[North Korea and the World] The Structural Origins of American Primacy and Implications for the ROK-U.S. Alliance

YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-GwQkb01vA

■ Author: Park Won-gon _Director of the North Korea Research Center at the East Asia Institute. Professor in the Department of North Korean Studies at Ewha Womans University.

■ Responsible and Edited by: Lim Jae-hyun_EAI Researcher

    Contact: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 209) | jhlim@eai.or.kr

Video Script

On July 13, President Trump made a completely shocking declaration, stating that "the United States will be the protector of the Strait of Hormuz" and would collect 20% of the value of shipped cargo as a fee for vessel security. He did, however, retract it a day later. Hello, and thank you for tuning in to Park Won-gon's North Korea and the World. Today, I'd like to talk about Trump's America. Given the significant role the United States plays in the world, and especially since President Trump, as you well know, generates news almost daily, deciphering how the U.S. is actually moving amidst this flood of news is crucial for understanding North Korea and the issues on the Korean Peninsula. I hope you'll understand why we must continue to discuss the United States. On July 13, President Trump made the completely shocking declaration that "the United States will be the protector of the Strait of Hormuz" and would collect 20% of the value of shipped cargo as a fee for vessel security. The news was reported worldwide, and major South Korean media outlets

also published analytical articles on its implications. He did, however, retract it a day later. On July 14, he posted the retraction on the social media platform Truth Social, saying: "Through very productive conversations with Middle Eastern leaders, we have decided to replace the approximately 20% U.S. reimbursement fee with trade and investment deals that the Gulf countries will be making with the United States." Although he provided a justification, he had essentially announced an action that violates international law and completely contradicts the order the U.S. has long upheld, only to retract it a day later. After all, isn't it Iran that has effectively threatened to impose tolls on the Strait of Hormuz? And it is the United States that has fiercely condemned Iran for violating international law. Then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo once said it himself, criticizing Iran by stating, "No country can impose tolls or fees on an international strait. That is existing international law." Yet suddenly, Trump—who had said similar things before—was now very specific, going so far as to say he would collect a 20% fee.

so the implications of his statement were bound to be enormous. Furthermore, one of the core principles of the so-called liberal international order, or rules-based international order, that the United States has championed since 1945 is freedom of navigation. The Strait of Hormuz is a natural sea lane, not an artificial one. Imposing a fee for passage through it violates the principle of freedom of navigation. The U.S. position since 1945 has consistently been that such actions are absolutely unacceptable. Therefore, President Trump's remarks have significant global repercussions and are seen as another manifestation of an America that is not the one we once knew.

The Structural Background of Trump's Unilateralism

The problem, however, is that Trump's seemingly erratic actions are pursued so consistently and with such a clear direction that one must question whether they are truly erratic at all. To state my conclusion upfront, I believe this is not the impulsive behavior of an individual but rather a broader directional shift for the United States. This is the core theme for today. From July 14 to 17, the Aspen Security Forum was held in Aspen, Colorado. This is an event where prominent former and some current officials, along with expert groups, gather for large-scale discussions on major U.S. security issues. This year, there was a particularly noteworthy session.

It was a session that was essentially the opening ceremony. The key takeaway was that voices from both the progressive and conservative camps agreed that Trump's unilateralism and 'America First' policy—such as his proposal to collect a 20% fee—reflect a structural sentiment among the American people. I think we need to pay attention to the fact that it wasn't just Democrats unilaterally criticizing Trump; even Democratic figures were saying similar things. To give you more detail, it was a session moderated by Peter Spiegel of the Washington Post. There were four main participants, and Spiegel asked a question: "I believe the American people themselves have become much more nationalistic, isolationist, and protectionist. If so, aren't Trump's various unilateral policies not the driver of this change, but rather a reflection of the already changed views of Americans?" To put it another way, the question is whether Trump, through his strange actions, is dragging the U.S. in this direction, or if the U.S. itself is already changing in that direction, and Trump is simply reflecting the sentiments and

public opinion? It was a very provocative and important question. And the answers from three of the panelists, despite their different political affiliations, all led to the same conclusion: America has changed. They all said that Trump is reflecting a change in the American people. The first was Penny Pritzker, who served as Secretary of Commerce in the Obama administration. What she said is most important, because she is a Democrat. She acknowledged that the general sentiment among the American people is that "the U.S. must prioritize its own interests," and that Trump captured that very sentiment. Even the Democratic Party, while finding Trump's actions unacceptable and criticizing them, admits that what he is doing reflects the sentiment of the American people. They acknowledge that a fundamental change has occurred among the American public. Despite Trump's various strange actions that defy international law and present an America we no longer recognize, this is

