Korea Should Pursue Multi-Layered Solidarity Rather Than Neutrality in the ‘Trump 2.0’ Era [ESF...

[Main Title]

Korea Should Pursue Multi-Layered Solidarity Rather Than Neutrality in the ‘Trump 2.0’ Era [ESF2026]

[Sub-Title]

Day 2 of the 17th Edaily Strategy Forum

Jiyoon Kim Visiting Professor at the Institute of East and West Studies, Yonsei University

The issue is not U.S. decline, but a change in how it operates

“Discussions on Cost-Sharing Are Just as Necessary as Discussions on Middle-Power Cooperation”

[Edaily By Reporter Da-won Lee and Yeon-seo Kim] As the launch of the second Trump administration is said to be fundamentally reshaping the international order, experts have suggested Korea to consider a multi-layered solidarity strategy with middle powers. At the same time, there is also a need to discuss who will bear the costs of maintaining the global order that the U.S. has long sustained.

Jiyoon Kim, a Visiting Professor at the Institute of East and West Studies, Yonsei University, delivers her keynote speech on the topic of "Shaking Norms, Colliding Values: The International Society's New Grammar of Survival" at the 17th Edaily Strategy Forum held at the Shilla Hotel in Changchung-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul on June 17. The 17th Edaily Strategy Forum, held under the theme "The Age of Power, Recasting Civilization : Who Designs the New World?”, aims to analyze the diplomatic, security, financial, and fiscal policy turning points facing Korean society amid geopolitical shifts, including U.S.-China hegemony competition, the Iran war, and strengthening U.S. prioritization, and to explore breakthroughs in times of crisis. (Photo = Young-hoon Lee, Edaily Reporter)

In her keynote speech titled “America Inc.: Rewriting the World Order”, Visiting Professor Jiyoon Kim at the Institute of East and West Studies, Yonsei University stated, “The global order is not collapsing. What is more likely is that the way today‘s international system is managed will fundamentally change,” adding “The U.S. is not abandoning its global leadership, but seeking to exercise it in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.”

Professor Kim argued that the Trump administration’s tariff policies and protectionist stance should be understood as the broader context of U.S. foreign and security strategy. Citing historical examples such as the Atlantic Charter, the Bretton Woods system, the Marshall Plan, the Nixon Doctrine, the Carter Doctrine, and the Obama administration‘s Asia rebalance strategy, she said, “The Trump administration’s tariff policy should be interpreted in the same strategic context.”

Regarding the view that the U.S. is retreating from the world stage or returning to isolationism, she countered, “If the U.S. truly intended to give up hegemony, there would be no reason to push such aggressive policies in technology, energy, and finance.”

Professor Kim specifically analyzed that the U.S. is actively trying to maintain its influence through three key pillars: technology, energy, and finance. She noted that as AI has emerged as a strategic technology directly linked to national security, is making a full-scale effort to secure leadership in AI. In the energy sector, she argued, the U.S. his advancing an “Energy Dominance” strategy beyond mere energy security. Meanwhile, in finance, the U.S. continues to reinforce its influence through the dollar-based financial system while also exploring new mechanisms such as stablecoins.

However, she observed that the U.S.‘s approach to managing alliances is changing. “While the U.S. previously maintained the global order through alliances based on shared values, it is now shifting toward a transaction-oriented approach that prioritizes costs and benefits,” she observed. “We are witnessing a structural migration from value-based alliances to interest-driven contracts.”

Against this backdrop, she stressed that Korea should establish a more flexible diplomatic strategy. “We need multi-layered and flexible cooperation frameworks rather than alliances tied to a single set of interests,” she said. “Partnerships and cooperation among middle powers will become even more important in the future.”

Nevertheless, she noted that because the U.S. has historically performed the role of the “global order maintainer,” partners must share the responsibilities of the new order, not just the benefits of cooperation. Explaining how the U.S. has long guaranteed freedom of navigation, protected international sea lanes, and borne the cost of maintaining the international order, she stressed, “We must think about who will bear the costs of maintaining the global order going forward, that the U.S. has paid for until now.”

“We need a concrete discussion on whether a single middle-power nation will take on that role, whether several countries will share the cost, or whether countries will pay the U.S. to continue performing this function,” she emphasized. “The U.S. has not lost the capability to sustain the order. What appears to have changed is its willingness to continue paying the costs at the level it once did. Partnerships and cooperation remain essential,” Kim concluded. “But the more fundamental question is who will ultimately bear the cost of maintaining the order.”