In South Korea, Trump's tariff threats place US love affair under strain
Like many South Koreans, Sim had long admired the US as a cultural juggernaut and positive force in the world.
These days, Sim, a 38-year-old engineer living near Seoul, feels no such love towards the country.
As US President Donald Trump threatens to impose a 25 percent tariff on South Korea from August 1, Sim cannot help but feel betrayed.
'If they used to be a country that was known to be a leader in culture, the economy and the perception of being 'good,' I feel like the US is now a threat to geopolitical balance,' Sim told Al Jazeera.
South Korea and the US share deep and enduring ties.
South Korea is one of Washington's closest allies in Asia, hosting about 28,000 US troops as a bulwark against North Korea.
The US is home to a larger South Korean diaspora than any other country.
But with the return of Trump's 'America First' agenda to Washington, DC, those ties are coming under strain.
In a Pew Research Center survey released earlier this month, 61 percent of South Koreans expressed a favourable view of the US, down from 77 percent in 2024.
Like dozens of other US trading partners, South Korea is facing severe economic disruption if it cannot reach a trade deal with the Trump administration by the August deadline.
The Asian country, which is a major producer of electronics, ships and cars, generates more than 40 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) from exports.
In addition to sending a letter to South Korean President Lee Jae-Myung outlining his tariff threats, Trump earlier this month also claimed that Seoul pays 'very little' to support the presence of US Forces Korea (USFK).
Trump's comments reinforced speculation that he could demand that the South Korean government increase its national defence spending or contributions to the costs of the USFK.
After Trump last week told reporters that South Korea 'wants to make a deal right now,' Seoul's top trade envoy said that an 'in-principle' agreement was possible by the deadline.
With the clock ticking on a deal, the uncertainty created by Trump's trade policies has stirred resentment among many South Koreans.
Kim Hyunju, a customer service agent working in Seoul, said that although her company would not be directly affected by the tariffs, Trump's trade salvoes did not seem fair.
'It would only be fair if they are OK with us raising our tariffs to the same level as well,' Kim told Al Jazeera, adding that the Trump administration's actions had caused her to feel animosity towards the US.
'I can't help but see the US as a powerful nation which fulfils its interests with money and sheer power plays,' Kim said.
'I've always thought of the US as a friendly ally that is special to us, especially in terms of national defence. I know it is good for us to maintain this friendly status, but I sort of lost faith when Trump also demanded a larger amount of money for the US military presence in our country.'
Kim Chang-chul, an investment strategist in Seoul, expressed a more sanguine view of Trump's trade policies, even while acknowledging the harm they could do to South Korean businesses.
'The US tariff policy is a burden for our government and businesses, but the move really shows the depth of US decision-making and strategy,' Kim told Al Jazeera.
'Trump wants South Korea to be more involved in the US's energy ambitions in Alaska. It's part of the US pushing for geopolitical realignment and economic rebalancing.'
Earlier this year, the US held talks with South Korean officials about boosting US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to South Korea, a major LNG importer.
Keum Hye-yoon, a researcher at the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP), said it has been difficult for a US ally like South Korea to make sense of Trump's comments and actions.
'When Trump cites 'fairness' in his tariff policy, it's based on unilateral expectations of improving the US trade balance or restoring economic strength to certain industries,' Keum told Al Jazeera.
'As allies like South Korea share supply chains with the US and work closely with its companies, disregarding these structures and imposing high taxes will likely create burdens on US businesses and consumers as well.'
While Trump's most severe tariffs have yet to come into effect, South Korean manufacturers have already reported some disruption.
South Korea's exports dropped 2.2 percent in the first 20 days of July compared with a year earlier, according to preliminary data released by Korea Customs Service on Monday.
Kim Sung-hyeok, the head of research at the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) Labour Institute, said exporters in the auto, steel, semiconductor and pharmaceutical sectors had been especially affected.
'As exports in these fields decreased considerably since the tariff announcements, production orders in domestic factories have declined,' Kim told Al Jazeera.
'Some automotive and steel production lines have closed temporarily, while other manufacturing sites have closed altogether. Voluntary resignations and redeployments have become rampant in some of these workplaces.'
Kim said small companies may face the brunt of the tariffs as they are not capable of 'moving their manufacturing plants to the US', or 'diversifying their trade avenues outside of the US'.
