Commentary: Will South Korea be America’s ‘dagger in the heart of Asia’?

Commentary

Remarks from a US general about South Korea’s military role in East Asia have put Seoul in a tight spot, says Robert Kelly of Pusan National University.

New: You can now listen to articles.

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

15 Jun 2026 06:00AM

BUSAN, South Korea: Xavier Brunson, commander of the United States Forces Korea (USFK), made waves recently when he referred to South Korea as a “dagger in the heart of Asia”. This echoed an earlier comment he made that South Korea looks like a “fixed aircraft carrier” between Japan and China.

These comments were implicitly directed toward China, which Beijing picked up on and rebuked.

“You refer to the host country as an ‘aircraft carrier’ or a ‘dagger’. Does this demonstrate your belligerence, or do you intend to use other countries as pawns?” an embassy representative said.

General Brunson’s military metaphors have given Beijing the opportunity to cast Americans in the role of the aggressor – shifting attention away from China’s own regional ambitions, for instance in the South and East China Sea.

A TIGHT SPOT

The US commander's comments have put the South Korean government in a tight spot. The current administration under President Lee Jae-myung has been cautious about aligning with the US against a rising China.

South Korea’s primary strategic concern has traditionally been North Korea. While the US alliance with Seoul backstops South Korean security, Seoul needs a functional relationship with China too.

If North Korea collapses, China will have a veto role over its integration into South Korea. Limiting North Korea’s spiralling nuclear programme also requires Chinese help. Beijing is one of the few powers that Pyongyang listens to.

On the economic front, South Korea is an export-dependent state and China is its largest export destination.

Thus, the Lee administration has resisted American hawkishness toward China, adopting instead a more pragmatic, case-by-case approach to balance ties between the two powers. Mr Lee said in a Jun 11 interview that South Korea’s traditional model of “security with the US, economy with China” is no longer valid in today’s geopolitical environment.

He added that while the US alliance remains central to South Korean foreign policy, Seoul must strengthen its “independent operational capabilities”.

In that vein, South Korea has upped defence investment and pushed for more wartime operational control authority. However, it is far from achieving a genuinely independent military. It would be difficult for South Korea to rely on America’s defence commitment against North Korea, while remaining neutral on China’s challenge to US power.

SOUTH KOREAN NEUTRALISM?

South Korea does have a strategic option to pursue neutralism and avoid a choice between the US and China. It could exit the US alliance and pursue a “porcupine” strategy - a major military build-up to deter all regional challengers.

Switzerland has pursued a military posture like this for several centuries. South Korea is now wealthy enough to afford this option, and it has the civilian nuclear power knowledge to build a nuclear weapon to achieve the requisite security.

But the costs of this neutral course are high. The withdrawal of the US security commitment would require South Korea to replace the many American assets and logistical technologies it receives for little or no cost, most especially satellite coverage of North Korea.

South Korea’s conscription army is large, but the country relies a lot on US air and naval cover. Air and naval platforms are large, heavy and expensive.

Neutralism would require a huge boost in South Korean defence spending and a substantial tax hike. No one knows just how much funding would be required, but informal estimates circulating in the South Korean foreign policy community suggest that the country’s defence budget would have to double or triple.

Viewed in that light, tolerating anti-China remarks from Americans seems a lot more attractive.

WHAT WASHINGTON WANTS

Gen Brunson’s “dagger” comment channelled a famous metaphor from Jakob Meckel, a Prussian military advisor to Japan, in 1885, who described Korea as “a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan”. Such language acted as justification for imperial Japan to absorb Korea a short time later.

The South Korean government is worried that Gen Brunson’s language encourages the same now. If South Korea is a “fixed aircraft carrier” adjacent to China, then it makes sense for China to strike that carrier in the event of a conflict.

Seoul officials worry that this logic will entrap South Korea – but that is what Washington wants. Thus, under Gen Brunson’s leadership, USFK has begun pushing Seoul toward “strategic flexibility”, the use of US assets based in Korea in response to regional contingencies.

South Korea dislikes this, but its public is unwilling to pay the higher taxes necessary for Seoul to break with the Americans. And the public’s support for the alliance remains high, given its relative distrust of China.

The "dagger" comment highlight this dilemma: If South Korea is unwilling to spend the large amounts needed to pursue autonomy, then it cannot protest when the Americans expect it to help with a geopolitical challenge. US alliances are not charity. South Korea must choose – spend commensurately on an independent foreign policy, or accept strategic flexibility.

Robert Kelly is a professor of political science at Pusan National University.

Source: CNA/el