US general’s ‘dagger’ remark tests South Korea’s China balancing act

A top US general’s description of South Korea as a “dagger in the heart of Asia” aimed at China has laid bare the differences in how Washington and Seoul view their alliance and Beijing. US Forces Korea commander General Xavier Brunson made the blunt remarks in a podcast interview hosted by the US Army War College on May 22, drawing a backlash both from Beijing and from Seoul itself. South Korea’s presidential office said on Saturday that it was “aware” of Brunson’s remarks and that close consultations between the two allies were ongoing. Behind the scenes, however, Seoul reportedly conveyed its greater regret through other channels, including National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac and officials from the ministries of national defence and foreign affairs. China’s embassy in South Korea was less circumspect, declaring that Brunson had “crossed the line” and questioning whether the general was seeking to undermine the framework of “constructive strategic stability” agreed by the US and Chinese presidents in Beijing just weeks earlier. It was not Brunson’s first foray into vivid geopolitical imagery. Last year he described South Korea as a “fixed aircraft carrier”. This time, however, the metaphor struck closer to the bone. Tripwire questioned At the heart of the dagger row lies a fundamental question: what, exactly, are the 28,500 US troops stationed in South Korea actually there to do? Seoul’s firmly held position, and the orthodox answer, is that the troops are there to deter a nuclear-armed North Korea and preserve stability on the peninsula. But analysts say the relocation of most American forces south of the border region since 2013 has hollowed out their traditional “tripwire” function of deterring aggression by guaranteeing automatic, large-scale US military involvement if an attack occurred. That role was now “over”, said Cho Han-bum, a senior researcher at the Korea Institute for National Unification and a North Korean affairs specialist. Seoul is in a dilemma as there still exists a gap … concerning the scope of missions of the US troops in Korea Cho Han-bum, Korea Institute for National Unification researcher “Seoul is in a dilemma as there still exists a gap between Seoul and Washington concerning the scope of missions of the US troops in Korea,” he said – especially as Washington pushed to expand the role of US Forces Korea beyond the Korean peninsula. Doo Jin-ho, director of the Eurasia Research Centre at the Korea Research Institute for National Strategy, said Brunson’s remarks reflected the unfiltered thoughts of a soldier, not a diplomat. “[He] was brutally frank in depicting how America views South Korea in its Indo-Pacific strategy,” Doo said, noting that US fighter jets based at Kunsan Air Base on the peninsula’s west coast were capable of reaching China’s eastern coast within minutes. “His remarks indicate that South Korea would be exposed to growing risks of being roped into this strategy, being coerced to serve as a dagger pointing at China. Otherwise it would face mounting pressure from Washington” on security and trade issues, he added. While Washington saw China as a “revisionist and revanchist power” openly challenging the US-led international order, Sydney Seiler, Korea chair at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said Seoul experienced “the China threat” differently – viewing Beijing as a close neighbour and a source of both economic opportunity and risk. “There will naturally be nuanced differences in how Washington and Seoul see Beijing’s actions and posture at any given time, as well as how best to respond to these,” Seiler said. “Occasional differences are natural, and the more honest the discussion, the better response both tactically and strategically the two allies can form.” Professor Jeong Han-beom of the Korea National Defence University pointed out that just because US military planners viewed South Korea in a certain way did not mean Seoul had agreed to any change in the scope of their alliance. “The purpose of alliance with the United States is to prevent a war on the Korean peninsula and to maintain peace and stability in the region,” he said. “For this purpose, cooperation with China is crucial.” South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, a self-styled pragmatist who took office following the impeachment and subsequent jailing of his conservative predecessor Yoon Suk-yeol, has made restoring ties with Beijing a priority. Yoon had pursued what he called “strategic clarity” – a deliberate tilt towards Washington and Tokyo – abandoning the studied ambiguity that previous liberal governments in Seoul had used to manage relations with China. Lee is attempting to rebuild what Yoon dismantled, analysts say – without undermining the alliance commitments that remain the bedrock of South Korean security. How that balancing act plays out in practice was illustrated earlier this year, when Seoul declined to join a US-proposed trilateral air defence exercise in the Yellow Sea. The official explanation cited scheduling issues, as the proposed dates fell too close to February 22, Japan’s Takeshima Day that asserts Tokyo’s sovereignty claim over the Liancourt rocks that South Korea controls and calls Dokdo. Though the dispute is genuine and the date collision was awkward, analysts say it also provided Seoul with a convenient rationale for avoiding a drill that would have antagonised Beijing. “South Korea wants to avoid things that would provoke China such as an air force exercise in the Yellow Sea,” Doo said. “South Korea’s absence in the drill has revealed the divergence between the US expectation of the country’s roles in its Indo-Pacific strategy and Seoul’s nuanced approach.” Seiler added that the US-South Korea alliance had become a target of Chinese “political warfare” aimed at slowing cooperation between Seoul and Washington and subverting the trilateral security architecture with Japan that Beijing regards as inimical to its interests. Lee has publicly endorsed that trilateral framework and repeatedly stressed the importance of South Korea’s alliance with the US. However, the legacy of Japan’s colonial rule over Korea and lingering territorial disputes continue to constrain what is politically achievable and limit how far Seoul can move towards Tokyo without domestic cost. Entanglement risks Lurking beneath the alliance-management debate is a harder question: what happens to the US troops in South Korea if a military conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Strait? Retired ambassador Joseph DeTrani, a former US special envoy who led the six-party talks with North Korea on denuclearisation from 2003 to 2006, called the Lee government’s “balancing” approach towards the US and China “understandable”. Washington had spent decades working closely with Beijing and continued to view China as an economic competitor, not an enemy or adversary, he said. Still, if conflict broke out in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, “I think the US would want, if necessary, to have access to the US troops in South Korea to assist in either of these regions”, DeTrani said. Kim Jae-chun, a political-science professor at Sogang University in Seoul, believes entanglement in such a conflict would be difficult for South Korea to avoid, even if the scenario remains a distant prospect. Paradoxically, he said Brunson’s remarks might have served Seoul’s interests in one respect: by starkly articulating and appreciating “South Korea’s strategic value”. Still, the underlying disagreements have not gone away. “It cannot be denied that there exists a gap between the two allies over the purpose and scope of their alliance,” Kim said.

US general’s ‘dagger’ remark tests South Korea’s China balancing act

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}A top commander’s blunt remark spotlights a fundamental disagreement over the true purpose of the 28,500 US troops based in South Korea

A top commander’s blunt remark spotlights a fundamental disagreement over the true purpose of the 28,500 US troops based in South Korea