SEOUL: South Korea is once again in Donald Trump’s crosshairs after the US President lashed out at allies for “not helping” with his Iran campaign.
This marks the latest in a string of sharp rebukes that have been steadily straining ties between the two allies.
On April 6, Trump lashed out at NATO members for being unhelpful before moving on to single out allies South Korea, Australia and then Japan for not heeding the US’ earlier calls for assistance to dispatch warships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has blockaded since Feb 28.
“South Korea didn’t help us,” Trump said at a press conference, before adding: “We have 45,000 people, soldiers in harm’s way and right next to (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Un, with a lot of nuclear weapons.”
The actual number of US troops deployed in South Korea is 28,500.
The Wall Street Journal reported on April 8 that the White House is weighing plans to “punish” unhelpful NATO members by redeploying US forces to more cooperative countries, in addition to Trump’s threats in recent weeks to withdraw the US from the NATO alliance.
While there are signs of stress on US-South Korea ties, analysts say that the bedrock of the alliance remains resilient enough to withstand this test.
US-South Korean ties have hit a series of speed bumps since Trump’s return to the Oval Office in January 2025.
Trump has repeatedly complained about Seoul underpaying its share of the costs of stationing US troops on the Korean peninsula.
Then there was a controversial immigration raid on a Hyundai-linked plant in the US state of Georgia that saw hundreds of South Korean workers detained in September.
This was followed by threats in January to reinstate tariffs of up to 25 per cent after South Korea’s lawmakers failed to ratify a trade deal in time.
A recent article published in Foreign Policy magazine on April 2 that quoted former US ambassador to Seoul James Laney went as far as to describe the alliance as “close to rupturing”, with Washington at fault.
Other watchers say that things may not be that dire.
Dr Lee Seong-hyon, a senior fellow at the Washington-based George H. W. Bush Foundation for US-China Relations, described the relationship as “not fracturing so much as it is undergoing a forceful, non-consensual transition”.
He told The Straits Times that the alliance is “shifting from a comprehensive, institutional partnership into a strictly transactional framework”, but remains anchored by the 1953 mutual defence treaty that was inked following the Korean War armistice.
“The alliance will survive, but Seoul must quickly accept that the era of relying on historical sentiment and shared democratic values to secure Washington’s favour has definitively closed,” Dr Lee said.
Dr Andrew Yeo, a senior fellow at the Washington-based think-tank Brookings Institution, said that while bilateral relations “may experience a downturn”, the wider bureaucratic circle beyond Trump “still sees allies in the Indo-Pacific as an asset and may work to forestall the collapse of alliances”.
Former South Korean ambassador Shin Kak-soo, who served two terms each in the US and Japan, assessed Trump’s barbed comments on the US-South Korea alliance as targeted for “transactional purposes”.
Compared with Japan, also a US ally, South Korea appears to be bearing the brunt of Trump’s ire because of the difference in approaches to meeting US demands, he said.
Seoul was more lukewarm and less forthcoming in responding to the US’ demands, especially on the tariff deals, said Shin, adding that Japanese leader Sanae Takaichi’s “well-orchestrated performance” during her recent summit with Trump on March 19 was working in her favour.
Despite repeated pressure from Washington, Seoul’s response to the Iran conflict has so far been cautious, focusing on safeguarding affected nationals and shipping vessels, prioritising diplomatic engagement with Tehran and securing alternative energy routes.
With 26 South Korean-flagged vessels still stranded in the Strait of Hormuz since the conflict began, Seoul announced on April 10 that it would send a special envoy to Iran for talks.
Like Japan, South Korea relies heavily on the Middle East for crude oil supplies. It imports 70 per cent of its crude oil needs from the Gulf, which go to fuel key export industries such as semiconductors, petrochemicals and cars.
In a move to contain growing energy supply risks and circumvent the Strait of Hormuz situation, Seoul announced on April 6 that it will send five South Korean-flagged tankers to Saudi Arabia’s Yanbu port on the Red Sea, as an alternative route for crude oil supplies to pass through.
The route had previously been under a government advisory due to threats from Iran-aligned Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Speaking at a Cabinet meeting on April 6, President Lee Jae Myung said that while security concerns remain, a disruption in the crude oil supply to the country presents a far more serious threat.
A report published by Washington-based think-tank the Centre for Strategic and International Studies on April 2 said that South Korea’s oil reserves of 207 days were calculated on a net import basis, but if based on actual consumption, the reserves will last for only about 67 days.
The authorities have thus far managed to secure 50 million barrels of crude oil for April and 60 million barrels for May, which is 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the country’s usual monthly import level of 80 million barrels.
Under an energy cooperation framework inked serendipitously on Feb 26, just two days before the start of the Iran conflict, the United Arab Emirates had agreed to supply 24 million barrels of crude oil to South Korea with top priority, with the shipment progressively arriving in South Korea from April 1.
In turn, South Korea expedited the delivery of air-defence interceptor missiles in early March at the Gulf state’s urgent request, as it came under heightened Iranian drone and missile threats.
However, such a “domestic-focused posture” of prioritising energy security over responding to Washington’s more transactional demands has left Seoul vulnerable to the “appearance of inaction on the alliance front”, said Dr Lee.
This leaves Seoul likely to face continued tariff pressure and potential shifts in the US troop posture whenever Washington requires leverage on unrelated global crises, he said.
Pointing out that South Korea holds critical monopolies on future-oriented technologies that the US requires to outpace China, Dr Lee believes that Seoul needs to overhaul its diplomatic posture in order to improve its standing with the US.
“The strategy must be to meet transactional demands with transactional counter-offers, ensuring Washington understands that alienating Seoul poses a direct, material threat to America’s own supply chain resilience and strategic position in the Indo-Pacific,” he said. - The Straits Times/ANN
