[Commentary] The Public Wants a Sophisticated Response to China-Related Regional Issues Alongside Alliance Strengthening

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMavgYbjjGo

Son Yeol, President of EAI and Professor at Yonsei University, and Jeon Jaesung, Director of EAI's Center for National Security Studies and Professor at Seoul National University, analyze the public perception of ROK-U.S. relations and the alliance, as revealed in EAI's 2023 East Asia Survey, and present their implications. President Son evaluates that the South Korean public, based on a positive perception of the ROK-U.S. alliance, expresses a view that the scope and role of the alliance should be expanded, while simultaneously broadening the horizon of diplomacy beyond the alliance to address international issues such as the U.S.-China strategic competition and climate change. Director Jeon points out that the public exhibits a coexistence of firm belief in the U.S.-led order and concerns about the uncertainty of U.S. domestic politics and conflicts of economic interest between the ROK and the U.S., interpreting this as a demand for the advancement of ROK-U.S. relations through mutual adjustment.

■ Son YeolPresident of the East Asia Institute. Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University.

■ Jeon JaesungDirector of the Center for National Security Studies, East Asia Institute. Professor at the Department of Political Science and International Relations, Seoul National University.

■ Managed and Edited by: Park Han-soo Researcher, EAI

Contact: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 204) | hspark@eai.or.kr

Video Transcript

Previous ROK governments, whether conservative or progressive, have said this, but the public's response seems to have a different temperature. Since there is no 100% certainty, and we all theoretically believe that, how we proceed in the future is very important. Hello, this is Son. The East Asia Institute conducted a public perception survey on ROK-U.S. relations in 2023. Today, I will analyze the public opinion survey results with Professor Jeon Jaesung, Director of the Center for National Security Studies at our East Asia Institute. This fundamental public opinion poll surveyed 1,000 people through face-to-face interviews. Looking at the results, several interesting points emerge. We will discuss approximately six main topics. The first topic was the perception of the United States. A vast majority expressed a favorable impression of the U.S., with about 70...

...3%, about 73%, expressing a favorable impression. We also conducted the same survey with other countries, particularly China and Japan. As you might expect, only about 15% have a favorable impression of China. And Japan, due to the recent improvement in ROK-Japan relations, has about 30% favorable impression. Compared to these two countries, where the favorable impression is over 70%, the U.S. is perceived very favorably by a large majority. Regarding the reasons for this favorable impression, as you can see here, there are several answers, and they are quite diverse. The first is the economic opportunity provided by the U.S. market, cited by 51%. The second is that the U.S. is acting responsibly in foreign policy, accounting for about 43%. The third is that it is a liberal democratic country, at 41%. Therefore,

the favorable impression of the U.S. is based on economic, identity, and foreign policy reasons, and it is quite multifaceted. In fact, when we conducted this survey, we initially expected that the most cited reason would be that the U.S. protected Korea from the North Korean threat since the Korean War. However, unexpectedly, security reasons accounted for only about 27%. In any case, we received results indicating a multifaceted positive evaluation of the U.S. Regarding unfavorable impressions, since less than 20% expressed them, we asked them why they had an unfavorable impression. The most common reason cited was U.S. ưu tiênism and the U.S.'s unilateral actions, as shown here. The second reason was the U.S.'s unfair attitude in trade and investment. These reasons are quite understandable. Professor, what are your thoughts? Yes,

the favorable impression of the U.S. is a very consistent trend, as seen in other opinion polls, and the proportion of people with a favorable impression of the U.S. is very high compared to other countries globally. As you mentioned, I thought the ROK-U.S. alliance would be a significant factor, but while that is true, due to recent economic issues and various global economic difficulties, I believe our citizens are grasping the good and bad aspects of ROK-U.S. relations across a wide range of issues. Therefore, it seems the analysis is that favorable impressions are formed across a broad spectrum of issues such as economic opportunities, the U.S.'s identity, and foreign policy. The unfavorable impressions, though a minority, are mainly focused on issues related to U.S. policy, especially after experiencing the Trump administration, and perhaps on aspects that could directly harm the Korean economy due to the U.S.'s unilateralism and protectionist trade policies, rather than its identity or ROK-U.S. relations.

