[EAI Commentary] Identifying Challenges to the ROK-U.S. Alliance and Maintaining Mutual Trust

Editor's Note

While South Korea and the United States have maintained a stable alliance for a long time, they are currently facing difficulties due to a series of events, including North Korea's persistent provocations and diplomatic intransigence, China's increasing regional assertiveness and military cooperation with Russia, the deterioration of ROK-Japan relations, and the U.S.-China trade war. In this commentary, Professor Leif-Eric Easley of Ewha Womans University discusses the ROK-U.S. alliance based on a recent joint op-ed by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and CSIS Korea Chair Victor Cha published in The Washington Post. Easley argues that the South Korean government's intention to engage in defense exchanges with China and participate in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) does not signify a tilt towards China. He further emphasizes the importance of not amplifying unnecessary concerns, as misinterpreting certain events without fully understanding the South Korean perspective can undermine the very trust between the allies that alliance managers have strived to protect.

Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and CSIS Korea Chair Victor Cha jointly contributed an op-ed to The Washington Post titled “The 66-year alliance between the U.S. and South Korea is in deep trouble.” Policymakers and analysts alike should pay close attention to this piece. Cooperation between South Korea and the United States faces complex challenges due to North Korea's persistent provocations and diplomatic intransigence, China's escalating regional ambitions and military cooperation with Russia, deteriorating ROK-Japan relations, and uncertainties surrounding the U.S.-China trade war. Nevertheless, to accurately understand the challenges to alliance trust, it is necessary to re-examine some of the cases mentioned in the op-ed from the South Korean perspective. The trust in the allianceis being challenged, and it is important to understand these challenges accurately.

In their op-ed, former Deputy Secretary Armitage and Professor Cha assess South Korea's termination notice for the General Security of Information agreement (GSOMIA) with Japan as “an act of alliance abuse” directed at the United States. However, the Moon Jae-in administration's ultimately suspended attempt to terminate the information-sharing agreement should more appropriately be interpreted as a signal to the United States in response to Japan's export restrictions against South Korea last summer. The suspension of GSOMIA termination by the Moon administration should be recognized as the correct decision, and Japan should simultaneously be engaged in discussions to lift its export restrictions. The United States was not actively involved in managing the alliance during critical moments last year when historical disputes between South Korea and Japan intensifiedand the maritime radar incidentoccurred. As a result, the United States had to endure significant pressure and overcompensation to maintain GSOMIA. Quiet diplomacy is needed at this juncture to maintain trilateral cooperation among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan and to reach compromises in the ongoing discussions.

This year's ROK-U.S. defense cost-sharing negotiations have faced difficulties from the outset due to the U.S. side's unprecedented demand for a significant increase in South Korea's contribution. South Koreans generally interpret this as a negotiation tactic by President Trump. The few students who climbed over the wall of the U.S. ambassador's residence with banners to create a political issue do not represent South Korean public opinion, and therefore, interpreting the incident as a clear manifestation of Korean anger towards American greed is somewhat exaggerated. The general reaction locally to this incident was that the young people involved should face consequences according to the law (which they did, resulting in arrests) and that security around the ambassador's residence should be strengthened (which it was). The image often evoked when discussing protests in South Korea is one of large-scale, competitive demonstrations over sharply divided domestic political issues, such as the recent rallies protesting former Justice Minister Cho Kuk and demanding prosecutorial reform. However, at present, there are no large-scale demonstrations directed at the United States, nor are there angry crowds swarming the embassy or the ambassador's residence.

From a foreign policy perspective, some Americans lament that South Korea does not support the U.S. strategy for a “free and open Indo-Pacific” to avoid antagonizing China. However, South Korea has detailed the overlaps and positive aspects between its New Southern Policy and the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategythrough joint fact sheets, including one published in November 2019. While the U.S. can demand more active regional cooperation and support from South Korea, U.S. foreign policy also needs to consider the circumstances and national interests of its allies. From South Korea's perspective, it requires exceptional diplomatic skill to navigate the situation where its most important foreign and security policy partner is in constant competition with its largest trading partner and closest neighborThis necessitates exceptional diplomatic skill as it enters into this constant competitive dynamic. On one hand, KoreaChinese economic coercion.

Nevertheless, Richard Armitage and Victor Cha continue to express concern that the Moon Jae-in administration is “tilting towards China.” They cite South Korea's desire to participate in a proposed multilateral trade agreement by China as evidence. However, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the multilateral trade agreement in question, was conceived by ASEAN seven years ago, not by China. Given that all ten ASEAN countries, along with Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, are participating in RCEP, singling out the relationship between South Korea and China is potentially misleading. Furthermore, it was the United States that withdrew from the higher-level Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)and ceded agenda-setting power in Asia related to trade by declaring a trade war with China without sufficient consultation with its allies.

South Korea plays a crucial role as a middle powerin Asia, developing networks that adhere to international norms and promote shared interests with the United States. However, Armitage and Cha state, “The agreement by defense ministers of South Korea and China to increase defense exchanges, separate from multilateral meetings in Southeast Asia, is another ominous sign of the weakening ROK-U.S. alliance.” In reality, the mutual visits and hotline establishment between defense officials of South Korea and China are efforts to build trust and prevent crises. A more direct sign of U.S. leadership issues in Asian multilateral forums is the U.S. President's absence from meetings, creating a vacuum that China can fill.

Drawing on their experience, former Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage and Professor Victor Cha have engaged in productive debates to ensure that U.S. allies can enjoy broad mutual benefits. They express concern that the result of the perfect stormof the issues discussed above could lead to the “early withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula.” It is undoubtedly an honorable duty for policymakers and analysts to prevent the worst-case scenarios and sound the alarm against the misjudgments of unpredictable leaders. Therefore, while discerning the warning signs emerging from recent events is meaningful, it is also important not to amplify unnecessary concerns. Misinterpreting certain events without fully understanding the South Korean perspective can undermine the very trust between the allies that alliance managers have strived to protect. ■

■ Author: Leif-Eric Easley_ Professor of International Studies at Ewha Womans University. He holds a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University. His research interests include trilateral cooperation among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan, as well as issues related to China and Myanmar and North Korea.

■ Editor: Jin-kyung Baek, EAI Research Fellow; Min Ryu, EAI Research Assistant

Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 209) I j.baek@eai.or.kr

[EAI Commentary] is a commentary series designed to provide a platform for experts from various fields to offer in-depth analysis and policy recommendations on major domestic and international issues. Please cite the source when quoting. EAI is an independent research institution independent of any partisan interests. The claims and opinions expressed in reports, journals, and books published by EAI are not attributable to EAI and are solely the views of the individual authors.