hankyoreh

US President Donald Trump attends a signing of a peace deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo at the US Institute for Peace on Dec. 4, 2025 (local time). (AFP/Yonhap)

.

By Jung E-gil, senior international affairs writer

A certain mindset transcends political boundaries within South Korea: the belief that the US has the final say in issues related to Korea’s society, economy and politics — not to mention the fate of the Korean Peninsula.
 
If we follow that logic, Korea is no more than a pawn for the US to play with. As such, conservatives believe that Korea needs to do everything in its power to stay in the US’ good graces, while progressives argue that Seoul needs to become independent of Washington, once and for all. Either way, both parties believe that the US is the crucial decision-maker in many issues related to South Korea.

The fact that even individuals who held high-level public office posts and members of the ruling party have parroted crackpot theories and unfounded claims shows the extent to which American determinism within Korea has reached a level of psychosis.  

For example, there is the conspiracy theory that Chinese spies conducting election fraud at the National Election Commission training center after the martial law declaration on Dec. 3, 2024, were arrested by US forces and sent to Okinawa, or that President Donald Trump would send an aircraft carrier to rescue former President Yoon Suk-yeol. 

In modern Korean history, America has indeed been a definitive presence. The Republic of Korea was established because the US stationed forces in the southern part of the Korean Peninsula after World War II. The Korean War broke out and ended in an armistice due to US withdrawal and intervention. During the Cold War, America’s containment policy and alliance revitalization strategy comprised the conditions for Korea’s economic development. Without the US, the Korea we know today would certainly not exist.

Yet in the present, the international order led by the US that made modern Korea possible is fading. Since the launch of the second Trump administration, the US has abandoned its role as hegemon. A hegemon must fulfill its obligations within the international order it leads. This includes opening its own markets and protecting its allies. The Trump administration, however, has not only demanded that allies bear greater defense costs, but has also wielded tariffs as weapons to coerce massive investments, even resorting to outright cash extraction.

And now, the US seeks to retreat to the American continent. The National Security Strategy released by the Trump administration on Dec. 4 demonstrates that Trump seeks to continue the legacy of the Monroe Doctrine, defining the Western Hemisphere as the top priority for US foreign strategy. Trump’s NSS during his first term labeled China and Russia as “revisionist powers” seeking to alter the existing international order, and described the Indo-Pacific as a crucial zone for their containment. This time, such references to China and Russia have vanished.

The Trump administration is pressuring Europe to accept Russia’s terms for ending the war in Ukraine. While Japan and China clash over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on a “Taiwan contingency,” Trump advises Japan not to provoke China. Meanwhile, the US is tightening its grip on Latin American nations, mobilizing military force in an attempt to overthrow Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro.

Trump’s America seeks to position itself not as a global hegemon but as a great power whose sphere of influence is the American continent. It has signaled a willingness to recognize other great powers as its counterparts in other regions. Whether the world will move toward the multipolar order advocated by China and Russia, or revert to the 19th-century imperialist order of divided spheres of influence remains unclear. Looking at the situation surrounding Ukraine, Taiwan, and Venezuela, one wonders if the US, China, and Russia are now carving up separate spheres of influence.

One thing is certain. To use the lofty terminology of international politics, the US now has no choice but to employ an offshore balancing strategy. This means the US will avoid direct intervention and instead leverage its allies to seek equilibrium in different regions. The Trump administration is making a retreat while demanding concessions from its allies and pushing them to the forefront. 

Paradoxically, this also means greater dependence on its allies. This is evident in the pressure for massive investments from Korea and Japan, the “MASGA” initiative demanding shipbuilding support from Korea, and the US authorizing South Korea to build nuclear-powered submarines.

Korea’s growth was driven not only by the conditions of the US-led international order but also by its own agentive willpower and capabilities. If the underlying international order evaporates, those characteristics will become even more crucial. The outcomes of our massive investments, the MASGA project, and the nuclear submarine construction program depend entirely on how we as a nation respond. If these massive investments do not align with our national interests, we must do everything within our power to delay their execution until Trump leaves office. This is not impossible. We can also keep the nuclear submarine program as a card to be played or not, as the situation requires.

Within the Korean government, there are bureaucrats who still prioritize reporting to the US and seeking its approval to advance their careers. A fierce debate is raging between the faction prioritizing independence and the one focused on maintaining alliance over whether issues like North Korea’s nuclear program must be discussed with the US first. 

However, the conservative right’s American determinism — the belief that Korea must follow the US, come what may — became obsolete long ago. The progressive camp’s deterministic view, which claims all deals and negotiations with the US deepen Korea’s subordination, is equally outdated. Given the shifting power dynamics unfolding in East Asia, progressives too must break free from this fatalistic determinism.

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]