SEOUL, South Korea — As the U.S. election looms, frank remarks about America’s strategic priorities in Asia from a former senior official in the Trump administration Pentagon have sent ripples of fear racing across South Korea.
In interviews with leading news outlets here, ex-Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development Eldridge Colby stated that, with China being the main challenge to U.S. interests in the region, Washington should not “break its spear” fighting for South Korea against the threat from North Korea.
Though Mr. Colby, a China hawk, made clear he was speaking for himself, he is seen by many here as an influential foreign policy voice in the ex-president’s orbit, and could be in line to become national security advisor in a second Trump administration.
“Unbelievable!” said Chun In-bum, a former South Korean general. “If the U.S. is really thinking this, it’s ‘Thanks very much, United States, for helping us for the last seven decades.’”
Some have interpreted Mr. Colby‘s remarks as foreshadowing potential new monetary demands from Washington for stationing troops in South Korea, a favorite talking point of Mr. Trump during his term.
Asked at a press conference Thursday whether a reelected Mr. Trump might demand Seoul pay more for the stationing of 28,500 American troops on the peninsula, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol instead talked up the strength of the bilateral alliance.
“What’s clear is that there is strong support for the South Korea-U.S. alliance from across the public and private sectors in the U.S., both parties, the Senate, the House, and the executive branch, and I am certain the firm alliance between South Korea and the U.S. will not change,” he said. “If we tackle issues based on that, I believe we will be able to smoothly resolve various negotiations and problems.”
But a person who briefs senior U.S. officers in South Korea said privately he believed Mr. Colby‘s statements reflected a continuing priority of a Trump foreign policy: putting a squeeze on South Korea, Japan and, possibly, NATO to pay more for the security U.S. troops provide around the globe.
According to the World Bank , the U.S. now spends 3.5% of its GDP on defense. According to the same data set, Japan, home to 50,000 GIs, spends 1.1% of its GDP and South Korea spends 2.7%. Among NATO countries, the World Bank finds that Canada spends 1.2 percent of GDP on defense, Germany 1.4% , the Netherlands 1.6%, Italy 1.7%, France 1.9%, the UK 2.2% and Poland 2.4% — also a source for sharp criticism from Mr. Trump.
Mr. Colby‘s statements gave an unusually blunt voice to matters usually discussed behind closed doors and off the record.
U.S. troops in South Korea, he said,”should not be held hostage to dealing with the North Korean problem, because that is not the primary issue for the U.S.,” he said in an interview with the Yonhap News Agency Tuesday. “The U.S. should be focused on China and the defense of South Korea from China over time.”
In fact, the bulk of U.S. troops in South Korea are posted well away from the tense border with North Korea, deployed in a series of bases on the Yellow Sea Coast, facing China.
Yet with China the No. 2 market for South Korean exports after the U.S. and a key location for South Korean corporate investment, Seoul officials usually refuse even to discuss the possibility of war with China. Moreover, Gen. Paul LeCamera, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, told a press conference that his primary mission remains to deter the nuclear-armed regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
In the event of war, U.S. forces are expected to massively reinforce South Korea and counterattack. Mr. Colby, however, said America should not deploy its main force against what he characterized a secondary threat compared to China.
“If you are assuming that the United States is going to break its spear, if you will, fighting North Korea, that is an imprudent assumption for us to make or for you to make,” he told Yonhap. “South Korea is going to have to take primary, essentially overwhelming responsibility for its own self-defense against North Korea because we don’t have a military that can fight North Korea and then be ready to fight China.”
Stating that in the face of nuclear threat from North Korea, a U.S. president might be unwilling to take the ultimate risk, Mr. Colby‘s frankness impressed some listeners.
“I was rather convinced by [Mr. Colby‘s] honest comment that Uncle Sam cannot promise to defend Korea’s security at the cost of sacrificing an American city to North Korea‘s nuclear attack,” admitted the Washington correspondent of the Joongang Daily , a leading newspaper, following an April interview.
Mr. Chun, the ex-general, suggested a Trump win in November could fuel a move that has been widely debated in South Korea over the last two years.
“If the U.S. is really thinking this, I am assuming it recognizes that [South Korea] needs its own nuclear deterrent,” he said.
Proponents believe that strategy would slash Seoul‘s dependence on Washington and stabilize the Korean peninsula under the “mutually assured destruction” principle. Opponents fret it would ignite a chain reaction and end the global campaign to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.
Mr. Colby‘s remarks faced immediate pushback online.
“South Korean media is talking about Eldridge Colby‘s comments on reshaping the alliance and maybe the withdrawal of [U.S. troops],” wrote Harry Kazianis, senior director of national security affairs at the Center for the National Interest, on X. “What we often forget is that … Congress mandated hearings and oversight if this were to happen.”
Others questioned Mr. Colby‘s motives, noting the jockeying for influence of those around Mr. Trump should he win in November.
“There is a major trend in D.C. right now among Republicans starting to confess their undying loyalty to the coming regime,” said David Park, a Washington-based businessman and retired U.S. Army major. “This guy and many others are parroting or buttressing what we thought was the Trump policy four years ago so that they can get a seat in February 2025 in his administration.”
Even so, Mr. Park, a Korean-American, conceded that Mr. Colby‘s statements make strategic sense if a future Trump administration decides to downgrade other issues — including the North Korean threat and Russia’s war in Ukraine — to turn all its guns upon Beijing.
“His interpretation makes sense if Trump does indeed stop supporting Ukraine to make room for a major stance against China,” he said. “Korea would be a distraction.”