Yes, but while the impression of the U.S. is very favorable, the next slide shows how ROK-U.S. relations are perceived, and this is quite interesting. As you can see, about 50% view current ROK-U.S. relations as very good or somewhat good, while about 40% (42%) consider them average. A small minority view them as bad or somewhat bad. So, about half of the public sees the relations as good, and the other half sees them as average. Regarding the future, most people expect it to be similar to the present. About 47% expect it to be similar, and about 40% expect it to improve slightly. So, while there is a slight trend towards improvement in the future, it's not seen as either very good or significantly improving. This is interesting because successive ROK governments, regardless of whether they were conservative or progressive, have emphasized the strength of the ROK-U.S. alliance,

describing it as an impenetrable alliance or a rock-solid alliance, and have focused on strengthening it, always stating that ROK-U.S. relations are going well. However, the public's response seems to have a different temperature. Yes, so regarding ROK-U.S. relations, the public responded that they are good. The small minority who said they are bad or somewhat bad, and those who said they are average, likely believe there is room for improvement or that dissatisfaction is latent.

Therefore, particularly in security relations, the ROK-U.S. alliance has achieved strong cooperation, as you mentioned, President. However, given recent economic issues, changes in U.S. policy, and the variability of U.S. domestic politics, it seems that the public assesses that there are still factors to consider when stating that ROK-U.S. relations are problem-free or very good. It is likely that they perceive that such policy changes or factors related to ROK-U.S. relations, which can be seen as U.S.-originated risks, will continue to exist. The point you just made, that while there are no major issues in security, there are increasing discrepancies in interests in other areas like the economy. Especially with recent laws like the Semiconductor Act and the IRA, the U.S. is also talking about manufacturing in the automotive and semiconductor sectors. This is causing considerable shock to Korean industries, and perhaps this is reflected here. And that,

the next slide shows opinions on ROK-U.S. economic relations. About 50% see ROK-U.S. economic relations as complementary, while over 30% see them as competitive. Traditionally, the U.S. is strong in services and agricultural products, while Korea is strong in manufacturing, leading to a complementary trade relationship and a division of production. However, perhaps due to recent trends, the view that they are competitive has significantly increased, and it is likely that the public considers this a major issue in coordinating ROK-U.S. policy. Yes. Earlier, the most important reason for ROK-U.S. relations was cited as the market opportunities provided by the U.S., but here it is economic. This suggests that the U.S. is trying to create self-sufficient supply chains and is pursuing its strategy of revitalizing the U.S. middle class through certain sacrifices or concessions from its allies. Therefore, rather than a comfortable division of labor with allies as in the past, they are pursuing a competitive policy for their own development. Could this be reflected in the public's assessment? Yes, perhaps next year, as the U.S. presidential election heats up, and candidates like Trump emerge, and the 'Trump phenomenon' appears in both parties, these concerns will likely grow. We anticipate this for our survey next year. The next question is about opinions on the ROK-U.S. alliance. We asked how the public views the ROK-U.S. alliance over the past 70 years. Regarding whether the ROK-U.S. alliance has contributed to Korea's security, nearly 94-95% agreed. Interestingly, nearly 90% also agreed that the ROK-U.S. alliance has contributed to Korea's economic development, and 86% agreed that it has contributed to the development of democracy. While there have been merits and demerits of the ROK-U.S. alliance, the public is overwhelmingly acknowledging its merits.

Yes, yes. This result is more surprising than expected. The current administration describes the ROK-U.S. alliance not just as a security alliance, but as an industrial alliance, a values alliance, a cultural alliance, an information alliance, and a strategic comprehensive alliance. This policy aligns very well with the past evaluation of the ROK-U.S. alliance. Although previous questions expressed various concerns about the future ROK-U.S. alliance, the results show a significantly positive evaluation of the ROK-U.S. alliance's impact on Korea's development today. Now, regarding the impact on economic and democratic development, which was discussed earlier, we asked more specifically about the present and future of the ROK-U.S. alliance. Regarding the question of whether the ROK-U.S. alliance should develop into an alliance that plays a role in resolving regional and global issues beyond the Korean Peninsula, in response to North Korea's military threat,

