ROK-U.S. Exercise Reduction: A Prelude to North Korea-U.S. Talks?

The first part of the ROK-U.S. joint exercise UFS (Ulchi Freedom Shield) consists of defensive training, while the latter part is for full-scale offensive training. However, the latter part was completely canceled in this exercise. This has led to criticism that it could weaken the combined defense posture, which is central to the ROK-U.S. alliance. Meanwhile, concerns are also being raised that the status of the South Korean military could be downgraded, as the ROK-U.S.-Japan exercise is scheduled to proceed as planned.

The U.S. first secures key security information in the East Asian region, and through the strong U.S.-Japan alliance, Japan shares this information almost simultaneously. In contrast, there are concerns that South Korea may be the last to know vital security information related to North Korea, China, and Russia, as the U.S. collects it, then sequentially decides whether or not to inform South Korea. This suggests that South Korea could be relegated to a lower priority in terms of information access within the alliance.

Former President Trump reposted his social media message regarding the reduction of the ROK-U.S. joint exercise, changing only the tense after nine days. Domestic media, however, downplayed this as a mere 'rehash' and minimized or disparaged its significance with phrases like 'daily courting of Kim Jong-un.' It is pointed out that such media reporting might overlook the important implication that Trump's message could be a warning to the Lee Jae-myung government.

Analysis suggests that there are various complex intentions behind the U.S. halving the ROK-U.S. joint exercise. First, the reduction was used as a 'gift' to draw Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table ahead of the November midterm elections. Second, it is interpreted as a warning to South Korea, which appears to be deviating from the ROK-U.S. alliance. Third, there is an opinion that it includes the practical goal of reducing costs for U.S. Forces Korea training. Lastly, the possibility that South Korea could be diplomatically excluded if a 'big event' between Kim Jong-un and Trump materializes was also mentioned.

It was also suggested that former President Trump might make a 'bombshell declaration' for the November midterm elections, offering to ease some economic sanctions if North Korea stops developing ICBMs targeting the U.S. There are strong concerns that if such a North Korea-U.S. agreement is reached, the U.S. will take credit for the negotiations, but the resulting security burden could be entirely shifted to South Korea. Furthermore, analysis suggests that the U.S. might increase pressure on South Korea for defense cost increases or demand that South Korea bear the costs of inter-Korean economic cooperation.

Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul's remarks that 'we didn't know anything' and 'we hadn't heard beforehand' regarding former President Trump's reduction of the ROK-U.S. joint exercise fully exposed the reality of ROK-U.S. relations to the public. In this situation, President Lee Jae-myung's 'thank you' remark was criticized as a humiliating diplomatic incident. Criticism followed, suggesting that the normal response process for diplomatic relations was missing, and diplomatic decisions were being made solely to consolidate domestic support. Concerns are growing that a crack in the ROK-U.S. alliance could negatively affect not only security but also the economy, and the government is criticized for failing to present a clear strategy and direction for its relationship with the U.S.

While there is a tendency to be enthusiastic about self-reliant defense issues in South Korean society, a contradictory perception emerges where about 80% of the public responds that the ROK-U.S. alliance is most important. Additionally, criticizing the U.S.'s investment demands as unfair has been criticized as lacking a proper understanding of international relations. Some view the U.S.'s demand for investment funds as one of the reasons for rising anti-American sentiment.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche described the feelings of despair, jealousy, anger, and hatred one feels when seeing a stronger opponent as 'ressentiment.' This is a complex emotion towards a strong entity that one cannot overcome with their own power. Such ressentiment psychology can lead to a tendency to secure one's moral superiority by criticizing the strong. Analysis suggests that vague anti-American sentiment towards the powerful can also be connected to this ressentiment.

Two strategies were presented for elevating one's social status. The first is the 'hierarchy' method, which involves criticizing someone, being jealous of the powerful, and morally demeaning them to create an image of oneself as clean and good in contrast. The second is the 'prestige' method, a strategy of acknowledging the powerful, accepting reality, and improving one's own abilities. From an evolutionary psychological perspective, the prestige strategy is explained as being more advantageous for gaining higher favor as a long-term partner.

Criticizing the U.S. for legitimate reasons, such as having false grounds or suffering actual harm while living near a U.S. military base, can be seen as exceptional and justifiable criticism. However, it was pointed out that a criticism strategy aimed at self-aggrandizement, making oneself appear intelligent by criticizing the powerful or large corporations, is evolutionarily inefficient. This is understood as an attitude focused more on managing personal social image than on actual problem-solving.

The phenomenon of blind critical comments, such as 'they participated because they wanted to, why should we be grateful?' directed at an allied nation that sacrificed 50,000 of its own soldiers to help South Korea, was pointed out. This was criticized as an attitude lacking gratitude for the sacrifice. Diplomacy was likened to relationships with spouses, parents, and in-laws, emphasizing that respecting and being grateful to the other party is key to improving relationships. The importance of mutual respect was highlighted from the perspective that diplomacy between nations is fundamentally no different from human relationships.