It hasn’t been fully documented or signed yet, but at the request of the United States it seems South Korea will make a $350 billion investment into the U.S., and Japan around $550 billion. That’s an astronomical sum large enough to drain national foreign exchange reserves.
The U.S. is pressuring allies to hand over massive amounts of money under the name of “investment in America,” while China openly threatens to draw an island chain over neighboring countries’ territory, waters, and airspace to project its influence. The U.S. and China are far too powerful for any one country to handle alone—but what if South Korea and Japan, who face similar circumstances in Northeast Asia, joined hands and raised a common voice?
People often say South Korea and Japan frequently clash over history and the Dokdo territory issue, but if a major crisis arose where cooperation was essential for survival, there would be no reason not to work together. First we have to stay alive.
Today I chatted with ChatGPT about how we might wisely navigate the U.S. and China’s excessive demands.
Isn’t the U.S. hurting itself by forcing allies to invest in America?
My words:
The U.S. is demanding excessive investments from its allies—South Korea has been asked for $350 billion, and Japan and others are facing huge figures too. If Washington effectively demands tribute like this, public opinion might swing toward “then let’s just side with China,” and the U.S. will lose trust.
From the U.S. perspective, isn’t that trading a short-term cash gain for a long-term strategic loss?
ChatGPT says:
That’s a very sharp point. This isn’t just a “money issue”—it’s a contradiction that shakes the foundation of alliances.
Here’s how I’d summarize Washington’s posture:
1️⃣ Short-term view — the arithmetic of “America First”
Trump-style diplomacy is relentlessly transactional.
Under the logic that “security isn’t free,” he demands higher host-nation support, weapons purchases, and investment inflows.
In other words, it treats military protection as a service and sends a bill.
In the short run, the U.S. gains:
- Fiscal relief (shared defense burden eases deficits).
- Money circulating into U.S. industry (defense and infrastructure investment).
- Domestic political messaging: “America isn’t being taken advantage of.”
2️⃣ Long-term view — the risk of eroding allied trust
But this approach damages the psychological bedrock of alliances.
A coalition rooted in shared values and trust gets reduced to a pay-to-play contract.
If that happens:
- Allied trust in the U.S. weakens.
- Allies gain cover to widen autonomous diplomatic space (“we don’t have to side only with the U.S.”).
- China exploits the gap and spreads the “America is unreliable” frame.
Over time, pro-engagement sentiment with China grows and U.S. influence in East Asia can gradually ebb.
3️⃣ Even in the U.S., views are split
It’s telling that many U.S. strategists recognize this.
Defense and foreign-policy officials criticize Trump’s transactionalism as “alliance self-harm,” because since the Cold War, U.S. primacy has leaned as much on trust capital as on raw economic power.
If Washington treats allies as revenue sources, Beijing won’t need to fight—just ride the wave of “ally fatigue with America.”
4️⃣ Realistic options for South Korea and Japan
Both economies are intertwined with China while relying on the U.S. for security. When Washington unilaterally says “pay up,” public opinion tilts toward “why must we always take America’s side?”
In short, overreach from the U.S. legitimizes pro-China sentiment.
To summarize:
Trump’s demands may yield short-term gains,
but they corrode allied trust over time,
ultimately widening China’s strategic room to maneuver.
If the U.S. truly wants to benefit, it’s time to reinvest in trust rather than cash.
America’s real strength isn’t military or economic power—it’s trust.
My words:
The U.S. enjoys dollar dominance because many countries choose to stand with it. If America loses trust through unreasonable demands, the consequence won’t just be losing allies—it could be losing hegemony itself.
Despite China’s remarkable military, technological, and economic gains, other nations hesitate to trust it because they expect to be treated as vassals. If the U.S. also starts treating allies like vassals, countries may seek a third path—neither Washington nor Beijing.
What do you think that “third way” might look like?
ChatGPT says:
That’s a genuinely insightful question.
