Guest Columnist. ROK Military Academy, Class of 40

Before the curtain rose on the South Korea-US summit, the air in Washington was cold and heavy. U.S. President Donald Trump had dropped a bombshell on his social media, declaring, "There's a purge or revolution happening in Korea," and "You can't do business in that kind of situation."

It was an unprecedented pressure on an allied leader, a warning that seemed poised to swallow every agenda item of the summit. However, the scene that unfolded hours later in the White House Oval Office was surprising. Trump responded to Lee Jae-myung's effusive praise with laughter, and foreign media reported on the friendly atmosphere, stating, "President Lee has avoided Zelensky's fate."

Evaluations are divided on this dramatic reversal. Some say it highlights President Lee Jae-myung's pragmatic diplomacy, which accurately grasped the characteristics of "strongman" Trump and responded flexibly. Others criticize it as sacrificing national pride and principles for the sake of maintaining power and securing precarious interests.

Was President Lee's approach a necessary "pivot towards pro-Americanism" for the national interest, or a temporary shift to "survive the administration"? To answer this question, we need to re-examine the summit through the lens of national interest and national dignity.

1. Was it pragmatic diplomacy that relied on lip service, or diplomacy that abandoned national dignity?

Lee Jae-myung seemed to have perfectly mastered the "Trump user manual." He praised the golden decor of the White House, lauded President Trump as a "world-historical peacemaker," and humbled himself by saying, "If Trump becomes the peacemaker, I will be the pacemaker." His suggestion to "build Trump World in North Korea" appeared to satisfy President Trump's ego.

Foreign media also reported Lee's diplomatic tactics as seemingly successful in the short term. Outlets like the AP, BBC, and Reuters analyzed it as showing "world leaders learning lessons from past summits with Trump," and that they "chose praise and flattery over confrontation." They evaluated President Lee's response as a manifestation of crisis management ability, as he did not follow the path of Ukrainian President Zelensky, who experienced a diplomatic disaster after being publicly insulted.

2. What was given up, and what was gained?

National diplomatic dignity is the principle of not selling out the nation's future for momentary gain, and self-belief that is not easily swayed by external evaluations. From this perspective, recalling the recent summit raises deep concerns.

Lee Jae-myung displayed a quick-witted response, using the special prosecutor and judicial system to quash Trump's "purge" remarks. While demonstrating agility in placating an unpredictable leader rather than engaging as the head of a sovereign state, it will remain a precedent of sacrificing national dignity for the sake of maintaining power.

This is enough to send the wrong signal to Trump, suggesting that "Korea yields to pressure." While he may have avoided immediate anger, he has opened the door for potentially larger bills to arrive in the future. In fact, President Trump went so far as to make the outrageous demand during the summit to change the status of the land for US Forces Korea bases from "lease" to "ownership." This is a dangerous sign showing how diplomacy that has lost its dignity can lead to greater losses in national interest.

3. Is it a pivot to pro-Americanism, or a temporary expedient for survival?

The fundamental issue of this summit is that President Lee's actions do not represent a pivot to "pro-Americanism" in its true sense. His diplomacy is not based on the institution and values of the South Korea-US alliance, but rather on an extremely artificial and personalized approach that bets everything on one individual: "Donald Trump." At this point, it is highly curious how the content of the letter Lee Jae-myung sent to Xi Jinping in January 2023, when he was the opposition leader, differs from the letter sent through a special envoy to China just before this summit.

He defined Trump as "the only person who can resolve the Korean Peninsula issue" and ceded all authority for resolving the Korean Peninsula issue. This is a dangerous gamble that degrades an alliance based on systems and principles into a personal transactional relationship. He has voluntarily created a vulnerable structure where the fate of the Korean Peninsula could be determined by a single whim of Trump. This is not a pro-American stance that aims for alliance stability, but merely a "pro-Trump" stance that risks everything on uncertainty.

4. Will the remarks exchanged at the summit lead to long-term national interest?

Numerous promises and methodologies were exchanged during the summit. Lee Jae-myung proposed a division of roles, endorsing Trump as a "peacemaker" for Korean Peninsula peace and handing over the initiative for North Korea issues. He alluded to the possibility of a Nobel Peace Prize to encourage Trump's active role and even suggested a flexible diplomatic approach between the US and China by mentioning a "joint visit to China" on the spot, though its feasibility seems unlikely.

It would be a miracle if President Lee Jae-myung's "transformation" for "survival" in this South Korea-US summit leads to the long-term national interest of the Republic of Korea. True national interest stems not from quick-wittedness in pleasing others, but from principles and dignity that remain unshaken by any storm. I wonder how history will record today's South Korea-US summit, where the numerous issues of the current administration, likened to "purges and revolutions," were circumvented by sacrificing national dignity for short-term regime survival.