Lee's election in S Korea: The time for wishful thinking has come

South Korea has a new President.
President Lee Jae-myung is a lifelong leftist with an affinity for the People's Republic of China and North Korea, and has no great love for the United States.
He has referred to American troops in South Korea as 'occupiers' and said China should do what it wants to Taiwan. Lee apparently likes North Korea enough to put money down. He currently faces charges for involvement in sending $8 million to North Korea while he was governor of Gyeonggi Province. His deputy has already been convicted.
However, during the recent election campaign Lee talked up the US-ROK alliance and three-way US-ROK-Japan security cooperation.
Thus, many American observers claim Lee is a pragmatist and a centrist, and will govern as such.
Maybe.
But as likely it reflects a tendency towards wishful thinking on the part of America's foreign policy class when a certain type of radical leader comes along.
The same was said about Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Turkey's Recep Erdogan, Solomon Islands' Manasseh Sogavare, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and Cuba's Fidel Castro.
Even Xi Jinping was mentioned as a reformer who just needed to solidify his position before liberalizing the PRC.
But maybe these sort of men mean what they say beyond the soothing language intended for Western elites when on the verge of taking power.
As for Lee, forget what he said on the campaign trial, and look at his new prime minister, Kim Min-seok.
Kim was a Seoul National University radical student leader in the 1980s and joined the illegal occupation of the Seoul American Cultural Center in 1985. He was jailed for three years due to his anti-state and pro-North Korea activities. The Americans once refused to give him a visa, and he is said to have claimed the Americans were behind Covid.
One recalls candidate Barack Obama who promised to 'unify' a divided United States. Once elected, he appointed Chicago political operative Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. And America got Chicago politics at the national level. Rule #1 of Chicago politics: crush your opponents. Rule #2: do whatever it takes to keep power—forever.
Don't expect centrist, conciliatory policies from Lee.
Rather, we'll soon see Lee's pogrom against his opponents – to include anyone with the nerve to have called for honest elections. Lee's Democratic Party of Korea (DP) has an overwhelming majority in the national assembly – likely obtained by questionable means. He can do whatever he wants, and packing the Supreme Court appears on the menu.
Lee's calls for 'restoring democracy' and unifying the nation in his inaugural speech give chutzpah a bad name.
He and the DP spent the entire two years of Yoon's administration making it impossible for Yoon to govern and enact his policies.
This went well beyond sharp-elbowed politics found in a normal country. Instead, it was intended to cause chaos. Nearly 30 impeachments of Yoon and his officials? Zeroing out Yoon's budget requests and more?
Not exactly the behavior of a loyal opposition.
Rather, Lee's election is one more episode in a years-long effort by South Korean radicals to establish single-party rule in South Korea – and align with the PRC, North Korea and even Russia.
The original impeachment resolution against former president Yoon accused him of 'antagonizing North Korea, China, and Russia' and 'adhering to a bizarre Japan-centered foreign policy.'
Sometimes people tell you what they really think – if you'll listen.
Is this the end of the US-ROK alliance?
It won't collapse tomorrow, and still has resilience.
But any relationship is on shaky ground when key figures on one side dislike the other side – and would rather hook up with their partner's main rivals.
Everything will get more difficult for Washington in Northeast Asia, and easier for Beijing, which has been pressuring and insinuating itself into South Korea for years.
Perhaps hoping to make the best of things, the White House said the US-ROK alliance is 'ironclad' – and declared the election 'free and fair.' It did express general concern over 'Chinese interference' in democracies. The State Department similarly offered congratulations to President Lee.
Free and fair election?
South Korean citizens facing intimidation and lawsuits uncovered substantial evidence of widespread electoral irregularities (as they did for elections in 2020, 2022, and 2024).
Did anyone at the US Embassy, the State Department or the White House even examine the evidence? Or meet with the citizen's groups?
Apparently not.
The foreign press has been equally lazy. As have most analysts. Rather than investigating, just call it baseless conspiracy theories.
This was a gut punch to pro-alliance South Koreans, already distressed that the Trump administration couldn't be bothered to make a favorable reference to consensual government and honest elections before the polling.
So maybe the Trump administration is going to wish away the problem and pretend Lee isn't what he's been all his professional life, in hopes of keeping the alliance alive.
But at some point a US administration is going to discover that Lee and South Korean leftists—just like Chavez, Erdogan, Ortega and others – mean what they say.
And Washington may one day find that South Korea, once solidly with the US and democracies, is quite the opposite. And, furthermore, that a system has developed in the ROK so that even if the problematic 'leader' goes away, the country is stuck and cannot re-democratize.
Washington still has cards to play if it wants to support consensual government in South Korea – and at the same time preserve the US-ROK alliance.
Not least is that most South Koreans don't want to go where Lee and his 'jusapa' radicals want to take them.
But having a good hand requires one to actually play it.
Grant Newsham is a retired US Marine officer and former US diplomat. He was the first Marine liaison officer to the Japan Self-Defense Forces and is a fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute. He is the author of the book, When China Attacks: A Warning To America .
This article was originally published by The Sunday Guardian. It is republished with permission.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