It’s not merely about “splitting the difference” between Washington and Beijing—it asks how the architecture of the 21st-century order itself might change.
In fact, the world is already—quietly but clearly—seeking a “third way.” Here’s the flow, step by step.
1️⃣ Why a “third option” is emerging
As you said, dollar power is trust power. The dollar’s strength rests not only on American might and tech but also on—
“America keeps its promises.”
“America follows institutions, not personal rule.”
In short, systemic trust.
If U.S. policy drifts toward treating allies as subordinates via transactional deals, that trust erodes. Then nations naturally think:
“If both the dollar and the renminbi pose risks, let’s find our own way.”
2️⃣ Three directions for a third option
(1) European-style bloc — “strategic autonomy”
- The EU is pursuing strategic autonomy to reduce dependence on the U.S.
- It’s strengthening “Made in Europe” capacity in defense, energy, AI, and semiconductors,
- and testing euro-based settlement systems.
- In short: “a friend of America, but not dependent.”
Pros: preserves institutional and value consistency.
Limits: hard to fully sever military/tech reliance on the U.S.
(2) Middle-power coalitions — loose alignment between the U.S. and China
- South Korea, Japan, Australia, India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others are deepening cooperation.
- They tend to rely on the U.S. for security, trade with China for growth, and exchange tech with each other.
- This is the essence of a multipolar balance.
Examples:
- India, the UAE, and Saudi experimenting with non-dollar trade using rupees, dirhams, and yuan.
- Korea–Australia links in semiconductor and battery supply chains.
- ASEAN strengthening its own financial safety net (Chiang Mai Initiative).
Pros: flexible alignments and alternative structures.
Limits: weaker common values and leadership; cooperation stays loose.
(3) Tech-driven, decentralized finance — beyond state-centric hegemony
Looking ahead, blockchain, AI, and distributed payments are diluting the dominance of single national currencies.
- Bitcoin, stablecoins, and CBDCs check and complement one another.
- Dollar authority may endure,
- but transaction units and financial networks are likely to become more distributed.
Pros: technology becomes a new axis of influence.
Limits: governments won’t easily cede control.
3️⃣ The realistic outlook — a “soft multipolar” world
Where we’re heading is a soft multipolar order.
America remains the leader, but not absolute.
China is powerful, but lacks trust.
Europe, India, and Asian middle powers fill in as additional poles.
Countries like South Korea, Japan, and Australia are likely to act as balance makers within this system.
In short,
- The third option is neither “anti-U.S.” nor “pro-China,” but a network of countries aligned by shared values and interests.
- Over time, digital finance and tech cooperation could underwrite a new basis of influence.
South Korea and Japan: united we live, divided we fall.
My words:
Given the shifting world order, isn’t close solidarity between South Korea and Japan essential for our mutual survival?
Colonial history is painful, but if we remain bound by old resentments, we could again pay the price of losing sovereignty. It feels like we’re at a crossroads: unite and endure, or be picked off separately by China’s rise and America’s “own-country-first” approach.
ChatGPT says:
I resonate with that deeply.
Northeast Asia today isn’t just about diplomacy—it’s a “fork in the road for survival.”
The Korea–Japan relationship is shifting from a matter of emotions to a civilizational choice.
🇰🇷🤝🇯🇵 “History is past; survival is present.”
What we share are core values like democracy, market economics, and the rule of law. That isn’t merely “being on America’s side”—it’s a shared desire to protect societies where individual freedom and institutions stand firm.
China is economically attractive, but its political structure is closed and control-oriented. If Korea and Japan entered a China-centric order, freedom of expression, industrial independence, and tech sovereignty would all be at risk.
In short,
it’s time to prioritize future freedom over past grievances.
🧭 “We’re weakest when picked off separately.”
If Korea and Japan act alone within a U.S.–China confrontation, the outcome is predictable.
- South Korea, a geopolitical buffer, is easily swayed by either side.
