South Korea's New Leadership in the Trump Era
Identify the top geopolitical priorities facing South Korea's newly elected President Lee Jae-myung.
President Lee assumes office at a time of friction, both at home and abroad. His top geopolitical priorities likely will include stabilizing the Peninsula, recalibrating Seoul's alliance with the U.S., and securing Seoul's role and place amid several ongoing global contingencies, including the Russia-Ukraine War, tightening U.S.-China competition, and the Middle East crisis. Lee's challenge lies not only in balancing Seoul's international act, but calibrating this against the situation at home, where political divisions need to be resolved and economic challenges – including improving the livelihoods of the population – remain front and center.
Analyze Lee's likely approach to managing trade and security relations with the Trump administration.
We remember that during the snap presidential election campaign, Lee perpetuated the image of a pragmatic leader. Should that truly be the case, we would expect the South Korean president to handle relations with the U.S. – including the delicately intertwined issues on trade and security – because of Seoul's long-term interests. That Lee has branded himself as a pragmatic leader, if played well and judiciously, could translate into a relationship that is nuanced and preempts potential friction with the Trump administration. This may include affirming Seoul's defense contributions while resisting excessive, heavy-handed demands for cost-sharing. The South Korean public may perceive trade negotiations as having more immediate, palpable impact on their daily lives. Lee, cognizant of such domestic concerns, may push back against protectionist measures; however, he may frame such efforts as defending the Korean population rather than outright resistance to U.S. pressure.
Examine how Lee might balance the ROK's strategic position vis-à-vis the U.S.-China tech war and more broadly, U.S.-China strategic competition.
The challenge Lee, like his predecessors, faces as South Korea's president lies in preserving Seoul's economic relationship with China while avoiding strategic drift from the U.S. alliance. If Lee were sensitive to perceptions in both Washington and Beijing, he may be inclined to take a strategically ambiguous approach. For instance, perhaps he would resist overt alignment with U.S. export control regimes – unless Seoul's national security is directly in peril while discreetly complying and cooperating in areas that could jeopardize the interests of Korea's powerhouses, such as Samsung, SK Hynix, or other industries' access to Western markets. Lee may also look to emphasize regional cooperation and coalitions to soften any perceptions of leaning too 'skewed' towards either Washington or Beijing, enhancing supply chain coordination with other regional actors in Asia. The key for Lee – and South Korea – lies in preserving the country's maneuvering space without triggering a backlash from either side. This clearly requires diplomatic dexterity – akin to pragmatism.
Explain how Lee's administration might work with China in managing North Korea.
Lee has vowed to open communications with North Korea again and establish peace on the Korean Peninsula through talks and cooperation. Given his emphasis on reengagement and dialogue with Pyongyang, Lee may view China as a critical key in jump-starting inter-Korean relations. Rather than prioritizing the U.S. channel, Lee may consider diplomatic coordination with Beijing to nudge inter-Korean relations to rapprochement. His administration may consider reopening trilateral South Korea-China-North Korea channels in parallel with U.S.-centered efforts to diversify Seoul's approach to Pyongyang.
Assess the broader implications of Lee's leadership on Northeast Asian regional security risks and opportunities in the Trump era.
The region is far from being isolated from the geopolitical turmoil in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. As such, it's critical for like-minded countries to find points of convergence and cooperation with the view of protecting their common interests of stability and international order. The role of a regional balancer, if played judiciously, could be instrumental in recalibrating dynamics and preventing one power from holding disproportionate sway over the region. For instance, a skilled, truly nuanced dealing with Beijing could create a channel for de-escalation. At the same time, an 'autonomous' foreign policy stance may not only frustrate the U.S. and China, the major powers; it could also complicate and impede U.S.-Japan-Korea coordination, especially if Seoul hesitates support on critical issues, such as intelligence sharing or joint military drills.
