Since US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 1 imposing high tariffs, global backlash has intensified. Traditional allies such as the EU and Canada have voiced strong objections, while China has launched a fierce counteroffensive. Chinese manufacturers, which depend heavily on exports to the US, are grappling with a triple crisis — steep declines in shipments, factory shutdowns and rising unemployment. Meanwhile, American consumers, faced with surging prices, have taken to the streets in protest, raising alarms about an impending recession. If this trend continues, the famous phrase from Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign — “It’s the economy, stupid” — may resurface during the US midterm elections on Nov. 3, 2026, as a stinging reminder of the public’s economic discontent.
The tariff war initiated by Trump has prompted nations around the world to craft diverse survival strategies. South Korea, which recorded a trade surplus of $51.8 billion with the US in 2024, faces an uphill battle in securing preferential terms in sensitive sectors such as automobiles and semiconductors. Following the principle of “best alternative to a negotiated agreement,” emphasized by negotiation expert Roger Fisher, Seoul must seek mutually beneficial compromises. It should also actively respond to Washington’s proposal for cooperation in shipbuilding, leveraging its world-class maritime industry.
On April 25, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un unveiled the launch of a 5,000-ton class Aegis-type destroyer capable of carrying tactical nuclear ballistic and cruise missiles. He also signaled the upcoming launch of a nuclear-powered submarine, disclosed on March 8. Experts argue that the US’ extended deterrence may no longer be sufficient to counter North Korea’s rapidly advancing weapons of mass destruction. But the US, committed to upholding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, avoids endorsing South Korea’s pursuit of nuclear options.
Given the escalating threat posed by North Korea and the intensifying US-China hegemonic rivalry, South Korea and the US must refine and reinforce their extended deterrence strategy. It is time to initiate discussions on the flexible (not permanent) redeployment of US tactical nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula. In response to Pyongyang’s nuclear submarine, the US should consider allowing South Korea to develop its own nuclear-powered submarines as a strategic countermeasure, drawing upon its globally recognized shipbuilding capabilities.
Following the presidential election on June 3, South Korea is expected to enter into new negotiations with the US over defense cost-sharing. Amid the intensifying power struggle between Washington and Beijing, Seoul must strategically leverage its geopolitical position between the two superpowers to forge a forward-looking agreement that strengthens its security and autonomy.
Confronted with a complex web of challenges, South Korea faces a critical need to secure “strategic autonomy.” However, the path is riddled with constraints. Overcoming these limitations will require transparent communication with the public, thorough policy explanations and the forging of a national consensus.
Ray Cline, a former deputy director of the CIA 1969-1973, once stated that national power stems not only from tangible assets like territory, population, economic strength and military might, but also from intangible elements such as the people’s will and national strategy. Cline stressed the importance of internal unity and strategic clarity by citing the examples of Vietnam and Israel that demonstrated the power of cohesive national purpose at the time.
Historical precedents from around the world reinforce this perspective. In 1963, French President Charles de Gaulle warned that without an independent nuclear deterrent, France would become merely a satellite state. Similarly, in 1965, Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then foreign minister, declared that, in response to India’s nuclear ambitions, Pakistan would “eat grass and starve” if necessary to acquire nuclear weapons. Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s visit to South Korea just four days after the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 symbolized America's promise to defend the country as firmly as it would defend California. These examples offer valuable lessons for current South Korean and American leaders.
In times of crisis, South Korea's leaders have historically turned adversity into opportunity. One year after the 1953 armistice, then President Syngman Rhee secured the Korea-US Mutual Defense Treaty. In the early 1970s, during the era of detente, then President Park Chung-hee launched inter-Korean dialogue and spearheaded the creation of the Korea-US Combined Forces Command in 1978. These decisions laid the foundation for the nation’s security and strategic stability.
By strengthening the alliance with the US, I believe South Korea can pave the way for peaceful reunification grounded in liberal democracy. In doing so, the nation will not only safeguard its sovereignty but also make a meaningful contribution to global peace and stability.
Song Jong-hwan
Song Jong-hwan, former South Korean ambassador to Pakistan, is a chair professor of international relations at Kyungnam University. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.