a surprisingly high number, over 80% of the public, agreed. About 18% disagreed. Therefore, the public holds the view that the ROK-U.S. alliance should expand beyond a Korean Peninsula alliance to a regional or global alliance. This could be interpreted as Korea, with its economy and military power ranking among the top 12 globally, needing to play a corresponding external role, which could be expressed through the ROK-U.S. alliance. Immediately following this, we asked if they truly support Korea's role and contribution to regional and global issues. First, regarding joint response to global challenges such as nuclear non-proliferation, climate change, and infectious diseases, 90% agreed. The second, third, fourth, and fifth points are quite interesting. Regarding whether Korea should participate if a military conflict occurs in the Taiwan Strait and the U.S. intervenes, only 43% agreed, while 56% disagreed. Regarding participation in strong containment policies against China in advanced technology areas like semiconductors, 60% agreed and 40% disagreed. Regarding a joint front against China's human rights abuses in Xinjiang, about 50% agreed and 48% disagreed. Regarding active contribution to the Ukraine war, 50% agreed and 49% disagreed. Thus, excluding global challenges like nuclear non-proliferation, climate change, and infectious diseases, for regional issues, and most issues involving China, the public agrees in principle with the idea of becoming a regional or global alliance, but the opinions are divided on specific actions. This leaves much room for interpretation. Professor Jeon? Yes,

I believe the question about the ROK-U.S. alliance expanding to regional and global levels, with over 80% agreement, was the most striking result of this survey. Personally, I still believed that the primary justification for the ROK-U.S. alliance was to counter the threat from North Korea on the Korean Peninsula. However, contrary to that, as you mentioned, President, I think the South Korean public's self-awareness as a global advanced nation has become very strong. Furthermore, it reflects a confidence and judgment that Korea's partnership has become strong enough to prevent the risks of entanglement in regional and global issues or U.S. policies and that the ROK-U.S. alliance has become relatively horizontal and equal. Therefore, we can see overwhelming public support for the alliance moving beyond being confined to the Korean Peninsula and nearby regions to becoming a truly global alliance, which is contrary to what we commonly assume or expect. Moreover, the public overwhelmingly agrees on addressing the most critical transnational threats in the safest and most important manner. Regarding regional issues concerning China, the public shows a very rational and balanced consideration of our economic interests and security threats, with approximately 50% agreement. For issues like semiconductors and Xinjiang, a majority supports it. However, for issues directly related to our security, such as Taiwan, they show a very cautious approach, which I believe is a balanced judgment. This result indicates that the South Korean public agrees with expanding the role beyond the U.S. and the Korean Peninsula to the entire globe. In that process, conflicts of interest with the U.S. are inevitable. Since we are not one entity, these differences are exposed. Therefore, from a diplomatic perspective, on one hand, this expansion must continue, and on the other hand, for critical issues, we must engage in genuine competition with the U.S., so to speak, express our position on important issues, and find common ground through that. I believe such diplomatic efforts will be significant going forward. The next slide shows that the public accurately points out the possibility of the ROK-U.S. alliance becoming involved in Asian regional conflicts. While 10% disagree, 20% believe it could be involved, yet they still evaluate that expanding regionally and globally is the right approach.

Regarding [issue X], only 43% expressed support, while 56% opposed. Second, concerning the policy of strongly checking China in advanced technology areas such as semiconductors, a type of economic security policy, 60% supported it, while 40% opposed. On the issue of taking a strong stance against China's human rights abuses in Xinjiang, approximately 50% were in favor, and 48% opposed. For actively contributing to the war in Ukraine, 50% were in favor, and opposition was around 49%. Thus, excluding regional and global challenges like pandemics and climate change, for regional issues, and most issues involving China, the public, while generally in agreement in principle, showed divided opinions on the specifics of adopting a regional or global alliance strategy. This leaves much room for interpretation. Professor Jeon, I also believe that the support for the regionalization of the ROK-US alliance and globalization is...

reaching 80% was perhaps the most notable survey result. Personally, I still believed that the ROK-US alliance's existence was grounded in deterring threats on the Korean Peninsula, particularly from North Korea. However, contrary to that, as Director Won mentioned, the South Korean public appears to have a strong sense of self-identity as a developed nation on a global scale. Furthermore, it seems there's a confidence and judgment that South Korea has become a strong partner, capable of preventing risks associated with engaging in regional and global issues through the ROK-US alliance, or becoming involved in US issues or policies. This suggests that the alliance is not confined to the Korean Peninsula and its immediate region, as is often commonly understood or expected, but is increasingly global, with overwhelming public support. Moreover, the public largely agrees on addressing the most critical transnational threats, which are also the most crucial.

