[North Korea and the World] The 2025 G7 Summit and U.S. Foreign Strategy

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OHGsVW58hQ

Video Script

Ultimately, I watched with interest to see what President Trump would do at the G7, and as expected, he returned without achieving anything. It is unreasonable to assume that he came because the war between Iran and Israel had escalated. I believe Trump participated... Hello. Thank you to everyone watching "Park Won-gon's North Korea and the World." Before I begin, I had a little joke with my staff. Recently, I've been talking about North Korea so little and mostly about the US that I wondered if I should change the title to "Park Won-gon's US and the World" instead of "Park Won-gon's North Korea and the World."

Analysis of Trump's Perception and Worldview of the G7

Today, I have no choice but to talk about the US again. This is because the news generated by US President Trump is constant, and it is judged that continuous analysis of these issues is necessary. This time, I intend to discuss the recently concluded, much-talked-about G7. I do not wish to discuss whether South Korean President Moon Jae-in met Trump there from South Korea's perspective, as I believe public media has covered it sufficiently. Instead, I will focus on a broader framework: how Trump views and interacts with the G7, how this connects to his worldview, the ongoing changes in the world order, shifts in alliance strategies, and Trump's perception of the G7 (or G6) countries.

First, allow me to provide some background. As many of you may know, what is now called the G7 began as the G6 in 1975. It was proposed by then-French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and then-German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. It started as a body for economic cooperation and consultation. The year 1975 is very significant because the global economy in the early 1970s was highly unstable. The Bretton Woods system collapsed with the suspension of dollar convertibility to gold in 1971 and the breakdown of the fixed exchange rate system...

That happened in '71, and the first oil shock occurred in 1973. Therefore, discussions began about the need for an informal economic consultation body centered around the US and European countries, the so-called developed nations. Given the division with the Soviet Union at the time, there was a judgment that discussions were needed on how to structure and lead the economic system of the free world. With this in mind, the G6 was launched in 1975. The meeting was highly informal, and it is known that various discussions took place among leaders in a relaxed atmosphere. It was then reorganized into the G7 in 1976 with the addition of Canada, and expanded to the G8 in 1997, with the controversial inclusion of Russia.

There was considerable controversy surrounding Russia's inclusion. Russia's economy was smaller than that of other member countries, and although it had transitioned to democracy, its level of democratic development was significantly lower than that of other liberal democracies. There were significant debates about whether Russia was a suitable addition to the core group of world-leading liberal democratic market economies. Nevertheless, with the end of the Cold War, there was a judgment that admitting Russia into the G8 would contribute to global stability, and thus Russia was accepted, forming the G8.

History of the G7 and Trump's Participation

Then, in 2014, Russia forcibly annexed the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine. This act has been consistently condemned as illegal by the international community. Consequently, the G7 countries at the time condemned Russia's actions and expelled Russia from the G8. This led to the current composition of the G7. Let me reiterate the G7 member states: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the European Union, which, while not an official member, participates in foreign and security policy meetings. Therefore, it can be considered equivalent to a member state. This year's G7 summit garnered significant media attention. Ultimately, I watched with interest to see what President Trump would do at the G7, and as expected, he returned without achieving anything. After a brief G7-only meeting on the first day, he left the next day citing the war between Iran and Israel. In my judgment, I question whether the war between Iran and Israel was truly severe enough to warrant his departure.

There is some truth to that. It depends on how things unfold. However, if President Trump truly respected the G7 and assigned significance to this forum, he would have stayed. That is my opinion. The reason I say this is that it would be beneficial to look at the photograph on the screen. This photograph holds significant symbolic meaning: it is from the 2018 G7 summit in Canada. You recognize the individuals, right? The person sitting on the right with arms crossed is President Trump. The person leaning forward at the table, appearing to argue, is then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Immediately next to her, though partially obscured, is French President Emmanuel Macron. Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is also seen with arms crossed, his expression quite interesting, showing a somewhat neutral stance. Next to him, then-US National Security Advisor John Bolton has a bewildered expression. This is a very famous photograph. It represents the situation at the time...

It symbolizes the relationship between the G6 countries and the United States. What happened was that President Trump came to the meeting and heavily criticized European countries, particularly Canada and France. He accused them of running large trade surpluses and having significant trade imbalances, demanding they rectify the situation. He used harsh language, stating that the US was no longer a 'sucker.' In response, the other leaders, including Merkel, emphasized that protectionism should not be pursued. They argued that Trump should not engage in trade wars. As I have repeatedly stated, the G7 originated as an economic forum, and it is a gathering of countries that believe in free trade, discussing how to expand and stably manage it. However, with the emergence of an individual like Trump, who advocates protectionism and questions the existing order...

