Follow us on social

220407-a-ci827-0232-scaled

Will South Korea's new leader help the US contain China? Not so fast.

President Yoon Suk-yeol campaigned as a hawk, but domestic constraints and economic considerations are now coming into play.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment expect South Korea’s foreign policy to shift closer to the United States, especially on China. Such anticipation is understandable given President Yoon Suk-yeol’s campaign rhetoric, traditional characteristics of South Korean conservative foreign policy, and a highly negative South Korean public perception of China. 

During the presidential campaign, Yoon criticized the Moon administration’s attempts to balance Seoul’s relationship with Washington and Beijing as a deferential pro-China policy. In general, South Korean conservative governments have been more inclined to resist domestic opposition to improve ties with Japan and more willing to support stronger Seoul-Washington-Tokyo trilateral cooperation. Since the election, Yoon reinforced these tendencies by selecting foreign policy advisors who hold a strong pro-alliance stance. As anti-China sentiment in South Korea grows, Seoul may find domestic political incentives to avoid being seen as friendly toward China at the expense of harming relations with Washington. 

But such observations tend to overlook South Korea’s domestic constraints that may moderate the Yoon administration's stance on engaging in U.S.-led China containment efforts. A new Quincy Institute brief observes that China’s economic importance to South Korea and lack of consensus at the elite and public levels could drive the Yoon administration to avoid a full-throttle alignment with Washington in containing Beijing. 

South Korea depends on China for over a quarter of its total trade — larger than its combined trade with the United States and Japan. China is a significant South Korean source of crucial materials and is also by far the largest consumer market for Korean cultural content (Hallyu) and tourism. South Korea will continuously seek to reduce its dependence on China by expanding cooperation with other markets and diversifying supply chains, but the overall economic partnership is too critical for Seoul to break away from easily.  

In addition to the economic relationship, there are also political constraints for the Yoon administration in pursuing an overly-aggressive China policy. 

South Korean political elites are divided on containing China, with the clearest opposition coming from progressives, who will be maintaining a near supermajority in the national assembly until 2024. 

Moreover, the South Korean public tends to be ambivalent about a de facto containment strategy pursued by Washington. To be sure, anti-China sentiments have grown sharply among South Koreans following Beijing’s economic retaliation against the deployment of the THAAD ballistic missile defense system. Nonetheless, South Koreans have maintained great support for a balanced policy in the context of U.S.-China rivalry. South Koreans may not feel friendly toward China, but they do not see it as an adversary to be defeated. As 2021 surveys revealed, South Koreans still tend to find having cooperative relations with China necessary for their economy and dealing with the North Korean nuclear threat. A confrontational China policy can be seen as counterproductive to national interests in the eyes of many South Koreans.  

In the past, South Korean governments had occasionally managed to resist a society-wide backlash against controversial foreign policy decisions. But the Yoon administration faces more difficulty resisting such a backlash. Having won his presidency by a thin margin and faced with an opposition party-dominated legislature, Yoon is entering office with limited political capital compared to his predecessors who won their elections by a relatively wide margin and enjoyed a higher level of public support before taking office. To avoid costly political battles, the Yoon administration will need to consult the legislature and the public leading to a general acceptance of a policy change on China. 

As Washington ramps up its China containment efforts, there are many minefields to navigate for Seoul. Potential U.S. demands could include deployment of U.S. strategic assets to South Korea, acquiescence to Japanese preferences on historical disputes, participation in multilateral military exercises around disputed seas, assistance to Taiwan in a cross-strait crisis, and imposition of retaliatory tariffs against Beijing — which all will have significant political and economic costs for South Koreans. If such controversial demands are met without first developing a consensus among elites and the wider public, there will likely be an acute backlash. 

Indeed, it is telling that Yoon omitted his campaign pledge to deploy an additional THAAD from his 110 key policy tasks. When asked why, his nominee for defense minister Lee Jong-sup said it was a decision “concerning the reality.” This could be the harbinger of things to come as the complex realities of governance sink in.

The Quincy Brief sheds light on the risks of overlooking Seoul’s internal divisions and pushing South Korea to uncritically follow U.S. preferences related to China. Potential negative consequences, according to the analysis, include deepening divisions within South Korea, damaging the U.S. reputation as an ally, and reducing U.S. influence in South Korea. These risks give Washington reasons to moderate its expectations of the Yoon administration’s China policy and refrain from pressuring Seoul to join any strategy that emphasizes extreme competition and containment of China. 


Republic of Korea President-elect Yoon, Suk-yeol conducts an office call with his staff and personnel from Combined Forces Command at Camp Humphreys, Republic of Korea, April 7, 2022. President-elect Yoon visited Humphreys to receive an overview of United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, U.S. Forces Korea’s ironclad commitment to strengthening the US-ROK Alliance and providing a strong robust combined defense posture to maintaining peace, security, and stability of the Korean peninsula. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Kris Bonet)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

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.