Next, we have a hot topic: the question of trust in U.S. extended deterrence. If North Korea directly attacks the U.S. mainland with missiles, do you believe the U.S. will respond with nuclear weapons or other military means if South Korea is attacked with nuclear weapons? Those who believe the U.S. will respond with nuclear weapons account for about 34%. Those who believe the U.S. will respond with other military means, not nuclear, account for about 56%. Those who believe the U.S. will not respond are 9.8%, about 10%. There was the Washington Declaration last spring. We explained the Washington Declaration in detail through a questionnaire. Based on that, we asked for an evaluation of whether the Washington Declaration is an appropriate response to North Korea's nuclear threat and whether it is sufficient to alleviate South Korea's security concerns. The results were: 'Strongly agree' or 'Agree' accounted for about 58%, and 'Disagree' or 'Don't know' accounted for the remainder. This is how the evaluation of the Washington Declaration turned out. Therefore, the public's sentiments regarding the Washington Declaration and the U.S.'s commitment to extended deterrence have been expressed like this. Yes, it seems to be a very complex issue. At the ROK-U.S. summit, President Biden strongly warned in a press conference that the North Korean regime would face its end if North Korea were to launch a nuclear attack on South Korea, which we understand has provided considerable reassurance. However, more specifically, if North Korea gains the capability to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. mainland, extended deterrence will face greater constraints. If North Korea attacks us then, whether it will be strategic nuclear weapons or tactical nuclear weapons, which can vary depending on the situation, the public believes that the U.S. will hesitate to retaliate with nuclear weapons against North Korea. Therefore,

about 34% believe the U.S. will definitely retaliate with nuclear weapons, but the majority of the public, over 50%, believes there will be retaliation, but it will be difficult to use nuclear weapons. Therefore, in that belief, when North Korea's nuclear threat persists, the public may have to consider 'Plan B' beyond conventional U.S. retaliation. Since extended deterrence, no matter how institutionalized, is ultimately psychological, and we all theoretically believe that there is no 100% certain extended deterrence, how it is implemented in the future is very important. Nevertheless, more than half of the public believes it is sufficient to alleviate security concerns, and since this declaration has just begun, how it develops will be very important. Then, focusing on ROK-U.S. relations, particularly the alliance, we have looked at the public's consciousness from various angles. What are your overall impressions or concluding thoughts? Yes, yes. First, it is undeniable that ROK-U.S. relations are the most important variable influencing our development and future policies. Therefore, the public's belief in the existing U.S.-led liberal, rules-based order and the recognition of its importance are firm. Nevertheless, there are various policy uncertainties and domestic political situations within the U.S., as well as conflicts of economic interest between the ROK and the U.S. Therefore, it seems that the public has a very realistic and broad perception that it is important to further develop ROK-U.S. relations while carefully managing these issues. Although we haven't discussed it much, China's relationship is also considered very important. In the context of ROK-China relations, they also point out various reasons for the high unfavorable perception of China. Therefore, while we pursue the international order we desire, it seems that the public's perception of what China requires is also very sophisticatedly defined. Thus, the simplistic logic often circulated, such as whether Korea will side with the U.S. or China in the U.S.-China strategic competition, or that the economy is with China and security is with the U.S., is merely hearsay. When we examine the public's perceptions through surveys, we get the impression that they hold very sophisticated and strategic views. Therefore, it is crucial to establish policies based on such perceptions and go beyond them.

Therefore, along with changes in national affairs, it is very important to establish policies that match the public's perceptions. Professor Jeon, you just pointed out that the recognition of the importance of ROK-China relations has significantly increased in this survey. The government's top priority is strengthening the ROK-U.S. alliance, but there is also a recognition that ROK-China relations should be given equal importance. Therefore, it is clear that the ROK's national interests cannot be protected solely through the alliance. Second, when discussing the immediate risk factors facing Korea, while North Korea's nuclear and missile threats are the highest, the second most significant concern is the technological and economic war between great powers, about which considerable worry is expressed. At its core lies the U.S.-China strategic competition, and managing it effectively is not something that can be easily resolved with the ROK-U.S. alliance alone. Therefore, the perception that the alliance needs to be supplemented by broadening diplomatic horizons has been expressed. Finally, and very interestingly, climate change and environmental issues are identified as threats by 41%.

