Choo Jae-woo
The talk of the town in Seoul lingers around Trump's almost derogatory-like contempt for the value of the ROK-U.S. alliance. Should he get elected as the next president of the United States come November, a rift, if not rupture, may arise among the allies. Internal moves have been triggered by former President Donald Trump, who's seeking another chance at the post, and his former aides like Eldridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and power development and Chris Miller, former interim secretary of defense.
They have been persistent in challenging the alliance's solidarity, integrity and core values. Questions like who should pay more to keep the alliance and why the U.S. should defend Korea are only vexing to those who deeply care about the strategic interests of the U.S. and its allies, let alone world peace and stability.
Against this background, it may be time for the U.S. Embassy in Korea to prepare for a long telegram like what George Kennan did some 70 years ago. A thorough yet striking, patriotic yet balanced recommendation should be delivered to Trump and his aides when and if he is elected. George Kennan's long telegram from his diplomatic compound in Moscow spoke volumes on how serving it can be to the motherland. Since then, we have not heard of such a daunting undertaking by an American embassy, a task that shaped the foundation of an American foreign policy that would be long-lasting with a sounding base.
There is not an alliance of America as unique as that with the Republic of Korea. Not for its military capacity or defense capability but for its geographical location and geostrategic implications, in addition to its eclectic demographic structure, should it stand tall above all other allies. For these reasons, Korea is different from other allies. The gist of the difference is that it has its own exit to fall back on should America keep playing with its commitment to the alliance. It is also for the same reasons adversarial competitors would like to conceive Korea as one of the weakest links in the American alliance system.
Korea's own unique demographic structure is one area that makes the alliance vulnerable. Since the country was partitioned before the war in 1950, one natural consequence was that there exists a great portion of the Korean people who are sympathetic to North Korea for separated families and homesickness reasons. The division of the Korean Peninsula perpetuated such a sentiment to only congeal a hard feeling toward those external forces responsible for the divided situation.
Those in the South who would like to defer the responsibility to the U.S. are in the same line as those in the North. They are sympathetic toward political factions, including those holding anti-U.S., anti-Japan and pro-China stances. They could act with a jolt should the next American administration overwhelm the Korean public with excess demands on cost sharing or pressure it with a possible withdrawal of U.S. forces from Korea. If this were to happen, the prospect of the ROK-U.S. alliance being thrown forwards cannot be discarded.
The premise of the alliance should, therefore, be built on one critical foundation: its geographic location, geostrategic implications and military capacity are non-negotiable. Trump and his aides should ruminate on this aspect of the alliance. The ROK-U.S. alliance is located in the center of China's first-island defense zone. By the alliance's sheer location, America has already nullified China's anti-access/area denial strategy. With Japan having a constraint like the so-called Peace Constitution effective to date and preventing it from making a full-fledged offensive military assistance to America's cause, and Australia being physically too far apart and having undersized military capacity with active duty combat forces standing at a mere 57,000, one-tenth of Korea's, no allies in the Indo-Pacific region can fight hand-in-hand with the U.S. No doubt the ROK-U.S. alliance is the linchpin to the American alliance system. The alliance is irreplaceable.
Trump, should he become the next president, must read Mira Rapp-Hooper's book, "Shields of the Republic." It will evoke the original notion and purposes of the American alliance system. The intent was to keep potential threats as far from the U.S. as possible by fortressing forward defense capabilities in ally countries. The second purpose is to deter far-flung threats from daring to militarily challenge the U.S. allies in the region. The last purpose is to, therefore, keep America's homeland safe and secure by keeping its distance from the threats and not allowing them to reach the shores of America. The ROK-U.S. alliance fulfills the entire prerequisites to the defense of America's homeland.
Without the ROK-U.S. alliance, the defense of America's first island-chain would be impossible. It will be turned over to China. China's aggressive approach to the South Pacific also makes the third island-chain and beyond already vulnerable. If Beijing succeeds in securing the South Pacific as it envisions, the second island-chain will be sandwiched, putting the fate of Guam and Saipan in danger. China's ambition has been long-standing. It became first known in 1896 when one of the Chinese reformists Liang Qichao was on his way to the U.S. He had a chance to appreciate the vastness of the Pacific Ocean in Hawaii and shared the same thought the incumbent Chinese leader Xi Jinping once expressed in 2013. The Pacific Ocean is vast enough to accommodate both China and the U.S.
An "X" from the American Embassy in Seoul should prepare for a long telegram. It will not only serve the interests of America and its allies in the region but also our commitment to upholding the liberal international order against revisionists. Our commitment to the liberal international order is founded on the Indo-Pacific Strategy. The Strategy is premised on the perpetual effectiveness of the American alliance system. Vexing questions raised by Trump and his aides in recent times are not big enough to accommodate the fate of the Pacific Ocean and the security of America's homeland. I am sure Trump and his aides won't want to be remembered as those who allowed far flung threats to have reached the shores of America.
Choo Jae-woo (jwc@khu.ac.kr) is a professor of international relations at Kyung Hee University and director of the China Center at the Korea Research Institute for National Security. He was a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution.
ROK-US alliance and Trump's possible return
86
0
27.05.2024
Choo Jae-woo
The talk of the town in Seoul lingers around Trump's almost derogatory-like contempt for the value of the ROK-U.S. alliance. Should he get elected as the next president of the United States come November, a rift, if not rupture, may arise among the allies. Internal moves have been triggered by former President Donald Trump, who's seeking another chance at the post, and his former aides like Eldridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and power development and Chris Miller, former interim secretary of defense.
They have been persistent in challenging the alliance's solidarity, integrity and core values. Questions like who should pay more to keep the alliance and why the U.S. should defend Korea are only vexing to those who deeply care about the strategic interests of the U.S. and its allies, let alone world peace and stability.
Against this background, it may be time for the U.S. Embassy in Korea to prepare for a long telegram like what George Kennan did some 70 years ago. A thorough yet striking, patriotic yet balanced recommendation should be delivered to Trump and his aides when and if he is elected. George Kennan's long telegram from his diplomatic compound in Moscow spoke volumes on how serving it can be to the motherland. Since then, we have not heard of such a daunting undertaking by an American embassy, a task that shaped the foundation of an American foreign policy that would be long-lasting with a sounding base.
There is not an alliance of America as unique as that with the Republic of Korea. Not for its military capacity or defense capability but for its........
© The Korea Times
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Mohamad Elmasry
Maoz Inon
Belen Fernandez
Brahma Chellaney
Tarik Cyril Amar
Rachel Marsden
Petra Lesjak Tušek
Gideon Levy
