Joo Eun-sik, President of the Korea Institute for Strategic StudiesPresident Lee Jae-myung, following summit talks in the United States, visited the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a think tank with a slightly left-leaning orientation within the center-right, and delivered a speech. While fully accepting Trump's demands, and with our own requests not yet manifested, he made another statement that is like a time bomb. 

That statement was "modernization of the ROK-US alliance." 

This statement does not merely refer to simple modernization; it is problematic because while he stated opposition to the US's proposed strategic flexibility for US Forces Korea (USFK) troops, he made a statement that contradicts this position. 

I don't know if the National Security Advisor, Policy Advisor, or Chief of Staff drafted and reviewed the president's speech.　

Strengthening Security Leadership and the Shadow of the "Vacuum Theory"

In his CSIS speech, President Lee Jae-myung stated that South Korea would take a more proactive role in ensuring security on the Korean Peninsula. While this is a positive signal in terms of strengthening self-reliant defense, it also carries the risk of providing ammunition to political factions within the US, suggesting that "South Korea can defend itself." In particular, if this aligns with President Trump's emphasis on reducing USFK troop levels, the alliance's deterrence could be weakened.

The President's explicit mention of the USFK troop strength at 28,500 was intended to alleviate concerns about a reduction, but it also opens the possibility that this figure could become a bargaining chip in future negotiations. Therefore, it is crucial to clarify that the increase in defense spending is not merely for independent defense but is directly linked to strengthening ROK-US combined forces. The key is to emphasize that South Korea's military investments will be used to enhance the deterrence and interoperability of USFK.

North Korean Nuclear Response: Ambiguity Between Deterrence and Dialogue

The President remarked, "We will respond firmly to North Korean provocations, but we will seek realistic methods that do not pose a threat to the United States." While this is a pragmatic approach aimed at preventing escalation, if perceived as ambiguous, it could send the wrong signal to North Korea, suggesting that "limited provocations are permissible." 

We must remember that deterrence derives its strength from clarity, not ambiguity. If our concern is nuclear provocations and not conventional ones, this statement is flawed. He should have stated that if the US provides robust nuclear deterrence, South Korea will manage conventional provocations at its own level. The only threat to the US is nuclear. How can North Korea possibly be a match for the "God of all nations" (a reference to the US's military might)?　

Therefore, the principles that ROK-US should establish are clear: North Korean provocations must be met with immediate, alliance-level retaliation, and dialogue must be linked to concrete denuclearization measures. To achieve this, it is necessary to institutionalize a pre-coordination mechanism between South Korea and the US to clearly manage the lines between deterrence and dialogue. Only then can the strategy of "strong deterrence and conditional dialogue" yield tangible results.

Technological and Economic Cooperation: Preparing for Chinese and Russian Backlash

The President stated that the alliance would be built on the three pillars of "security, economy, and advanced technology." However, this could provoke scrutiny from China and Russia. China could pressure South Korea using strategic resources like semiconductors, batteries, and rare earths, while Russia could leverage energy supplies as a bargaining chip. If technological alliances lean too heavily towards the US, South Korea risks being placed on the front lines of the US-China strategic competition.

The countermeasure for this is to build a multilateral network. While South Korea strengthens technological cooperation with the US, it must pursue parallel cooperation with entities like the EU, Japan, and Australia to secure "alternative supply chains." Simultaneously, it is essential to maintain strategic dialogue channels with China to prevent economic and security conflicts from escalating. The increase in defense spending also needs public persuasion mechanisms to ensure it is linked not only to military expenditure but also to the fostering of advanced industries and job creation.

National Strategy Must Include Both Vision and Concrete Plans

President Lee Jae-myung's speech presented a vision to expand the ROK-US alliance into a future-oriented strategic alliance. 

However, modernization is not achieved by declaration alone. 

The four tasks that must be addressed simultaneously are: balancing the role of USFK, clarifying the principles of North Korean nuclear deterrence, developing strategies to counter China and Russia, and ensuring public acceptance of increased defense spending.

Alliance modernization entails both opportunities and risks. 

Ultimately, its success depends on meticulous strategic design and continuous management. 

If this speech aimed to open a new horizon, it is now time to prepare a concrete and actionable blueprint for that horizon. We must first question whether there is a clear national strategy. While books explaining national strategy and national security strategy are available, the nature of our national strategy remains unclear. This is the fundamental reason why Professor Han Yong-sup established the Korea Association of National Strategy Studies.

#ROKUSAlliance #Modernization #USFK #NorthKoreaDeterrence #PresidentLeeJaeMyung #CSISSpeech #ChinaRussia #DefenseSpendingIncrease #NationalStrategy #KoreanSecurity

※ The columns by external contributors may differ from the editorial direction of this publication.