What Makes South Korea a Good Ally?

When weighing the tangible benefits of the South Korea-U.S. alliance, policymakers and influencers in Washington, D.C., often rely on misguided presumptions of what constitutes their national interest. Most frequently, discussions center around the premise that China poses the greatest threat to the United States. Consequently, Seoul’s value to Washington is narrowly judged on whether it would contribute to the defense of Taiwan or join the U.S. effort to prevent Chinese firms from acquiring high-tech components. This is an erroneous approach because it subordinates the clear and present threat to both the United States and the world: climate change.

If the U.S. policy community accepts the scientific consensus that a 2-degree Celsius increase in global temperatures is both foreseeable and disastrous, the value of the South Korea-U.S. alliance should be judged principally by its capacity to contribute to a solution to this collective threat. More specifically, conversations should pivot around issues such as Korean industries’ current progress on decarbonization; the country’s institutional capacity to share best practices with the world; and whether the nation can best maintain or augment its green transition. Other considerations are secondary as the global community confronts what U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres rightly termed “collective suicide.”

Current talking points from skeptics of the South Korea-U.S. alliance posit that Seoul leans on the U.S. security umbrella while exhibiting little appetite in committing to the defense of Taiwan, the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, or Washington’s other strategic points of interest vis-a-vis Beijing. Some of these critics are reassured by signals from South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol that he would showcase a clearer preference for the bilateral alliance over the country’s trade ties with China. Others will remain disappointed by Seoul’s continued hesitance to outrightly criticize the Chinese Communist Party for its human rights violations.

Meanwhile, observers who challenge these critics rarely push back against the underlying premise that China constitutes the greatest threat to the United States. Instead, they advance the view that Seoul is an indispensable and proactive player in this strategic competition. They might bring up the fact that there was bipartisan consensus in Seoul on the installation of U.S. anti-ballistic missile batteries despite economic retaliation from Beijing. But these analyses are puzzlingly disinterested with vulnerabilities that the inundation of key population centers and grain-producing regions around the world would bring to collective security.

As the hostilities of the Chinese and Russian states in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Chechnya, Ukraine, and other spaces repeatedly demonstrated over the past decades, they are violent actors. In response, diminishing Moscow and Beijing’s capacity to violate human rights with impunity is self-evidently good. But in the hierarchy of crises, gains from safeguarding democratic principles bring diminishing returns to collective welfare if the climate crisis is not stopped.

So where does South Korea stand as a partner of the United States in the fight against climate change?

South Korea is one of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world, producing 11.66 tons per person in 2020. This stood far above the global average of 4.47 tons and is higher than the average emissions released by citizens of peer high-income economies, but lower than the U.S. per capita emissions of 14.24 tons.

South Korea’s high emissions can be attributed to its sizable manufacturing sector. Here, Seoul can do more to accelerate the decarbonization of its industries. In this context, South Korea’s support for the Biden administration’s efforts to impose global standards on the carbon intensity of key industrial products like steel should be treated as a key test for the Yoon administration’s commitment to the bilateral alliance. South Korea’s participation and leadership in these efforts would be particularly meaningful because the country is one of the world’s largest steel producers, and its adoption of higher standards could serve as a case study for other steel-producing countries to follow.

While South Korea’s emissions remain high, the country simultaneously offers policy lessons to the United States and other partners in many projects that are vital to the broader struggle against climate change.

For example, South Korea stands above peers in its experience with reversing deforestation for both carbon capture and runoff prevention. Reforestation efforts demand effective governance that goes beyond technical expertise in dendrology. Since the country’s commitment to replanting trees in its denuded mountains in the 1960s, the Korea Forest Service not only mobilized resources to acquire saplings but also secured buy-in for change from stakeholders who relied on logging, coordinated with local government, and ensured accountability. As a consequence, country’s revived woodlands today hold 18 billion tons of water, a figure that exceeds the 14 billion tons that its 49 dams hold back.

Building on its success, Seoul currently supports reforestation projects and forest management efforts around the world as climate change both demands the expansion of natural carbon sinks and raises the likelihood of extreme conditions that cause flooding and landslides.

South Korea’s concerted effort to recycle food waste represents another example of the country’s contribution to climate change mitigation. Globally, 1.3 billion tons of food is wasted each year and accounts for 6 percent of greenhouse gas emissions as food spoilage releases methane. While most governments around the world focus on recycling plastics and other daily consumer materials, South Korea represents a rare example of a country that has placed public policy focus on recycling food waste. As a result, South Korea recycles approximately 95 percent of its food waste today, turning it into compost, livestock feed, and biofuel.

Given the threat posed by climate change, Seoul’s contributions in these and other areas of decarbonization present tangible and non-hypothetical value to not only the United States but also the global community.

That said, any assessment of South Korea’s contribution to this international effort should also take into account the country’s long-term capacity to commit its resources to the green transition. With the country’s low birth rate and declining population, South Korea’s capacity to allocate its labor force to undertake research and engineer new green solutions will diminish over time. Given growing indications that the low birthrate is tied to low lifetime female earnings, gender discrimination should be assessed as a general threat to both the global community’s collective security and the South Korea-U.S. alliance.

For what it is worth, South Koreans accept climate change as a fact. In response, their elected representatives and flagship firms push forward solutions to decarbonize the economy. The fact that climate change does not factor heavily in conversations about “good” allies among policymakers in Washington is not Seoul’s fault. Rather, it reflects bias in the United States that underappreciates this looming threat.

From this perspective, perhaps it is the United States that is acting badly toward South Korea and other allies around the world.