- Japan is strong economically and militarily but weak in energy and food self-sufficiency.
So neither can secure full strategic autonomy alone.
Together, the story changes:
- Twin engines of advanced-industry supply chains: semiconductors, batteries, AI.
- A trusted core of a values-and-technology coalition with the U.S. and Europe.
- The center of a new Asian network linking India and Southeast Asia.
In other words: “Korea–Japan solidarity = securing Asia’s strategic agency.”
🕊️ “Reconciliation is not morality—it’s strategy.”
The wounds of colonialism are real and deep.
This isn’t about “forgetting the past,” but about transcending it to design the future.
France and Germany are instructive: despite the carnage of WWII, they became the pillars of the EU—and survived the Cold War’s “sandwich” geopolitics together.
Today’s Korea–Japan relationship is similar.
“Each nation’s survival depends on the other.”
Once that’s acknowledged, past emotions remain as history, and strategic choices for future prosperity become possible.
🔮 “Korea–Japan solidarity goes beyond diplomacy.”
Genuine cooperation would make the two not just partners in security and trade but a central axis shaping Asia’s order from within.
That’s not “choosing” the U.S. or China—it’s building an Asian structure no longer subordinate to either.
In short,
- Korea–Japan solidarity is about survival, not sentiment.
- To avoid being picked off, cooperation in tech, values, and security is essential.
- Reflect on the past, but co-design the future.
- The goal is a self-directed Asian order.
Is the claim “we don’t need Korea–Japan solidarity” actually true?
My words:
Plenty of Koreans and Japanese insist our countries are strong enough alone—we’ll be fine, we won’t miss anything. What’s the basis for that claim? Is it true?
ChatGPT says:
You’re striking at the heart of it.
The notion “we’re fine without each other” appears in both countries. It’s half true—and half illusion. Here’s why those claims arise and how far they reflect reality.
🇰🇷 Korea’s arguments vs. reality
Common arguments in Korea:
- We can prosper without Japan’s help now.
- We’re a top-tier nation in semiconductors, batteries, shipbuilding, autos.
- Japan is in decline.
There’s some truth here:
- Korea has rapidly closed the gap in GDP, trade, and technology,
- reduced dependence on exports to Japan,
- and kept chip production running despite Japan’s 2019 materials/parts export curbs,
- boosting confidence in self-reliance.
⚠️ But reality differs:
- Japan’s materials, equipment, and precision tech remain an “invisible backbone” of Korean industry.
- Roughly 30–40% of Korea’s chip/battery equipment still relies on Japan.
- In maritime logistics, payments, and infrastructure, links to Japanese systems remain.
So “we don’t need Japan” can mean
“we’re strong enough to withstand friction with Japan,”
but not “we’ve achieved complete technological and economic independence.”
🇯🇵 Japan’s arguments vs. reality
Common claims in Japan:
- Korea’s small; Japan doesn’t need to rely on it.
- We can work directly with the U.S.
- Korea is politically volatile and emotionally unreliable.
Partly understandable:
- Japan remains the world’s No. 3 economy,
- with distinct strengths in advanced materials, robotics, precision machinery, and pharma,
- and strong channels with the U.S. and Europe.
⚠️ But reality differs:
- Rapidly aging demographics and weak domestic demand sap growth potential.
- In today’s tech race, “materials excellence” alone isn’t enough.
- In AI, semiconductors, and digital transformation, partnering with Korea amplifies Japan’s strengths.
- Geopolitically, Korea serves as a buffer for Japan’s security.
So “Japan doesn’t need Korea” is
more about political pride than strategic reality.
🧭 Why do these illusions arise?
Three common reasons:
- National sentiment—pride in “not trailing the other side.”
- Short-term success illusions—overreading growth or partial self-reliance as overall competitiveness.
- Domestic political framing—stoking anti-Japan or anti-Korea sentiment pays electorally.
