Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2127293687-scaled

What South Korea's new president will mean for regional peace and US relations

President-elect Yoon Suk-yeol’s early personnel appointments suggest Seoul’s foreign policy will take a hardline turn.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

For advocates of a confrontation-based U.S.-Republic of Korea approach toward China and North Korea, the election of the conservative candidate Yoon Suk-yeol as South Korea’s new president has been hailed as a “welcome turn” toward Washington. The U.S. foreign policy establishment’s general view is that South Korea, under the Yoon administration, will be more willing to stand with the United States in containing China, make U.S.-ROK-Japan trilateral cooperation a higher priority, and pursue a pressure-based strategy in dealing with North Korea. 

Traditionally, conservative administrations in Seoul have tended to prioritize accommodating U.S. strategic interests, even if doing so carries diplomatic and political risks for Seoul. For instance, in 2016, South Korea deployed the THAAD ballistic missile defense system  at the cost of damaging relations with China, signed a bilateral intelligence-sharing pact with Tokyo, and agreed to irreversibly resolve the “comfort women” issue despite domestic opposition. 

While it is too early to predict the exact characteristics of the Yoon administration’s foreign policy, President-elect Yoon’s personnel appointments to date suggest his foreign policy preferences. Throughout his campaign, Yoon stressed a more assertive approach to dealing with China and North Korea, and vowed to deepen trilateral cooperation with the United States and Japan. The foreign policy team in Yoon’s Presidential Transition Committee is comprised of senior officials from former conservative administrations who are likely to implement these policy preferences. 

For example, Kim Sung-han, former vice-minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the Lee Myung-bak government, led the administration’s North Korea policy centered on deterrence and sanctions and deeper trilateral security coordination with the United States and Japan. 

Kim Tae-hyo, who also served in the Lee government as a senior Blue House Foreign Policy Strategist, was among the leading architects of the administration's North Korea policy and the primary negotiator of the closed-door deal to finalize a bilateral intelligence-sharing pact with Japan known as General Security of Military Information Agreement. 

In their scholarly works, both Kim Sung-han and Kim Tae-hyo have promoted closer alignment with the United States and Japan in dealing with North Korea and China and deepening Seoul’s commitment to the U.S.-led security cooperation among democracies.  

Yoon’s seven-member foreign policy delegation that is in Washington this week is led by senior policymakers and academics who generally support a more hardline approach to North Korea and China. During the visit to Washington, the delegation stated its desire for the “complete, verified, and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea” principle, eschewing the broader phrasing of “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” as noted in the Biden-Moon joint statement. 

Yoon’s delegation has called for Seoul’s deeper engagement in U.S.-led regional initiatives that Beijing perceives as China containment efforts, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Park Jin, a senior lawmaker and a foreign policy expert, has argued for South Korea to formally join the Quad and actively participate in the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy. Chung Jae Ho, a leading China expert, believes that Washington’s foreign policy should prioritize winning the great power competition with China and that Seoul has to side with Washington in that process. 

Many of these experts will likely take key posts in the Yoon government, including foreign minister, National Security Council head, and National Intelligence head, once Yoon is in office on May 10. 

But Yoon’s narrow victory to the Blue House, the opposition party’s large parliamentary majority, and the urgency to tackle domestic priorities such as real estate inflation and COVID recovery may compel the president-elect to avoid making drastic changes to South Korea’s foreign policy, at least initially. He might wish to tread carefully in the months ahead.

Photo: Ki young via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
ukraine war
Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia
Diplomacy Watch: Moscow bails on limited ceasefire talks

Diplomacy Watch: Russia capitalizing on battlefield surge

QiOSK

Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to increase the size of Russia’s military even while it’s seeing regular successes on the battlefield. These developments are leading some in the Ukrainian military and civilians alike to become more open to the idea of talks aimed at ending the war.

The Kremlin is currently negotiating a new military budget proposal of upwards of $145 billion which would mean that, if signed into law, Russia’s 2025 defense spending would grow to 32.5% of the budget, a 4.2% increase from this year’s spending.

keep readingShow less
|
DF-ST-87-06962 The Pentagon, headquarters of the Department of Defense. DoD photo by Master Sgt. Ken Hammond, U.S. Air Force.|

The military showers universities with hundreds of millions of dollars

Military Industrial Complex

The divestment campaigns launched last spring by students protesting Israel’s mass slaughter in Gaza brought the issue of the militarization of American higher education back into the spotlight.

Of course, financial ties between the Pentagon and American universities are nothing new. As Stuart Leslie has pointed out in his seminal book on the topic, The Cold War and American Science, “In the decade following World War II, the Department of Defense (DOD) became the biggest patron of American science.” Admittedly, as civilian institutions like the National Institutes of Health grew larger, the Pentagon’s share of federal research and development did decline, but it still remained a source of billions of dollars in funding for university research.

keep readingShow less
Iran bombs Israel, but buck stops with Biden

Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepts rockets after Iran fired a salvo of ballistic missiles, as seen from Ashkelon, Israel, October 1, 2024 REUTERS/Amir Cohen TPX

Iran bombs Israel, but buck stops with Biden

Middle East

Today, Iran launched a massive missile attack against Israel, which Tehran billed as a response to Israel’s recent assassinations of leaders of the IRGC, Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel now appears to be mulling a retaliation in turn that could push the sides into all-out war.

When Israel and Iran narrowly avoided a full-blown conflict in April, I warned that we shouldn’t let Biden’s help in averting escalation overshadow his broader, strategic failure to prevent such a dangerous moment from ever arising. Had the U.S. used its considerable leverage with Israel to end its war in Gaza, the region would not have found itself on the edge of a disastrous war in April; six months later, the Middle East is back at the brink of disaster.

keep readingShow less

Election 2024

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.