a sentiment held by the American people, a point even a Democratic figure acknowledged. The second panelist was Condoleezza Rice, who served as Secretary of State in the George W. Bush administration and is a very well-known national security expert. She said something similar: "Within the American political system, there are people in both parties—Democrats and Republicans—who would be pleased to withdraw from the world." In other words, there are people in both parties who no longer want the U.S. to act as the world's policeman and who agree with Trump's 'America First' push to disengage from the world and focus on domestic problems. Therefore, Trump is reflecting a sentiment among the American people that transcends both parties. The third speaker was Mark Esper, who served as Secretary of Defense during Trump's first term. He is an important figure who also pushed significantly for the transformation of the U.S. military. He spoke about the issue of alliances.

What Trump correctly captured on the alliance issue is the sentiment that the U.S. has done enough and it's time to stop. In other words, the American people have grown tired of continuously leading global security and taking responsibility for the defense of allies. So Trump captured this public sentiment and declared that the U.S. would no longer play the role of leading global security. Secretary Esper also said that Trump is reflecting this change in America. To summarize the basic takeaway from this year's Aspen Security Forum, regardless of party affiliation: First, Americans feel that the U.S. is tired and fatigued from being the world's policeman. Second, Americans prioritize their own cost of living—their grocery bills—over global issues like climate change. Third, because of this, the U.S. should no longer take the lead on these global problems; allies should handle them themselves. This is the sentiment. In NATO as well

Three Factors in the Structural Change of American Society

the continuous pressure on allies to take on more responsibility broadly reflects the sentiment of the American people, a point that I believe was confirmed at the Aspen Forum. This brings me back to my initial point: the rise of President Trump was not a sudden phenomenon. Rather, it is highly likely the result of decades of internal change and structural contradictions within the U.S. reaching a tipping point and erupting, with a figure like Trump simply being in the right place at the right time. I believe this can be explained by about three main causes. The first is the decline of industrial regions as a result of deindustrialization. Since the 1980s, the United States has led globalization and automation. As a result

We see that regions that traditionally produced American steel, cars, and coal, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, have been hollowed out and have ultimately declined. They experienced the disappearance of millions of high-quality jobs as factories and industrial zones shut down. The people who worked here were mostly those with a high school education or less. They had been maintaining middle-class lives, but one day their workplaces suddenly closed and their industries vanished, causing the working class to slide downward economically.

They experienced this downward mobility, which led to an accumulation of anger and deep distrust in the system. This is the first background factor for the rise of Trump. The second factor, which is related, is the deepening of economic inequality and the associated spread of anti-elite sentiment. While the lives of the white working class with a high school education or less in devastated industrial areas collapsed, what was even more frustrating from their perspective was that while they struggled, the United States as a whole remained the world's most powerful and prosperous nation. America's per capita national income is nearly $90,000, about two and a half to three times that of South Korea. For example, you have America's high-tech industry, represented by Silicon Valley, and its financial industry, centered on Wall Street. These two major industries drive the global economy, keeping the U.S. as the world's wealthiest and most powerful country. And that will likely continue. From the perspective of the less-educated population in these declining industrial areas, who still represent a mainstream demographic, inequality continued to deepen.

That is, their own lives are difficult, but America is prosperous. This feeling of relative inequality was bound to grow significantly. In fact, statistics show that economic inequality has grown to the point where the top 1% of Americans hold 40% of the nation's total wealth. For example, people on Wall Street and highly educated professionals in big cities became the winners of the new order, while less-educated whites in declining industrial areas, as well as farmers, were left to foot a large bill and experienced their lives becoming even more difficult. There is a paradoxical situation here.