RTHK

2 hours ago

• RTHK

US judge orders release of protest leader

US judge orders release of protest leader Supporters of Mahmoud Khalil say he was unlawfully targeted for his advocacy of Palestinian rights. Photo: Reuters A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Friday to release Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student who became a leader of pro-Palestinian campus protests. Khalil, a legal permanent US resident who is married to a US citizen and has a US-born son, has been in custody since March facing potential deportation. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ordered Khalil's release on bail during a hearing on Friday and he will be allowed to return to New York while his deportation case proceeds. "After more than three months, we can finally breathe a sigh of relief and know that Mahmoud is on his way home," his wife, Michigan-born dentist Noor Abdalla, said in a statement. "We know this ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family and so many others the government is trying to silence for speaking out against Israel's ongoing genocide against Palestinians," added Abdalla, who gave birth to the couple's first child while her husband was in detention. Amol Sinha, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, which is among the groups representing Khalil, welcomed the release order. "This is an important step in vindicating Mr Khalil's rights as he continues to be unlawfully targeted by the federal government for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights," Sinha said. "We're confident he will ultimately prevail in the fight for his freedom." Since his March 8 arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Khalil has become a symbol of President Donald Trump's campaign to stifle pro-Palestinian student activism against the Gaza war, in the name of curbing anti-Semitism. At the time a graduate student at Columbia University in New York, Khalil was one of the most visible leaders of nationwide campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza. Following his arrest, US authorities transferred Khalil, who was born in Syria to Palestinian parents, nearly 2,000 kilometres from his home in New York to a detention center in Louisiana, pending deportation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has invoked a law approved during the 1950s Red Scare that allows the United States to remove foreigners seen as adverse to US foreign policy. Rubio argues that US constitutional protections of free speech do not apply to foreigners and that he alone can make decisions without judicial review. (AFP)

The Standard

8 hours ago

• The Standard

Wall St indexes open higher with Trump's Middle East decision in focus

Hong Kong stocks edged up on Friday in hopes of US intervention in the Israel-Iran war.

