Guest Editorialist. ROK Military Academy Class of 1984  Just as one must discern whether the wind felt by the sea comes from the open ocean or crosses mountain ranges, we must examine whether President Donald Trump's demand for 'US military base ownership' is merely a pressure tactic on defense cost sharing, a business perspective viewing the alliance as cost and asset, or a strategic response to China's purchase of the Yongsan land. Instead of being enraged and fearful of this unconventional proposal, we must first analyze its roots. 

It appears that Trump, who emphasized 'strategic flexibility' allowing withdrawal at any time, is now seeking to create 'possessions' that are difficult to leave behind, likely intending to acknowledge the immense strategic value of Camp Humphreys and underscore the importance of the US Forces Korea presence. We should read this shift in stance and seize it as an opportunity to leverage the US military's stronger entanglement on the Korean Peninsula as a new 'tripwire'. 

1. China's Purchase of Yongsan Land That Provoked Trump

To understand Trump's demand, we must go back to the Moon Jae-in administration in 2018. At that time, the Chinese Communist Party purchased approximately 1,256 pyeong of prime land in Itaewon, the heart of Seoul, just 1.5 km from the Presidential Office. Despite our inability to own Chinese land based on the principle of reciprocity, the Moon Jae-in administration committed a traitorous act by selling a vital security area to China. 

The US could not have viewed China's purchase of prime Itaewon land as a mere real estate transaction. From the perspective of the 'US-China hegemony competition,' it could only be interpreted as a 'quiet security threat' aimed at stabbing the US in the back, which likely prompted the US to reconsider the permanence of its military bases. 

At the time, China presented the justification of 'land for embassy official use,' but given that the land is adjacent to US Forces Korea bases and the planned relocation site of the US Embassy, it is probable that the purchase was driven by China's persistent desire for territorial dominance on the Korean Peninsula. To prevent similar instances of China purchasing land in strategic locations from recurring, we must now establish legal and institutional mechanisms to restrict foreign governments from acquiring real estate in strategic areas. 

2. Trump's Calculation: 'Leasing' US Military Bases is a Bad Deal, 'Ownership' is True Alliance

The memoirs of former high-ranking officials from the Trump administration, John Bolton and Mark Esper, clearly illustrate Trump's thinking. According to John Bolton, former National Security Advisor to President Trump, in his memoir 'The Room Where It Happened,' Trump argued that it was fundamentally an unreasonable 'bad deal' for the US to bear immense costs to defend allies while being bound by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), unable to even own the land where troops are stationed, resorting to 'leasing' and 'gratuitous provision.' Therefore, he asserted the US should directly own the land, as testified by John Bolton. 

According to the memoir 'A Sacred Oath' by former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Donald Trump advocated for the 'Cost + 50%' formula, demanding not only the full cost of stationing US troops in allied nations but an additional 50% premium. Mark Esper testified that Trump viewed the presence of US troops as a US 'asset' and advocated for maximizing profits. 

This can be interpreted as an intention to secure US military bases as permanent US 'assets' like the 'Guantanamo Bay Naval Base,' going beyond simply receiving more in defense cost-sharing. It also represents a self-preservation measure to gain stable control and a stronger hold on the alliance leadership, unaffected by changes in South Korea's political landscape. 

3. 'Ownership Claim' as Justification and Safeguard for 'Permanent Stationing'

While we must respond cautiously to the demand for 'US military base ownership' by adhering to the principle of basing rights, we should instead seize this as an opportunity to transform the alliance paradigm into one of eternal partnership, sharing territory. This requires bold counter-thinking. What if we guarantee the US perpetual usage rights equivalent to 'ownership' of the Pyeongtaek US military base? From the US perspective, that land would no longer be a mere overseas garrison but a defense target comparable to 'its own territory.' 

This could elevate the alliance from a contractual relationship to an inseparable 'community of shared destiny.' The very word 'withdrawal of US Forces Korea,' a mix of hyperbole, anti-American provocations, and US ambiguity, would disappear from the US political options. Just as a farmer who owns farmland cannot easily leave it, the vague anxiety that the US military, having secured 'assets,' might withdraw would be dispelled. 

Accepting the 'ownership claim' is not a humiliation of ceding sovereignty. Instead, we should use Trump's proposal as leverage to obtain stronger security commitments, such as the 'codification of extended deterrence at the level of the US mainland,' and seize it as an opportunity for free unification that can save our North Korean compatriots living as slaves. Now is the time to foster national consensus on 'territorialization of US military bases as US soil' and achieve 'strategic acceptance' for the robust and permanent security of the Republic of Korea.