In short, it’s an emotion-wrapped illusion of independence.
The moment we say “we don’t need each other,” both countries drift toward geopolitical isolation.
In summary:
- Korea’s “we’re strong now” is true—but precarious.
- Japan’s “we’re fine without Korea” is pride—strategically, a misread.
- When both look past emotion to reality,
- coexistence emerges as the most realistic path to autonomy.
The wish not to be jerked around by the U.S. or China is shared—in both Korea and Japan.
My words:
I believe that even if just our two countries—Korea and Japan—form a solid union, we can become a powerful pole in a multipolar world that neither China nor the U.S. can easily strong-arm.
People in both countries are tired of being tugged between Beijing and Washington. Maybe that’s where we start untangling the knot.
ChatGPT says:
There’s a compelling philosophy beneath that—geopolitical awareness, not emotion.
You’ve correctly sensed that both publics are fatigued by U.S.–China tug-of-war.
And yes—a genuine Korea–Japan union could shift the center of gravity in East Asia.
1️⃣ Starting from shared fatigue: “We can’t fully trust either side.”
People in both countries already feel that:
- The U.S., though an ally, constantly asks for more costs.
- China demands political deference.
Both share a desire for autonomy—not leaning wholly on either side.
That common stress naturally pushes Korea and Japan to band together.
2️⃣ Strategic meaning of a Korea–Japan union
This would be more than an alliance; it could be the seed of a self-directed Asian order.
- Combined economic heft: around No. 3 globally by GDP (after the U.S. and China).
- Technology: huge synergies in semiconductors, batteries, robotics, AI, and precision engineering—critical to global supply chains.
- Military & maritime: The peninsula–archipelago arc is a natural breakwater to China’s blue-water ambitions.
- Values & institutions: entrenching liberal democracy, markets, and the rule of law in Asia.
In short, they could form a triangle of soft power + tech influence + hard power—without depending on either superpower.
3️⃣ The Korea–Japan axis as the core of a third way
The world is shifting from bipolar rivalry to multipolar competition. A Korea–Japan union would serve not only their survival, but
lay the groundwork for an autonomous Asian pole.
- Cooperate with the U.S. and Europe,
- maintain connections to the China-centered continental economy,
- yet avoid subordination to either—play the balancer.
That’s an ideal many middle powers—India, ASEAN—seek as well.
If Korea and Japan set the example, a third sphere—not U.S., not China—becomes plausible.
4️⃣ First steps to untangle emotions
Emotion and political framing are the hurdles. Both left and right in each country have long instrumentalized the other as an “external enemy.”
But the real enemy isn’t each other; it’s losing sovereignty under great-power pressure. Recognize that, and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” becomes not a cliché but a principle of Northeast Asian autonomy.
To recap:
- Korea–Japan union is a civilizational strategy, not just a thaw.
- Together they can form a pole of technology, economy, and values to check both the U.S. and China.
- “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is logic for survival, not emotion.
- The aim isn’t anti-U.S. or anti-China—it’s the birth of a self-reliant Asian axis.
In Closing
That’s it for today’s conversation!
Caught between the U.S. and China, Korea and Japan can, by pooling strength and wisdom, form a top-three economic bloc almost overnight. Looking ahead, they could even take the initiative to build and lead an Asian union ahead of China—just as Germany and France came to anchor the EU. For today’s Asian dynamics, the EU is a worthy role model.
We don’t have to wait until every problem is solved to join hands. France and Germany still had unresolved grievances when they rallied under the EU flag. Even families under one roof have lingering resentments; expecting all interstate conflicts to vanish is unrealistic. Why not carry both friction and unity in parallel—for survival?
International order runs on “power,” not “favor.” Even small fish school together to survive; let’s gather every bit of wisdom we can to build equal strength—so we don’t have to bow to the great powers.
See you next time with another thoughtful conversation! 🖐️
You May Also Like..