'And as major companies face a general decline in exports, these small companies will consequently face a shortage in product delivery volume that will cause employment disputes,' he said.
The Korea Development Institute estimated in May that the number of employed South Koreans would increase by just 90,000 this year, in part due to the economic uncertainties, compared with a rise of 160,000 last year.
Even before Trump's arrival on the political scene, US-South Korea relations had gone through difficult periods in the past.
In 2002, two South Korean middle-school girls were killed when they were struck by a US Army armoured vehicle.
After the American soldiers involved in the incident were found not guilty of negligent homicide by a US military court, the country saw an explosion in anti-US sentiment and nationwide protests.
In 2008, nationwide protests took place after the South Korean government decided to continue importing US beef despite concerns about the risk of Mad Cow Disease.
More recently, President Lee, who was elected in June, has emphasised the importance of maintaining positive relations with China, Washington's biggest strategic rival and competitor.
The KIEP's Keum said the US-South Korea relationship has evolved into a partnership where the US has become a 'conditional ally', where 'economic interests take precedence over traditional alliance'.
'The US is increasingly demanding South Korea to cooperate in its containment strategy of China among its other socioeconomic policies,' she said.
Keum said that South Korea will need to seek out alternative markets and diversify its exports to mitigate the fallout of Trump's agenda.
'South Korea also doesn't need to act alone. The country can seek joint action with countries such as EU members, Japan and Canada to come up with joint responses to the current predicament,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
14 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Could Trump's trade strategy forge new alliances against him?
Russia, India, China and Brazil refuse to bend to US tariffs. Brazil, India, China and Russia remain firmly in Donald Trump's sights as targets for his tariffs. Others, like the European Union, have caved and negotiated deals. But could the United States president's confrontational stance forge new alliances, among those who have not, against Trump? Presenter: Adrian Finighan Guests: Einar Tangen – China specialist and senior fellow at the Taihe Institute Gustavo de Carvalho – Senior researcher in the geopolitics of the Global South at the South African Institute of International Affairs David McWilliams – Economist, author and podcast host
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Brazil requests World Trade Organization consultation over Trump tariffs
The government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has petitioned the World Trade Organization for consultations to help alleviate the steep tariffs imposed on Brazil by the United States. Sources within the Brazilian government confirmed the petition on Wednesday to news outlets like AFP and The Associated Press, on condition of anonymity. The aim is to seek relief from the 50 percent tariff that US President Donald Trump slapped on Brazilian exports in response to the country's prosecution of a former far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro. That tariff — the highest Trump has imposed on any country in August — took effect on Wednesday. India, meanwhile, is expected to face 50 percent tariffs later this month, unless a deal is struck beforehand. A request for consultations is usually the first step in the World Trade Organization's trade dispute process. The organisation functions as an international arbiter in economic disputes, though its procedures for negotiating settlements can be lengthy and inconclusive. Brazilian Vice President Geraldo Alckmin has estimated that 35.9 percent of the country's exports to the US will be subject to the stiff taxes. That equals about 4 percent of Brazil's total exports worldwide. Retaliation over Bolsonaro prosecution Trump unveiled the current tariff rate on July 9, in a letter addressed to Lula and published online. Unlike other tariff-related letters at the time, Trump used the correspondence to launch into a barbed attack on the Brazilian government for its decision to prosecute Bolsonaro, an ally, over an alleged coup attempt. 'The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace,' Trump wrote. Just as Trump did after his 2020 electoral defeat, Bolsonaro had publicly cast doubt on the results of a 2022 presidential race that saw him lose to Lula. But behind the scenes, police and prosecutors allege that Bolsonaro conspired with his associates to overturn the results of the election. One possible scenario was to declare a 'state of siege' during Bolsonaro's final days as president, as a means of calling up the military and suspending civil rights. Then, a new election would have been called, according to prosecutors. Another idea allegedly floated among Bolsonaro's allies was to poison Lula. But Trump, who likewise faced criminal charges in the past for allegedly attempting to subvert the outcome of a vote, has defended Bolsonaro, calling the prosecution politically biased. 'This trial should not be taking place,' he wrote in the July 9 letter. 'It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!' Several weeks later, on July 30, Trump followed up his tariff threat with an executive order that doubled down on his accusations. Not only did Trump accuse Brazil of 'politically persecuting' Bolsonaro, but he added that Brazil was guilty of 'human rights abuses', including the suppression of free speech, through its efforts to stem disinformation on social media. 