At the first meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and new South Korean President Moon Jae-in, the two leaders discussed disagreements over trade, the THAAD missile defense system, and splitting the cost of basing U.S. troops in South Korea. Moon also made the case for a phased approach to bringing North Korea back to negotiations to end its nuclear weapons and missile programs. The Cipher Brief spoke to Eunjung Lim, a professor at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, Japan, about what this new phased approach means for South Korea’s role in confronting the North Korean threat and what the disagreements over trade, THAAD, and U.S. basing costs could mean for the U.S.-South Korea relationship.
The Cipher Brief: Broadly speaking, the U.S. and South Korea have the same goal for North Korea, denuclearization, and have outlined a phased approach. Can you describe what this phased approach looks like and highlight any differences or sticking points in either the South Korean or U.S. position in pursuing this goal?
Eunjung Lim: In his interviews with some U.S. media, including CBS and the Washington Post, ahead of his visit to Washington and his summit with President Donald Trump, Moon Jae-in introduced his ideas on a “two-phase approach” to deal with the North Korean nuclear issue. In order to prevent North Korea from advancing its nuclear and missile capabilities, this approach would first focus its efforts on freezing related activities, then discuss the issue of denuclearization and the peace regime to change the security environment of the Korean Peninsula. During the summit, it was a matter of great interest to see how the U.S. would react to such a South Korean initiative.
So far, the summit looks successful after the South Korean leadership gap since Park Geun-hye’s corruption scandal and impeachment, and Korean media also highlighted that the U.S. showed its consent with Moon’s North Korea approach and applauded that now South Korea can lead the flow of negotiations. Moon Jae-in himself evaluated the summit as a successful one and said, “we made just one step forward to building the permanent peace regime in the Korean peninsula” at his brief speech right after his return to South Korea.
It is noteworthy that the two countries decided to closely coordinate their North Korea policies, including how to create the necessary conditions for denuclearization dialogue through high-level strategic consultation, which could indicate that the two governments will discuss their action plans very closely from now on.
However, it might not necessarily mean that the U.S. entrusts everything to South Korea or that Seoul can lead everything, as many Korean opinion leaders expect. As long as Pyongyang’s No. 1 target for negotiations is Washington, South Korea’s role or leverage over North Korea will remain much more limited than Seoul thinks. As of right now, perhaps a more important role for South Korea is to figure out how to close the gap between Beijing and Washington and to propose pragmatic and constructive ideas to these two parties before it tries to start a dialogue with Pyongyang.
TCB: The controversial THAAD missile defense system was one of the early challenges for the Moon administration. Has the system played a part in the summit, and have the U.S. and South Korea reached an understanding on THAAD?
Lim: The THAAD deployment issue, which many experts initially worried would disrupt the summit, was not discussed as a full-fledged agenda item at the summit. Moon Jae-in emphasized that his intention is not reversal or rejection of the deployment, but he highlights South Korea, as a liberal democracy just like the U.S., needs to conduct environmental impact tests and complete some other necessary processes to restore the procedural legitimacy of the decision and gain public support on the deployment. The U.S. also looks to be sympathetic with these needs, considering Korea’s domestic political situation. Moon also asked the U.S. to support South Korea to overcome the THAAD-related economic retaliation by China against South Korean businesses.
TCB: The U.S. and South Korea have had very positive bilateral relations, and are perhaps near the high-water mark. One major issue for the Trump Administration is the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea and the terms of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Trump called for a renegotiation during their meeting – how is this perceived from the South Korean perspective? Does South Korea have any of its own trade-related grievances?
Lim: Certainly, this was a big issue during this summit. After the U.S. and South Korea decided to deploy THAAD, Chinese economic retaliation damaged the South Korean economy and hurt Korean business in China. And now, the Trump Administration is trying to signal renegotiation to reduce the trade deficit with South Korea by saying “it has been a rough deal to the U.S.,” which can be another major challenge to Korean economy.
Most of all, Trump emphasized the imbalance in the automobile industry, and he shared his critical views on the Chinese steel industry and asked South Korea not to import Chinese steel at dumped prices. Both reveal his significant criticism and Korean media and experts are trying to provide counterarguments. In that sense, it would be fair to say that there are certain concerns domestically. Many opinion leaders also contend that South Korea needs to reassure Washington by highlighting that the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement has been a fair deal and saying that the U.S. has enjoyed and will continue enjoying a surplus in service industries. Also, those opinion leaders emphasize the United States’ surplus can be greater in the fields of copyright and patents, though it might not be fully reflected in statistics, which the U.S. should view as beneficial.
TCB: Trump reiterated his focus on burden-sharing over U.S. forces in South Korea. Are there any specifics on what he wants the new arrangement to be? What do you think the South Korean reaction will be?”
Lim: Trump said in a joint press conference after the U.S.-Korea summit, “we are working together to ensure fair burden-sharing in support of the U.S. military presence in South Korea." It is the first time Trump has spoken out officially and specifically since his inauguration in January, although he had mentioned this issue several times during his presidential campaign.
Trump’s remarks would affect the future Special Measures Agreement (SMA). The ninth SMA, concluded in January 2014, is valid for five years, and South Korea and the U.S. are expected to start negotiations at the end of this year, with any outcomes from those negotiations to be applied from 2019 onward.
This topic is another critical one from South Korea’s point of view. Again, many opinion leaders ask the current government to appeal with evidence beyond what the statistics show, such as the cost for hosting the U.S. base in Pyongtaek [the U.S. Army’s Camp Humphreys] and South Korea’s massive imports of American weapons over the past decades.
The United States has maintained wartime command of the South Korean military since the Korean War, and transitioning this control back to South Korea is another contentious issue among the South Korean public that could cause political turmoil in the future.
TCB: Has anything surprised you about the summit?
Lim: Though many opinion leaders and experts both in Washington and Seoul were concerned about the summit, I think it turned out pretty well without anything that could cause a negative shock wave. Now, it is time to watch how the summit between Moon and Xi Jinping goes during the G-20 meeting in Hamburg.