In sum, a truly 'pragmatic' South Korean presidency could create an opportunity for regionally-driven stability initiatives. Success hinges largely upon Lee's ability to maintain Washington's trust while pursuing his independent overtures as well as communicating Seoul's strategic value to both the U.S. and China without tipping the balance – a mammoth order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
27 minutes ago
- NHK
China, Russia begin maritime phase of naval exercise in Sea of Japan
China and Russia have begun the maritime phase of their joint naval exercise in the Sea of Japan. The move is widely seen as part of their apparent effort to deepen bilateral military cooperation to counter the United States. China's state-run media report that the maritime exercise began on Sunday after the start of a chart-based rehearsal on Friday. The two countries have conducted almost annual joint exercises in recent years. Vessels participating in the exercise include China's missile destroyers and Russia's large anti-submarine ship. They confirmed communication links in waters near Vladivostok in Russia's Far East on the first day of the exercise. The exercise will continue through Tuesday, covering such drills as anti-submarine and air defense training. Chinese media add that the two nations will hold a maritime joint patrol in the Pacific Ocean after the exercise. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Moscow in May, confirming that their militaries would expand the size and scope of their joint exercises.
Japan Times
9 hours ago
- Japan Times
Glory to Stalin and the whitewashing of history
Earlier last month, at its 19th Reporting and Election Congress, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) invalidated Nikita Khrushchev's bombshell 1956 address to the highest-ranking Soviet communists — known as his 'secret speech' — in which he denounced Josef Stalin's cult of personality. At a time when 'NATO militarism is increasing its aggression against Russia,' according to the KPRF narrative, Stalin — who had nearly a million of his own citizens executed and sent countless more to the Gulag labor camps — should be admired, even emulated, not decried. By contrast, the KPRF resolution accuses Khrushchev of subjecting the 'results of 30 years Stalin's leadership' to 'wholesale denigration' for the sake of 'cheap popularity.' In fact, the KPRF claims, Khrushchev faced an 'objective shortage of materials discrediting the name and work of Stalin,' and a 'targeted effort' to replace original documents with 'fakes' in state archives has been 'reliably established.' These are mind-boggling assertions. The cruelty and lawlessness of the Gulag system are not matters of historical debate. We know, for example, that in just the first two years of Stalin's Great Purge, well over 1.5 million people were arrested and more than 680,000 of them were killed. Moreover, when the archives were opened up in the late 1980s, during Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost, it was reliably confirmed that they included original records of even more terrible crimes, which Khrushchev had thought better of exposing. But, to hear the KPRF tell it, Stalin was a 'demanding and fair leader,' and a model of 'integrity,' who 'saved our people from enslavement and death.' Compounding the absurdity of the KPRF's resolution is the fact that the party, which was formed in 1993, is not a successor to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which was disbanded in 1991. It has no authority to invalidate official actions taken by Khrushchev or any other Soviet leader. A ranking member of parliament pointed this out to the KPRF, though not as any kind of defense of Khrushchev; the ruling United Russia party merely wants to remain at the forefront of the re-Stalinization campaign that is under way. The process of cleaning up Stalin's image began shortly after Vladimir Putin came to power 25 years ago. Teaching materials, such as the high-school textbook 'The Modern History of Russia: 1945-2006,' justified Stalin's 'strong hand' as necessary to enable a 'besieged' country to survive and develop. 'The formation of a rigid militarized political system' was a means of 'solving extraordinary problems in extraordinary circumstances.' The textbooks issued in 2023 — a year after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine — went much further, describing Stalin as a venerable and triumphant figure. (A co-author of the books, Vladimir Medinsky, was also Putin's lead negotiator in peace talks on Ukraine.) At least 105 of the 120 monuments to Stalin seen across Russia today were erected under Putin's leadership. The newest addition, located inside Moscow's Taganskaya subway station, is a white plaster copy of the marble bas-relief that was removed in 1966 as part of the de-Stalinization process. As Putin's regime uses schoolbooks and statues to burnish Stalin's image in the popular memory, the insidious effects of re-Stalinization are becoming increasingly apparent. The suppression of dissent regarding the Ukraine war is a notable one, as is a wave of deaths among Russia's elite, the latest being the suicide of Russia's transport minister and former governor of the Kursk region, Roman Starovoyt. Starovoyt had just been fired for his failure to prevent incursions into Russian territory by Ukrainian troops last year. His superiors had determined that, under his watch, the border had been insufficiently fortified