'Recent policies, practices, and actions of the Government of Brazil threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States,' Trump wrote. 'Members of the Government of Brazil have taken actions that interfere with the economy of the United States, infringe the free expression rights of United States persons, violate human rights, and undermine the interest the United States has in protecting its citizens and companies.' Lula speaks out The executive order, however, included an annex that indicated certain products would not be subject to the new US tariffs. They included nuts, orange juice, coal, iron, tin and petroleum products. Lula has claimed that Trump is impeding attempts to negotiate a trade deal between their two countries, a sentiment he repeated in an interview on Wednesday with the news agency Reuters. 'The day my intuition says Trump is ready to talk, I won't hesitate to call him,' Lula told Reuters. 'But today my intuition says he doesn't want to talk. And I'm not going to humiliate myself.' The three-term, left-wing president explained that he saw Trump's tariff threats as part of a long history of US intervention in Brazil and Latin America more broadly. 'We had already pardoned the US intervention in the 1964 coup,' Lula said, referencing the overthrow of a Brazilian president that sparked a two-decade-long military dictatorship 'But this now is not a small intervention. It's the president of the United States thinking he can dictate rules for a sovereign country like Brazil. It's unacceptable.' Lula added that he plans to bolster Brazil's 'national sovereignty' by reforming its mineral extraction policy to boost the local economy. With the US tariffs in play, Lula also explained that he would reach out to members of the BRICS economic trading bloc, named for its founding members: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Trump, however, has threatened any BRICS-affiliated country with an additional 10-percent tariff. Lula has been on an English-language media blitz since Trump announced the latest his latest slate of tariffs in July, warning that consumers across the world will be penalised. Late last month, for instance, Lula gave his first interview to The New York Times newspaper in nearly 13 years. When the Times asked what his reaction would be to the tariffs taking effect, Lula expressed ambivalence. 'I'm not going to cry over spilled milk,' he said. 'If the United States doesn't want to buy something of ours, we are going to look for someone who will.'
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Public opinion is split as US marks 80th anniversary of Hiroshima bombing
On August 6, 1945, the United States became the first and only country in history to carry out a nuclear attack when it dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. While the death toll of the bombing remains a subject of debate, at least 70,000 people were killed, though other figures are nearly twice as high. Three days later, the US dropped another atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing at least 40,000 people. The stunning toll on Japanese civilians at first seemed to have little impact on public opinion in the US, where pollsters found approval for the bombing reached 85 percent in the days afterwards. To this day, US politicians continue to credit the bombing with saving American lives and ending World War II. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, perceptions have become increasingly mixed. A Pew Research Center poll last month indicated that Americans are split almost evenly into three categories. Nearly a third of respondents believe the use of the bomb was justified. Another third feels it was not. And the rest are uncertain about deciding either way. 'The trendline is that there is a steady decline in the share of Americans who believe these bombings were justified at the time,' Eileen Yam, the director of science and society research at Pew Research Center, told Al Jazeera in a recent phone call. 'This is something Americans have gotten less and less supportive of as time has gone by.' Tumbling approval rates Doubts about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the advent of nuclear weapons in general, did not take long to set in. 'From the beginning, it was understood that this was something different, a weapon that could destroy entire cities,' said Kai Bird, a US author who has written about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His Pulitzer Prize-winning book, American Prometheus, served as the basis for director Christopher Nolan's 2023 film, Oppenheimer. Bird pointed out that, even in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, some key politicians and public figures denounced it as a war crime. Early critics included physicist Albert Einstein and former President Herbert Hoover, who was quick to speak out against the civilian bloodshed. 