In international relations, it’s often easy to overlook certain issues, especially when domestic challenges like natural disasters are demanding attention.
Take South Korea, for instance. U.S. officials frequently tout the U.S.-South Korea alliance as an “iron wall,” and while that might seem accurate, there’s more beneath the surface.
The military ties between the U.S. and South Korea run deep—formed during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. This partnership makes them exceptionally prepared to collaborate in a conflict compared to other U.S. allies. Recently, President Trump approved South Korea’s nuclear submarine program, a privilege reserved for America’s closest friends.
On the economic front, both nations benefit significantly from their partnership. Companies like Samsung and Hyundai have poured billions into the U.S. market, and Hanwha Ocean just acquired the Philadelphia Shipyard, signaling a revival of America’s struggling shipbuilding industry.
Friendships created through this alliance appear genuine and lasting. Surveys often reveal that a significant majority of South Koreans value the protection afforded by their alliance against common threats like China and North Korea.
But could this rosy picture be deceiving? Consider Venezuela, which once thrived as a democracy and was a key ally for the U.S. in Latin America. Now, it stands as an authoritarian regime, teetering on the brink of war with the United States.
Could a similar fate befall Korea?
It seems South Korea’s extreme radicals are becoming more brazen, particularly as there’s a strong push towards one-party governance.
Let’s look at the current leadership. President Lee Jae-myung has openly expressed leftist sentiments and shows a tendency to favor China and North Korea, while not exactly embracing the U.S.
He’s previously referred to the U.S. Forces Korea as an “occupation army,” and has suggested, quite controversially, that China should have autonomy over Taiwan. After meeting with Trump, he criticized the U.S.-South Korea military alliance, implying that national self-defense wouldn’t require the presence of foreign troops.
In his recent policies, Lee ended broadcasts intended for North Korea, making a rather dismissive comment that North Koreans can easily access information online if they wish. That’s quite a shift in tone, perhaps indicating some underlying politics at play.
Protests against the U.S. have also occurred, and troublingly, there have been instances of defacement of U.S. imagery, drawing attention to Lee’s preferences.
The company he keeps raises eyebrows too. Take Prime Minister Kim Min Seok, who has a background as a radical student leader and was incarcerated for his anti-national activities. His brother, involved in a violent left-wing group, has made derogatory remarks about the U.S. and its influence in Korea.
Then there’s Jeong Jeong Rae, another key figure, who has a history of anti-U.S. sentiments stemming from a notorious event in 1989. It doesn’t appear that he has softened his stance since those days.
With control over the presidency and the National Assembly, Lee Jae-myung’s administration and the extreme left are now focused on consolidating power further, targeting groups and individuals who might oppose their agenda. Former President Yoon Sook-yeol and his wife have faced harsh treatment, and respected figures have been arrested simply for advocating “election integrity.”
The leftist threat to South Korea’s democracy has been brewing for years, predating Lee Jae-myung’s leadership.
Yet, past U.S. administrations seemed largely indifferent to addressing this evolving challenge or offering support to those seeking freedom in South Korea.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like that attitude has changed.