Differences in Perception at the G7 Summit and Trump's Diplomacy

There were instances of questioning this approach. At that G7 meeting, the United States did not sign the joint communiqué. If my memory serves me correctly, this was unprecedented. They always sign the joint communiqué, but not on this occasion. This was a prominent example of Trump's first term. I was concerned that a similar situation might arise this time, but ultimately, a joint statement was signed. However, as I anticipated, it confirmed once again the significant gap between the G6 countries and the United States. There were vastly different perceptions regarding the Iran-Israel war, issues of tariffs, and differing views on Russia and China. This again serves as a clear example of President Trump's highly personalized diplomacy, or presidential-centric diplomacy. The difference between Trump's first and second terms, however, is that during the first term...

In the 2018 photograph I mentioned earlier, the world was greatly surprised, and there were strong criticisms questioning how Trump could act that way. However, you likely heard very little criticism during this second term. This, I believe, is the most significant difference between Trump's first and second terms based on my experience and analysis. During Trump's first term, many researchers, both within and outside the US, made value judgments, asking, 'How can this be?' 'This is so different from the liberal international order or the norms-based international order we know,' and 'This should not happen.'

During Trump's second term, such judgments are rarely made. I am no exception. Many countries are simply focusing on 'How do we respond effectively to Trump's actions, minimize damage to our own countries, and reach agreements?' It is a regrettable situation, but it is unfolding as a scenario where we are becoming accustomed to and adapting to a wrong direction. I will now elaborate on what transpired at this G7 summit.

Key Agendas of the G7 Summit and Trump's Stance

First, the two main agendas that the six countries, excluding the US, wanted to address at this G7 summit were war and tariffs. Regarding war, the Russia-Ukraine war is ongoing, and a new conflict has erupted between Iran and Israel, necessitating discussions on how to handle these issues. The other agenda, as you are well aware, is Trump's tariff issue. South Korea is also facing a potential 25% tariff if the issue is not resolved by July 8th, so the countries other than the UK...

are all in the same situation. Therefore, there was a need to resolve the tariff issue. Tariffs, as I have repeatedly stated, are a form of protectionism, not free trade, and are thus contrary to the G7's objectives. Hence, they wished to address this matter. Regarding the war issue, there were also vastly different perceptions. While it is unclear how sincere the European Union was on this matter, they naturally wished to discuss new sanctions or strengthening existing sanctions against Russia. When this agenda was raised, President Trump's response was, 'Sanctions incur enormous costs. Sanctions are not that easy.'

Trump's Great Power Collusion and Worldview Interpretation

'It's not a one-way street.' Essentially, he rejected it. That was the first point. Another issue, though not the first time, is that Russia was included in the G8, which evolved from the G7, but was expelled due to its illegal invasion of Crimea. In effect, Russia was kicked out, and it became the G7. President Trump stated that Russia should be readmitted to the G8, arguing that Russia's exclusion was a grave mistake and that if Russia had remained, the Ukraine war would not have occurred. I completely disagree, but that is what President Trump said. Another point, which came up unexpectedly, was China. When asked about China's participation in the G7, Trump responded, 'It's not a bad idea. Why wouldn't we include China, the second-largest economy after the US?' In other words, these were very significant remarks and situations that offer a glimpse into Trump's worldview.

To summarize, the G6 countries, excluding the US, and in Trump's view, Russia and China, which he considers much stronger powers than the other countries, should be included. There are various interpretations of Trump's foreign policy and worldview regarding this. One such interpretation is the 'great power collusion' theory. It's less a theory and more an assertion. The assertion is that what Trump is currently doing is akin to the European concert of powers in the 19th century, or the European consensus.

It involves powerful leaders coming together with a common purpose to shape a global vision and lead other nations coercively. If this is correct, then instead of confronting China and Russia, as Trump has suggested, the idea is to bring them into the fold and jointly manage the world order. I do not consider this a baseless or futile argument.

This is consistent with what Trump has shown so far. Crucially, what led me to this thought was a statement made by Vice President J.D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference. Those interested can find it on YouTube. What he said was that the Munich Security Conference, along with the Shangri-La Dialogue in Asia, is a forum for discussing security issues. As the first representative from the Trump administration to attend, J.D. Vance was expected to address the most existential threat to European security, the Russia-Ukraine war, and Russia's illegality. However, he did not mention security issues at all; instead, he spoke in support of far-right parties in various European countries, arguing that these parties are being excluded and suppressed by the mainstream political establishment, which he deemed unacceptable. I watched the entire speech, and the expressions of European leaders present at the Munich Security Conference were utterly bewildered.