approximately 58%, with the remainder either disagreeing or not knowing. This is how the Washington Declaration was evaluated. Therefore, the public's sentiment regarding this Washington Declaration and the US commitment to extended deterrence has been expressed. It seems to be a very complex issue. At the recent ROK-US summit, President Biden's strong warning during a press conference that any nuclear attack on South Korea by North Korea would result in the end of the North Korean regime provided a significant sense of reassurance. However, more specifically, if North Korea acquires the capability to launch a nuclear attack on the US mainland, the constraints on extended deterrence would be much greater. In such a scenario, if North Korea were to attack us, whether it would involve strategic or tactical nuclear weapons, which could vary at the time, the public seems to believe that the US would hesitate to retaliate with nuclear weapons against North Korea. Therefore, approximately

only about 34% believe the US would definitely retaliate with nuclear weapons, but the majority of the public, over 50%, believe there would be retaliation, though it would be significantly burdensome for the US to use nuclear weapons. Therefore, within that belief, as North Korea's nuclear threat persists, it is likely that the public will continue to consider contingency plans beyond conventional US retaliatory attacks. After all, no matter how institutionalized extended deterrence becomes, it has a psychological component, and we theoretically understand that 100% certain extended deterrence does not exist. Therefore, how it is implemented in the future seems very important. Nevertheless, more than half of the public believes it is sufficient to alleviate security concerns, and since this is a newly initiated declaration, its future development is crucial. Then, perhaps regarding the ROK-US relationship, especially focusing on the alliance...

We have examined the public's consciousness and the flow of thought from various perspectives. What are your overall impressions or concluding thoughts? Yes, yes. First and foremost, the ROK-US relationship is undeniably the most critical variable influencing our development and future policies. The public's belief in and recognition of the importance of the existing US-led liberal, rules-based international order seems firm. However, there are various policy uncertainties and domestic political situations within the US, as well as potential conflicts of economic interest between the ROK and the US. Therefore, it is important to further develop the ROK-US relationship while carefully managing these factors, reflecting the public's realistic yet broad perspective. Although not extensively discussed, the relationship with China is also considered very important, and along with that relationship, various reasons for high unfavorable views of China are also pointed out. Therefore, fundamentally, the international order we pursue...

There are aspects to the international order, but pursuing a policy of engagement with China, while also maintaining a sophisticated understanding among our citizens of what China requires, seems to be in place. Therefore, the simplistic logic often discussed, such as whether Korea will side with the US or China in the US-China strategic competition, or that the economy is with China and security is with the US, is actually just talk circulating in society. When we examine the perceptions of our citizens through surveys, we get the impression that they hold very sophisticated and strategic views. Therefore, it is crucial to establish policies that build upon and extend beyond such perceptions.

It is therefore very important to formulate policies that align with the perceptions of our citizens, in conjunction with changes in national affairs. Professor Jeon, you just touched upon this point earlier: the perception of the importance of Korea-China relations has significantly increased in this survey. Looking at this, while the strengthening of the ROK-US alliance is listed as a top government priority, there are points indicating the need to value Korea-China relations equally. Therefore, it is clear that an alliance alone cannot protect Korea's national interests. Secondly, when discussing the risks that Korea faces, while nuclear missiles are the highest concern, the second highest is the severe economic and technological war between great powers, which is also causing significant worry. At the core of this lies the strategic competition between the US and China, and how to effectively manage this is not easily resolved by the ROK-US alliance alone.

Therefore, perceptions have been expressed that an alliance plus a broader diplomatic horizon is needed. Lastly, and quite interestingly, climate change and environmental issues are identified as a threat by 41% of respondents.

This is very high compared to trade friction (60%) and North Korea's nuclear threat (56%). In third place, compared to traditional threats, the public feels a genuine climate crisis. Therefore, a systematic response is also needed. Through this opinion poll, the public, on one hand, strongly affirms the ROK-U.S. alliance and the need to strengthen it. On the other hand, as part of strengthening the ROK-U.S. alliance, there is a recognition that the alliance's scope should be significantly expanded to match our national strength. Furthermore, on another hand, it is felt that considerable diplomatic efforts should be made on other important international issues alongside the alliance. This seems to reveal a very balanced perspective. We will conclude the analysis of ROK-U.S. relations and public opinion on the U.S. here. Next time, we will analyze the perception survey results related to ROK-Japan relations, which we also conducted. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

We will conclude the analysis of ROK-U.S. relations and public opinion on the U.S. here today. Next time, we will present an analysis of the perception survey results related to ROK-Japan relations, which we also conducted. We will conclude today's discussion here. Thank you for your time. Thank you.