and Starovoyt knew that he had no recourse. He could not defend himself or even resign quietly. Under Putin, as under Stalin, if the supreme power finds you guilty, you are — and you are expected to bear whatever punishment is imposed upon you. In such a context, suicide becomes an act of defiance. And, in fact, some Stalin-era officials chose this path. Vissarion Lominadze, once the head of the Republic of Georgia's Communist Party, shot himself in the chest in 1935, in order to avoid arrest for deviation from the party line. When the Old Bolshevik trade unionist Mikhail Tomsky shot himself in his dacha in 1936, he left a note denying participation in an anti-Soviet conspiracy, but he was convicted posthumously (and eventually cleared.) Sergo Ordzhonikidze's suicide was a different kind of protest. In 1937, at the height of the Great Purge, the old Bolshevik and Soviet statesman ended his life in despair, following the brutal persecution of his brother Papulia, who was arrested on unspecific charges while working as the boss of the Transcaucasian Railway. Such high-level suicides enraged Stalin, who viewed them as acts of dishonesty and manipulation. When it came to the widely respected Ordzhonikidze, Stalin did not even want to admit the truth about his death. The official story — which Khrushchev refuted in his 'secret speech' — was that Ordzhonikidze died of heart failure. Putin was apparently similarly furious about Starovoyt's final act of disobedience: He ordered his Kremlin aides to recall the wreath they had sent to the funeral, as per protocol. Nonetheless, many government officials attended the ceremony. One wonders whether this amounted to a quiet bureaucratic protest against the impossible demands and arbitrary punishments that are being imposed on those tasked with carrying out Putin's decrees, at a time when the slightest whiff of corruption, incompetence or confusion can be treated as treason. There was a sort of urban legend during the Stalin era: When a train was forced to stop because the track had been destroyed, Stalin ordered that some of his entourage be shot, so that their bodies could be used as rails. As Starovoyt's death shows, the officials surrounding Putin are not much safer. Nina L. Khrushcheva, professor of international affairs at The New School, is the co-author (with Jeffrey Tayler) of "In Putin's Footsteps: Searching for the Soul of an Empire Across Russia's Eleven Time Zones" (St. Martin's Press, 2019). © Project Syndicate, 2025
The Mainichi
10 hours ago
- The Mainichi
From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers -- from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes -- tariffs -- on the products they export to the United States starting Aug. 7. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that caved to Trump's demands -- and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run -- even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. "In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. "The biggest winner is Trump," said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. "He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded -- dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls "Liberation Day'' -- April 2 -- when the president announced "reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% "baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs -- all of which is now being challenged in court. Winners will still pay higher tariffs than before Trump took office Trump retreated temporarily after his Liberation Day announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually, some of them did, caving to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs for the privilege of continuing to sell into the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States -- up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the UK for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year -- but lower than the tariffs he was threatening (30% on the EU and 25% on Japan). Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt. "20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate," Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Bashing Brazil, clobbering Canada, shellacking the Swiss Countries that didn't knuckle under -- and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath -- got hit harder. Even some poorer countries were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 -- versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for trying to lose his electoral defeat in 2022. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on longstanding U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax -- even higher than the 31% Trump originally announced on April 2. "The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his Liberation Day tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wend its way through the legal system, and may likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. "If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Paying more for knapsacks and video games Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who try to pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits -- or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker, have all hiked prices due to U.S. tariffs "This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,'' Appleton said. "Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. "The U.S. consumer's a big loser," Wolff said.