'The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul,' Hoover wrote within days of the bombing. Over time, historians have increasingly cast doubt on the most common justification for the atomic attacks: that they played a decisive role in ending World War II. Some academics point out that other factors likely played a larger role in the Japanese decision to surrender, including the Soviet Union's declaration of war against the island nation on August 8. Others have speculated whether the bombings were meant mostly as a demonstration of strength as the US prepared for its confrontation with the Soviet Union in what would become the Cold War. Accounts from Japanese survivors and media reports also played a role in changing public perceptions. John Hersey's 1946 profile of six victims, for instance, took up an entire edition of The New Yorker magazine. It chronicled, in harrowing detail, everything from the crushing power of the blast to the fever, nausea and death brought on by radiation sickness. By 1990, a Pew poll found that a shrinking majority in the US approved of the atomic bomb's use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only 53 percent felt it was merited. Rationalising US use of force But even at the close of the 20th century, the legacy of the attacks remained contentious in the US. For the 50th anniversary of the bombing in 1995, the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, had planned a special exhibit. But it was cancelled amid public furore over sections of the display that explored the experiences of Japanese civilians and the debate about the use of the atomic bomb. US veterans groups argued that the exhibit undermined their sacrifices, even after it underwent extensive revision. 'The exhibit still says in essence that we were the aggressors and the Japanese were the victims,' William Detweiler, a leader at the American Legion, a veterans group, told The Associated Press at the time. Incensed members of Congress opened an investigation, and the museum's director resigned. The exhibit, meanwhile, never opened to the public. All that remained was a display of the Enola Gay, the aeroplane that dropped the first atomic bomb. Erik Baker, a lecturer on the history of science at Harvard University, says that the debate over the atomic bomb often serves as a stand-in for larger questions about the way the US wields power in the world. 'What's at stake is the role of World War II in legitimising the subsequent history of the American empire, right up to the current day,' he told Al Jazeera. Baker explained that the US narrative about its role in the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan — the main 'Axis Powers' in World War II — has been frequently referenced to assert the righteousness of US interventions around the world. 'If it was justifiable for the US to not just go to war but to do 'whatever was necessary' to defeat the Axis powers, by a similar token, there can't be any objection to the US doing what is necessary to defeat the 'bad guys' today,' he added. A resurgence of nuclear anxiety But as the generations that lived through World War II grow older and pass away, cultural shifts are emerging in how different age groups approach US intervention — and use of force — abroad. The scepticism is especially pronounced among young people, large numbers of whom have expressed dissatisfaction with policies such as US support for Israel's war in Gaza. In an April 2024 poll, the Pew Research Center found a dramatic generational divide among Americans over the question of global engagement. Approximately 74 percent of older respondents, aged 65 and up, expressed a strong belief that the US should play an active role on the world stage. But only 33 percent of younger respondents, aged 18 to 35, felt the same way. Last month's Pew poll on the atomic bomb also found stark differences in age. People over the age of 65 were more than twice as likely to believe that the bombings were justified than people between the ages of 18 and 29. Yam, the Pew researcher, said that age was the 'most pronounced factor' in the results, beating out other characteristics, such as party affiliation and veteran status. The 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing also coincides with a period of renewed anxiety about nuclear weapons. US President Donald Trump, for instance, repeatedly warned during his re-election campaign in 2024 that the globe was on the precipice of 'World War III'. 'The threat is nuclear weapons,' Trump told a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia. 'That can happen tomorrow.' 'We're at a place where, for the first time in more than three decades, nuclear weapons are back at the forefront of international politics,' said Ankit Panda, a senior fellow in the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a US-based think tank. Panda says that such concerns are linked to geopolitical tensions between different states, pointing to the recent fighting between India and Pakistan in May as one example. The war in Ukraine, meanwhile, has prompted Russia and the US, the world's two biggest nuclear powers, to exchange nuclear-tinged threats. And in June, the US and Israel carried out attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities with the stated aim of setting back the country's ability to develop nuclear weapons. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombings, advocates hope the shift in public opinion will encourage world leaders to turn away from nuclear sabre-rattling and work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. Seth Shelden, the United Nations liaison for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, explained that countries with nuclear weapons argue that their arsenals discourage acts of aggression. But he said those arguments diminish the 'civilisation-ending' dangers of nuclear warfare. 'As long as the nuclear-armed states prioritise nuclear weapons for their own security, they're going to incentivise others to pursue them as well,' he said. 'The question shouldn't be whether nuclear deterrence can work or whether it ever has worked,' he added. 'It should be whether it will work in perpetuity.'
