercises has been proposed by previous governments, mainly liberal ones, to create a reconciliatory environment with North Korea, as the North has often called the drills “a rehearsal of war.”

President Lee Jae Myung and other officials in his administration have raised the issue as they seek to reopen dialogue with Pyongyang, as communication channels are currently severed.

“If necessary, and if it helps the United States exercise strategic leverage, even the issue of joint military drills can be discussed and considered,” Lee said in a press conference on Dec. 3. “Simply saying such discussions are possible can help to open conditions for negotiations.”

Unification Minister Chung Dong-young echoed this view, repeatedly saying that joint exercises should serve broader goals such as easing tensions and supporting dialogue.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, he said, “Joint South Korea-U.S. military exercises are a tool to achieve peace on the Korean Peninsula. They cannot be the objective in themselves.” He added that the president had already laid out the criteria for reviewing the issue.

Chung noted that the suspension of Team Spirit exercises in 1992 and 1994 helped advance nuclear negotiations with North Korea, while another pause in 2018 coincided with a thaw in inter-Korean relations. He said a similar measure may be needed ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s planned visit to China next April and his potential talks with North Korea.

U.S. officials, however, have taken a sharply different tone, emphasizing the importance of joint drills as a core pillar of deterrence.

Kevin Kim, the acting U.S. ambassador to South Korea, said Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back had underscored the critical nature of coordination on joint exercises.

“Minister Ahn previously reiterated the absolute critical nature of coordinating on joint military exercises. I think the words that he used were that military exercises are like the lifeline of a military. That’s our expectation moving forward,” Kim told reporters.

The acting U.S. ambassador made the remarks after meetings with senior South Korean officials. He said the U.S. would continue discussions with its South Korean counterparts, but emphasized that training remains essential for maintaining readiness.

Military leaders have reinforced that message. Gen. Xavier Brunson, commander of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) and Combined Forces Command, warned against diluting readiness standards, linking the issue to the alliance’s broader security posture.

“The difference between the South Korea-U.S. alliance and other alliances is the ability to conduct arduous and practical training,” Brunson said during a webinar on Friday.

“We must continue training to meet the expectations of the people on the Korean Peninsula. Meeting those expectations is a noble duty.”

He stressed that maintaining readiness was essential given the security environment on the peninsula.

“Peace is preserved by our ability to maintain readiness,” Brunson said, adding that joint exercises are “the cornerstone of the Korean Peninsula’s readiness posture.”

DMZ civilian access

Alongside the debate over joint drills, tensions have also arisen over a separate proposal regarding access to the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Party of Korea have introduced legislation that would allow the South Korean government to approve civilian entry into the DMZ for non-military purposes, rather than requiring authorization from the United Nations Command (UNC). Currently, the UNC — led by the U.S., with the USFK commander also serving as UNC chief — has sole authority over DMZ entry.

While the Ministry of Unification has expressed support for the intent of the bill, both the defense ministry and the foreign ministry have stressed that prior consultation with the UNC would be necessary.

The UNC has publicly opposed the proposal. In response to media inquiries, the UNC said, “The Armistice Agreement is a legally binding framework that governs both civilian and military access,” adding that “preserving this framework is critical to safety, operational clarity and the stability of the armistice, which has endured for more than 70 years.”