As Washington and Seoul prepare for a meeting between their leaders, diplomatic experts debate the impact that President Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy will have on the Indo-Pacific region. 

In the latest edition of The Washington Brief, a monthly forum hosted by The Washington Times Foundation, John Delury, an East Asian Affairs expert and modern China history professor, joined Robert G. Joseph, a National Institute of Public Policy scholar and former adviser to George W. Bush, for a conversation on the future of U.S.-Korea relations.

According to Mr. Delury, Mr. Trump has upended how the U.S. has dealt with allies. Since the end of World War II, Mr. Delury explained, Washington has viewed alliances as special relationships with like-minded nations that are built on a shared understanding of the world. Mr. Trump, however, has introduced a transactional strain into U.S. diplomacy. 

“Viewing alliances not as these privileged relationships built on trust, which has been the traditional American view, but rather as exploitative relationships built on power,” Mr. Delury said. “In his view, these alliances are to America’s detriment, and they’re ultimately ripping off the United States.”

Stressing his point, he pointed to Mr. Trump’s comments about countries typically seen as U.S. allies. Since taking office this year, Mr. Trump has suggested that Canada could become the 51st state, that U.S. forces could take over Greenland and that the U.S. should take control of the Panama Canal to counter Chinese influence.  

According to Mr. Delury, the strong language that Mr. Trump has used in the past with regard to U.S. allies could be disastrous for U.S.-Korean relations. The historian said South Koreans’ experience with Japanese imperialism is never far from their minds. 

“There’s a sort of retro imperialism type of language going back to the 19th century about taking Greenland, Panama Canal, Canada, buying the Gaza Strip,” Mr. Delury said. “That really can be like playing with fire in certain parts of the world, including South Korea.”

Mr. Joseph pushed back on categorizing Mr. Trump’s diplomatic strategy as imperialist, insisting the president is conducting a purely transactional foreign policy. Still, the strategy has generated some uncertainty for the upcoming summit between Mr. Trump and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung.

At the summit, for which there is no official date, the two leaders are expected to discuss the U.S.-South Korea trade deal further. Mr. Trump announced last week that the U.S. would levy 15% tariffs on the Southeast Asian country as part of the deal, which includes a $350 billion investment in the U.S. by South Korea. 

According to South Korea, at least $150 billion of the investment would go toward shipbuilding in the U.S., with the rest dedicated to battery and chip development. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said the U.S. would keep 90% of the profits from the investment, which South Korean presidential adviser Kim Yong-beom has denied. 

Upcoming talks in Washington between Mr. Trump and Mr. Lee could result in concessions on defense costs for the U.S., an issue left out of last week’s trade deal. Mr. Trump has complained that South Korea should pay more to maintain the 28,500 U.S. troops in the country. 

The North Korean question

Questions are swirling about what the U.S.-South Korea summit could mean for negotiations with North Korea. During his first term, Mr. Trump made history by crossing over into the so-called hermit kingdom and conducting diplomatic talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. 

Specifically, experts suggest that Mr. Trump’s transactional foreign policy could make negotiations more fluid for Washington and Pyongyang, and alarming for leaders in Seoul. 

“Imagine a North Korea with over 200 nuclear weapons. We can have an American perspective on that. But I would think that the South Korean perspective would be different,” Mr. Joseph said. “We can sit back and say we will deter it. But for South Korea, that’s a different equation.”

Additionally, the White House’s position on denuclearization could be in question. While the State Department has emphasized its position that no nuclear weapons be present on the Korean peninsula, Mr. Delury maintains that the U.S. should have more flexibility if it hopes to reach a deal with the North Koreans. 

“I saw [Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s] statement, of ‘no, we’re a hundred percent on complete denuclearization.’ I mean fine. That’s what the State Department’s gonna say,” he said. “But if Donald Trump and Lee Jae-myung do want to resume a dialogue and negotiation process, they’re gonna have to show flexibility in their in their language.”

The U.S. exited high-profile nuclear discussions with Iran before reaching a deal last month. In that case, the U.S. maintained that the Islamic republic could not be allowed to keep its uranium enrichment program if it wanted sanctions removed. Iran has long asserted that its nuclear program is for civilian use only and is key to its national sovereignty.

The talks ultimately broke down in mid-June following Israel’s preemptive strike on Iran’s enrichment facilities. The U.S. joined Israel’s effort, launching a series of coordinated strikes on the sites.

But importantly, Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and North Korea does. According to Mr. Joseph, there is a chance that the U.S. could cede its position on denuclearization on the Korean peninsula in exchange for a deal. 

“I think there is a likelihood I don’t know how small it is, but a likelihood that the United States will cave,” he said. “That we will say we can live with a nuclear-armed North Korea, even if they have 200, even if they have 400. We’ve got 10 times that much.”

• Vaughn Cockayne can be reached at vcockayne@washingtontimes.com.