As tensions escalate between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, President Donald Trump continues to publicly demand allied contributions regarding the Strait of Hormuz situation. While the U.S. and South Korea have yet to find common ground on Trump’s requests, the foreign ministers of both nations are set to meet this week to discuss related matters.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on Monday that Foreign Minister Cho Hyun will attend the first expanded meeting of G7 foreign ministers in Paris, France, from March 25 to 27. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is also expected to attend, with both countries coordinating a face-to-face meeting or informal talks between the ministers.
Given the ongoing Middle East crisis and unresolved issues between the U.S. and South Korea, the ministers are likely to meet in a pull aside format, even if informally.
A key concern for South Korea is whether President Trump’s demand for military contributions in the Strait of Hormuz remains valid. With the Middle East conflict expected to persist, Trump’s request is unlikely to simply disappear. On March 20, Trump responded to reporters at the White House about South Korea’s support, stating that he loves South Korea. It has a great relationship with South Korea, they’re helping South Korea a lot.
During a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on March 19, Trump didn’t explicitly mention Japan’s military involvement in the Strait of Hormuz. However, he emphasized the U.S. military presence in Japan as part of America’s contributions and expressed expectations for Japan to take on a larger role, noting Japan’s high dependence on oil imports. This suggests ongoing expectations for military contributions from allies.
Japan Opts for Investment Over Troop Deployment; South Korea Should Respond Cautiously With Multilateral Diplomacy
South Korea has maintained an ambiguous stance, neither actively responding nor outright rejecting the issue, citing the lack of formal requests through conventional channels from the U.S. State Department or Department of Defense. However, with Trump formalizing the troop deployment request during his meeting with Japan, analysts suggest it may be easier for Secretary Rubio to address this matter with Minister Cho.
Prime Minister Takaichi reportedly explained to Trump that Japan faces challenges in deploying troops due to its peace constitution, which restricts the Self-Defense Forces’ proactive military engagement under Article 9, and security legislation defining deployment criteria as a national existential crisis. By citing these domestic legal barriers, Japan effectively rejected Trump’s request.
Instead, Takaichi focused on highlighting U.S.-Japan economic cooperation. The summit resulted in an agreement on a second project worth 73 billion USD, including the construction of small modular reactors (SMRs), which was announced as a summit success.
This figure nearly doubles the 36 billion USD first project and is part of the 550 billion USD U.S. investment commitment made during last July’s U.S.-Japan trade agreement. The combined projects represent about 20% fulfillment of the overall agreement.
Experts suggest that South Korea, having completed the special law on U.S. investment and preparing to announce its first investment plan, should consider Japan’s approach when developing its communication strategy with the U.S.
However, since the U.S. investment is separate from the Middle East situation, it should primarily aim to ease U.S. concerns. The consensus is that negotiating this investment in exchange for refusing troop deployment would be inappropriate.
Given that most countries have not responded to Trump’s Strait of Hormuz troop deployment request, some argue that South Korea should address the issue through multilateral diplomacy rather than direct bilateral talks with the U.S.
Professor Park Won-gon from Ewha Womans University stated that it’s crucial that it doesn’t present any cards to the U.S. first. Engaging in a multilateral framework is the most realistic approach. Participating in multilateral discussions or joint statements is more appropriate than bilateral negotiations.