A person named Thomas Frank wrote a book in 2004 titled "What's the Matter with Kansas?" The interesting point he makes is that the very people who were harmed—the less-educated whites I just mentioned—were harmed by a party that was, in fact, the Republican Party. So, if they were being harmed, they shouldn't have voted Republican. But in the case of Kansas, according to this in-depth study, its residents continued to vote for the Republican Party. The book studies why this happened. The factory closures, the collapse of family farms, the decline in real wages—all of these were largely the result of Republican policies. Yet, the people of Kansas overwhelmingly supported the Republican Party in elections. This was possible because the Republican-led conservative political establishment replaced economic discourse—the fact that people were struggling economically—with a cultural and moral discourse. To put it simply, the Republican Party used the agendas of abortion, gun control, and same-sex marriage to frame the debate as one about Christian values versus the Democratic Party

elite left on Christian values. As a result, while they should have held the Republican Party accountable for their economic problems, conservatives in Kansas came to perceive it as a form of culture war. They began to vote based on their identity and moral beliefs, not their wallets. Consequently, a phenomenon emerged where Kansas, despite having a large population of struggling people in declining areas of non-college-educated whites, voted Republican. This became part of the backdrop for Trump's rise in 2016. Finally, the third factor is the backlash from the white working class against demographic change.

As the Hispanic, Asian, and African American populations have grown, the demographic share of non-Hispanic whites has been decreasing every year. If I remember correctly, it has decreased to around 63% or 64%. It was higher before. For these white Americans, whose numbers are declining, there is a feeling that "America is my country, but I am becoming a stranger in my own country." There is also a very good study on this topic: a book by Arlie Russell Hochschild called "Strangers in Their Own Land," which means

"Strangers in Their Own Land." It was published in 2016. It's based on decades of in-depth interviews with white workers in Louisiana. The book argues that a certain narrative has taken root in their minds. They feel they have been patiently waiting in line their whole lives, heading toward the hill of the American Dream. They are trying to achieve the American dream, the dream of a middle-class life. But at some point, they looked up and saw immigrants, people of color, and women, in collusion with the federal government—mainly the Democratic-led federal government—starting to cut in front of them. The author calls this the "line-cutting narrative." From the perspective of the white people experiencing this narrative, they feel a sense of deprivation, which turns into anger, and that anger turns into votes. And who captured those votes? None other than Trump.

You are all familiar with J.D. Vance, who is now the Vice President. His book, "Hillbilly Elegy," also sold many copies in South Korea. The book explains the internal background of this anger. It describes Appalachia, a very declined and underdeveloped region. It's J.D. Vance's hometown, and he explains that it wasn't just jobs that disappeared; family, community, and the work ethic also collapsed. In this context, the very fact that J.D. Vance became Trump's running mate and entered the White House is, I believe, sufficient to show how the despair of the white working class combined with Trump's populism to lead to this phenomenon. These three structural factors have combined in a complex way to change American politics.

America's Change in Direction, to Continue Even After Trump

So, this is the background to the rise of Trump. In summary, Trump targeted angry and disaffected voters by defining enemies, saying, "This isn't your fault. It's because of the immigrants. It's because of China. It's because of the establishment elites. It's because of the mainstream media." By doing so, he generated immense political energy that got him elected twice. What we must note is that none of these three factors can be resolved in the short term. The declining industrial zones have not been restored, and even if he twists the arms of many allies, including South Korea, to force them to invest, most experts are skeptical about whether a large number of high-quality jobs will be created. Inequality also continues to deepen. And the demographic shift—the declining number of non-Hispanic whites—seems to be an unavoidable phenomenon going forward.

Recommendations for Formulating South Korea's Foreign Strategy

Therefore, even if Trump exits the stage, the America that created him will remain. The conclusion is that regardless of who becomes the master of the White House in the 2028 election, the 'America First' policy that Trump championed—though there may be differences in degree—this broader change in direction is bound to continue. Many studies point in the same direction. So, what should South Korea do? What I repeatedly emphasize is that the U.S. has already begun this change in direction and is heading that way. Therefore, rather than focusing on Trump's personal tendencies and asking, "Why is Trump like this?" or "Why is he doing that?," we must treat the structural changes in American society as a constant and take a deeper look at what we need to do.

What I have discussed today is the need for a deep understanding of whether the U.S. has changed, what direction it will take, whether this is a short-term or long-term change, and whether the U.S. can ever return to the country we once knew. Only then can we determine what we should do. The same applies to relations with North Korea. The context for relations with the U.S. has changed significantly from what it was in 2018 and 2019, and there are also major differences between a potential Trump second term and his first. In this context, what will become of the U.S.-South Korea alliance? There are many pending issues, from the transfer of wartime operational control onward, and they reflect America's position—driven by its major internal shifts—that allies must take on more responsibility and burdens. This is also a demand of the American people. Therefore, carefully tracking, analyzing, and understanding these developments will be the first step for South Korea in navigating its future relationship with the United States and finding its path in the world.

Thank you.