Asia Times

13 hours ago

• Asia Times

Trump's path to Tehran: the making of a global bargaining chip

The second Trump administration no longer needs to prove its foreign policy instincts. They are clear, unmistakable and anchored in brute transactionalism. If the world learned anything from the former—and now resurgent—President Donald Trump, it is that he views diplomacy not as a delicate art of engagement but as a zero-sum game of power projection. His latest rhetoric and posturing over Iran, especially in the wake of Israeli operations and heightened regional tensions, suggest a dangerous and deliberate strategy: to reduce Iran to rubble, not only for the sake of containment but to bolster American dominance in trade negotiations with China and recalibrate all relationships—friends and foes alike—on Washington's terms. At the heart of this approach is Trump's insistence that Tehran must surrender unconditionally. This is not just hyperbole; it is a method. Trump thrives on spectacle and brinkmanship. His entire worldview is predicated on the belief that America is losing because it has been too nice, too generous and too forgiving. Therefore, for Trump to extract what he perceives as 'better deals' from China, Europe, ASEAN, Mexico and Canada, he must first demonstrate that the United States is willing and able to destroy one of its most intransigent adversaries—publicly, unmistakably and with overwhelming force. Trump's obsession with bunker-buster bombs is not new. During his first term, he repeatedly floated the idea of using high-yield ordnance to obliterate Iran's underground nuclear sites. While the Pentagon and international allies balked at the prospect, Trump's inner circle entertained such military options as ways to force diplomatic capitulation. In Trump's view, diplomacy begins only when the enemy lies broken or at least battered enough to come to the table begging. A full-fledged strike on Tehran, targeting its military-industrial infrastructure, would mark not only a significant escalation in the Middle East but a cornerstone of Trump's new foreign policy doctrine: militarized deal-making. The point is not merely to neutralize Iran but to demonstrate to Beijing, Brussels and beyond that Trump's America is prepared to shatter international norms to reassert dominance. By pulverizing Iran's defenses and forcing a surrender, Trump can create a shockwave that ripples through multiple geopolitical theaters. First and foremost is China. Beijing, already embroiled in a tit-for-tat tariff war with Washington, is being forced to reconsider its risk calculus. A United States that can unilaterally take down a major regional power signals a willingness to escalate beyond traditional economic warfare. Trump clearly wants China's leadership to understand that their negotiation counterpart is not a rational actor bound by global rules—but a strongman driven by prestige, leverage and personal victory. Second, Washington's allies would be caught in the moral and strategic dilemma of either backing Trump's new militarist campaign or risking their ties to the US economy and defense umbrella. Members of the European Union—especially France—may voice concern, but ultimately, many of them remain economically and strategically tied to the United States. The same dynamic plays out in Asia, where regional powers depend on US security guarantees while also being wary of American unpredictability. Third, Trump can use the devastation in Iran to undermine Russia's remaining influence in the region. With Iran weakened, Moscow's capacity to counterbalance US interests in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq will be significantly diminished. In this sense, Iran becomes both a target and a message: defiance will be punished, and accommodation will be rewarded—on American terms. Of course, bombing Iran is not without consequences. Trump's team understands the potential for a regional conflagration. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq and the remnants of the Houthis in Yemen may launch retaliatory attacks on American interests and allies. But Trump, emboldened by a Republican-controlled Congress and the politics of spectacle, is likely to argue that such blowback is manageable—collateral damage in a global campaign to reassert American primacy. Israel, already engaged in shadow wars with Iran, would likely welcome such US involvement, seeing it as a decisive moment to dismantle the Islamic Republic's regional ambitions. For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this could be the culmination of a decades-long security doctrine centered on preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power or a hegemon. For Trump, Israel's support is not just strategic—it is deeply political. It energizes his evangelical base and signals to Washington's hawkish establishment that he is not just a deal-maker but a wartime president. In many ways, this is a return to a form of Nixonian 'madman theory'—showing unpredictability to coerce adversaries into submission. But Trump takes it one step further: unpredictability is no longer a tactic but a brand. From tariffs to trade deals, embassy relocations to drone strikes, Trump has shown that chaos is not a byproduct—it is the plan. Once Iran is bombed and coerced into surrender—should that scenario come to pass—Trump will likely position the act as proof that America is back, that it no longer tolerates deadbeat allies, hostile regimes or trade cheats. He will then pivot to Beijing, pressuring China to remove barriers to US exports, agree to more stringent intellectual property protections and halt its support for Iran and Russia. 'Look what happened to Tehran,' Trump might warn. 'Don't be next.' In Southeast Asia, where countries are watching this dynamic closely, the message is equally stark. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand—economies with strong trade linkages to both China and the US—will face renewed pressure to pick sides. Trump's version of 'with us or against us' will come cloaked in tariffs, sanctions and security demands. Even countries that enjoy exemptions today—such as Malaysia's semiconductor sector—could find those favors withdrawn if they do not align with America's broader geopolitical stance. Trump's strategic calculus rests on one core principle: raw power, not persuasion. His demands for Iran's unconditional surrender are not driven by fear of a nuclear Iran—there is little concrete evidence Tehran is on the brink of weaponization but by a need to demonstrate overwhelming power. In other words, Iran is not the final goal—it is the opening move. In this worldview, multilateralism is obsolete, diplomacy is for the weak, and war—so long as it is winnable—serves a purpose beyond the battlefield. It is the ultimate bargaining chip. What the world must understand is this: Trump's warnings are not rhetorical flourishes. They are statements of intent. The drive to bomb Iran is neither about containment nor about peace. It is about leverage. It is about rebalancing global power by unbalancing the world. And in this dangerous recalibration, Tehran is just the first domino. Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of ASEAN Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia, former head teaching fellow, Harvard University, and Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar Luthfy Hamzah is senior research fellow , Strategic Pan Indo Pacific Arena , Kuala Lumpur