Normally, there would be applause during the speech, but no one applauded, and their bewildered expressions remained on screen even after the speech concluded. What does this signify? The great power collusion I mentioned, the European concert of powers; if my interpretation is correct, the US adopts the following stance: instead of confronting external enemies, common enemies, and those engaging in illegal actions according to international norms, such as Russia or even China to some extent, it maintains a degree of openness to cooperation with them. It is collusion.

Controversy over the Joint Statement on the Iran-Israel War

They engage in collusion. Instead, they will fight against internal enemies. President Trump's primary focus and struggle is with the issue of illegal immigration, which has led to large-scale protests, and against progressives, or 'woke' individuals, European-style socialists, and LGBTQ+ individuals, which is in line with what J.D. Vance mentioned. These phenomena have emerged. While further research and interpretation are needed, the developments observed this time confirm these trends to some extent. Another issue is the Iran-Israel war I mentioned earlier. The G7 website contains joint statements.

There are about six joint statements, and it is listed as the first one. The draft of the joint statement was very different from the draft reported by the US media. The media had released a draft, which essentially stated: 'We express deep concern over the conflict initiated by Israel's preemptive strike and urge both sides to cease mutual attacks and resolve the issue through diplomatic negotiations.' In other words, this holds Israel responsible. It also calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities between Iran and Israel. Given Trump's consistent support for Israel, this was content he absolutely could not accept.

As expected, according to US media reports, Trump completely rejected the draft and even indicated he would not sign it this time. Consequently, the remaining G6 countries revised it. The revised text included the statement: 'We recognize the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and support Israel's right to self-defense.' This became a completely different narrative. It is a statement that criticizes Iran, does not recognize Iran's nuclear ambitions, and, in a way, implies Israel's legitimacy, thus aligning with the joint statement Trump desired. He signed it this time.

Tariff Issues and Trump's Preference for Bilateral Negotiations

This is a difference from 2018. The part directly related to South Korea in the final tariff negotiations was that the other G6 countries wanted to discuss the tariff issue with Trump. This includes South Korea. Since they were all in a similar situation, they intended to unite their efforts to persuade Trump that imposing tariffs burdens the global economy, is inappropriate, and causes various difficulties. However, I believe one of the reasons Trump participated on the first day and left the next was precisely because he did not want to engage in such discussions. Trump's negotiation style is always one-on-one.

Bilateral negotiations. This is necessary. Currently, which country has more leverage than the US? In a one-on-one negotiation, the US has the advantage. Therefore, Trump always prefers bilateral agreements, through which he can clearly gain an upper hand and dictate terms. However, at the G7, with Trump as the sole US representative and the G6 countries sharing a common opposition to tariffs, this could work against the US. Therefore, the discussion was avoided altogether. Whether he used the Middle East situation as an excuse or not, he adjusted his schedule and simply left. I believe this is Trump's negotiation tactic. He avoids discussions he finds unpleasant, and by demonstrating uncertainty, he enhances America's negotiating power.

Only UK Prime Minister Kitemore signed a bilateral trade agreement with President Trump during their 16th meeting. Consequently, a 10% tariff was imposed on the UK, which Trump described as a 'discriminatory tariff.' For the 25% automobile tariff rate, it was reduced to 10% for up to 100,000 units, but since the UK does not export many cars to the US, it was not a major issue. The agreement was reached with a base rate of 10%. The G7 member states, to put it crudely, were left looking at an empty space, like 'a chicken chasing its tail.' They tried to unite and discuss something, but Trump left immediately, preventing them from doing so.

The Changing World Order and South Korea's Challenges

Today, we have examined what kind of world Trump envisions through the events at the G7. The G6 countries, along with South Korea, share similar values of liberal democracy and a market economy. They are the most similar countries. This is why there are ongoing discussions about South Korea being included in a G9 or G10. The perspective and approach towards these countries were confirmed this time. As South Korea was directly involved, we witnessed a clear phenomenon. Trump's term still has over three years remaining. As I have repeatedly stated, this represents a significant shift in America's direction in the form of 'Trumpism.' Even if the Democratic Party takes power, while there may be differences in approach, this direction is likely to be maintained. We must not forget this, and now, we need to engage in profound contemplation on how South Korea should navigate the changing world order. That is all for today. Thank you.

Clicking 'Like' provides great strength.

Park Won-gon, Director of the North Korea Research Center at the East Asia Institute. Professor of North Korean Studies at Ewha Womans University.

Managed and Edited by: Park Han-soo, EAI Research Fellow

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