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 first Donald Trump administration.

In a recent interview at the Aspen Security Forum, Biegun addressed growing tensions in the 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.

• With President Lee Jae-myung recently elected, do you foresee any potential friction between him and President Trump?
  “He assumed office at a time when multiple U.S.-Korea issues already required negotiation. This is less about President Lee or his party and more about the broader nature of America’s current global relationships, especially on trade. Trade-related compromises can be politically sensitive, making negotiations particularly difficult. Trump tends to gauge the quality of relationships by trade balance, and since South Korea maintains a surplus, it is likely to face tough talks. Regardless of which party is in power, building ties with Trump will be a challenge—especially given his past dealings with the Korea-U.S. FTA, North Korea, and U.S. military commitments in the Indo-Pacific.”

• President Lee has expressed interest in maintaining good relations with both the 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 misses 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 a reduction in U.S. forces in Korea serve American strategic interests?
  “It’s a topic worth examining. U.S. troop reductions were discussed even during the George W. Bush administration, and a general consensus later formed that maintaining a force of 20,000 to 30,000 troops was appropriate. What’s important is that any such discussion be conducted jointly by the U.S. and South Korea, and that it not be perceived as a signal of U.S. withdrawal.”

• Could a reduction of U.S. troops negatively impact the Indo-Pacific strategy or cross-strait tensions?
  “If the U.S.–ROK alliance remains focused solely on deterring North Korea, the impact of troop reduction may be limited. However, if the alliance is considered a core pillar of Indo-Pacific security, then such a reduction would certainly be problematic. Now is the time to redefine the alliance. It’s concerning that this conversation has been delayed for so long. There are extreme voices on both sides of the alliance debate, and we must ensure that these extremes do not dominate the discussion.”

• Do you believe South Korea fully understands the importance of the Indo-Pacific strategy and the Taiwan Strait issue?
  “Discussions with the Trump administration are likely already underway. The world has changed dramatically. The reality today is nothing like when the Mutual Defense Treaty was signed 71 years ago. China has risen, South Korea has become a powerful economic and military force, and North Korea is a nuclear-armed state. The alliance must now be recalibrated to reflect today’s realities.”

• South Korea is under pressure to open its agricultural markets. What is your view on this issue?
  “Opening the agricultural market—especially rice—has always been a highly sensitive issue in Korean politics. In trade negotiations, Korea has often had to make greater concessions in other sectors to protect its rice market. However, now is the time for the Korean government to decide whether to pursue reform in the agricultural sector, particularly in areas that have been excessively protected. Such reform would benefit Korea’s trade policy and its consumers. Ironically, directly supporting rice farmers with taxpayer funds may cost less than maintaining protectionist policies that force consumers to pay higher prices for rice. The U.S. and many other countries have already undergone agricultural restructuring. It’s time for Korea to ask whether the cost of defending this market has become too high.”

• Should South Korea be more aggressive in investing in the U.S.?
  “South Korea is already making significant contributions to job creation in the United States through major investments by companies like Hyundai, Kia, and Hanwha. These investments are highly valuable. However, ongoing debates over trade deficits risk overshadowing their importance. Ultimately, the key is to stabilize trade relations and create an environment where businesses can make investment decisions based purely on commercial judgment, without 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.kyeongjun1@koreadaily.com]