U.S.-South Korea alliance at risk if Seoul stays neutral, warns former U.S. official

If South Korea continues to pursue neutrality between the U.S. and China, its longstanding alliance with the United States could face serious strain, according to former Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun, who served in the Donald Trump administration.

In a recent interview at the Aspen Security Forum, Biegun addressed growing tensions in U.S.-South Korea alliance, particularly in light of ongoing trade disputes and evolving military cooperation. He emphasized that South Korea must weigh the strategic costs of remaining neutral amid rising U.S.-China rivalry.

Biegun noted that the Trump administration had repeatedly pressed South Korea to open its agricultural markets, especially for U.S. beef and rice. “It’s time for Korea to ask whether the cost of protecting these markets is too high,” he said, adding that such reform could ultimately benefit Korean consumers and trade policy alike.

Below is an excerpted interview with Stephen Biegun.

-South Korea is under pressure to open its agricultural markets. What is your view on this issue?
“Korea must now seriously consider whether the cost of protecting its agricultural market, especially rice, is too high. Market reform is politically sensitive but would ultimately benefit Korea’s trade policy and consumers. The Korean government may find that directly subsidizing farmers is more efficient than inflating prices through protectionist policies.”

-Will there be friction between U.S. President Donald Trump  and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung?
“The relationship will depend more on America’s economic and political stance than on any individual leader. Trump sees trade deficits as a key measure of bilateral ties. Korea’s continued trade surplus with the U.S. could make trade negotiations especially tough, affecting areas such as the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, U.S. Forces Korea, and North Korea diplomacy.”

-President Lee has expressed interest in maintaining good relations with both U.S. and China. Is that realistic?
“Many countries attempt this dual-track strategy—security with the U.S., economic ties with China—but it’s increasingly difficult. The Trump administration sought to crack down on even indirect Chinese imports. If Korea aligns with such policies, it may face tension with China. More importantly, Washington now views an ally’s loyalty during U.S.-China disputes as a key test. Attempting to remain neutral could jeopardize the U.S.-South Korea alliance.”

-South Korea is pursuing wartime operational control (OPCON) transfer. Is Korea ready to take full command in wartime?
“I won’t comment on tactical readiness, but the issue goes beyond transferring authority. Focusing narrowly on OPCON risks missing the broader strategic picture. What matters most is how to transform the alliance into a modern structure that meets the current security needs of both nations—one that includes nuclear strategy, joint missions, and the role of U.S. troops.”

-What does the U.S. mean by “modernizing” the alliance?
“It means expanding beyond deterrence against North Korea and restructuring the alliance to contribute to broader Indo-Pacific security. Given Korea’s economic strength and changing regional dynamics, maintaining a Cold War-era posture is no longer persuasive.”

-Would reducing U.S. troop levels in Korea serve U.S. strategic interests?
“It’s a topic worth discussing. The Bush administration explored this, and consensus settled around maintaining 20,000–30,000 troops. What’s essential is that any review be joint and not interpreted as a U.S. withdrawal signal. If the alliance remains focused solely on North Korea, reductions might have limited impact. But if it’s a cornerstone of the Indo-Pacific strategy, then reductions would be problematic.”

-Do you believe South Korea fully understands the current stakes?
“The world has changed dramatically since the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty. China has risen, Korea is a major economic and military power, and North Korea has nuclear weapons. Both countries must now reshape the alliance to reflect these realities.”

-What is the strategic benefit of South Korea investing in the U.S. economy?
“Korean companies like Hyundai, Kia, and Hanwha are already major job creators in the U.S. But persistent trade deficit debates could overshadow these gains. The goal should be to maintain a stable trade relationship where business decisions remain free of government interference.”

-How do you assess Trump’s second-term performance so far?
“It’s been very active and, in some respects, more effective than expected. His administration has taken bold steps in foreign policy, including pressure on Russia and strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Domestically, while inflation is being monitored, the economy remains relatively stable. Overall, Trump has grounds to feel confident in his policies at this stage.”

BY KYEONGJUN KIM  [kim.kyeongjun@koreadaily.com]