Trump Demands Ownership of U.S. Bases in South Korea... Is He Eyeing Real Estate? [Current Affairs Show]

Overseas U.S. Military Bases: No Precedent for Ownership Transfer
John Bolton: "Trump, the Real Estate Developer, May Have Spoken Off the Cuff"

■ Broadcast: Asia Economy 'Soh Jongseop's Current Affairs Show'

■ Host: Political Specialist Soh Jongseop

■ Director: Producer Lee Kyungdo

■ Guest: Reporter Lee Hyunwoo

Following the conclusion of the first summit between President Lee Jaemyung and U.S. President Donald Trump, President Trump's remarks demanding ownership of U.S. military base sites in South Korea have become a global topic of conversation. These remarks are being viewed as an unprecedented demand in international diplomatic practice and are causing diplomatic ripples, particularly among allied countries that host U.S. military bases.

Over 80 Countries, 128 Bases Worldwide... No Cases of Ownership Transfer

The view of Camp Humphreys, a US military base in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi-do. Photo by Yonhap News

The issue of ownership of overseas U.S. military bases is directly tied to national sovereignty. The U.S. military currently operates approximately 128 permanent bases in over 80 countries worldwide. All of these bases are leased under agreements that guarantee the right to use the land for the duration of the deployment, not ownership. Some countries receive rent for the land, while others, like South Korea, provide the land free of charge. However, there has never been a case where ownership of the base site itself was transferred.

Transferring base site ownership as President Trump suggested would constitute a territorial cession under international law. Such cessions require separate negotiations and treaty frameworks between countries. Historically, this has only occurred in exceptional situations, such as when the United States purchased Alaska from Russia in the 19th century or when a defeated country ceded territory to a victor after war. Therefore, raising the issue of ownership transfer at a summit, rather than simply discussing deployment agreements, is considered highly unusual in diplomatic terms.

The South Korean government and the international community are maintaining a cautious stance for now, as the matter has not yet become an official request. Countries with large U.S. military bases, such as Japan and Germany, are also paying close attention to these remarks. Currently, more than 70% of all U.S. troops stationed overseas are concentrated in South Korea (28,500 troops), Japan (53,000 troops), and Germany (34,500 troops).

Trump-Style Expansionism? Interpretations Vary... "A Real Estate Perspective"

Reuters Yonhap News

Experts are offering differing interpretations of President Trump's remarks. Some argue that Trump is repeating expansionist rhetoric similar to his past comments about purchasing Greenland, suggesting this is another manifestation of his territorial ambitions. Others propose that there may be a strategic consideration from the U.S. military's perspective, aiming to maximize the utility of its bases. In particular, there is speculation that the intention might be to use bases in South Korea not just for defense, but as forward-operating bases.

On the other hand, some view the remarks more lightly, interpreting them as a business idea stemming from Trump's background as a real estate developer. Former White House National Security Advisor John Bolton commented, "President Trump may have simply made an offhand remark after hearing about the recent surge in real estate prices in the Yongsan area, which was returned by the U.S. military. As a former real estate developer, he may have thought he could do something with ownership of the land."

Regardless of the practical implications of these remarks, the most persuasive interpretation is that they are intended to strengthen the U.S. negotiating position in defense cost-sharing talks. The United States is currently demanding that South Korea increase its defense budget to 5% of GDP and is also pressuring for expanded weapons purchases. Although the defense cost-sharing issue was not officially discussed at the summit, President Trump referenced the capabilities of the B-2 bomber and mentioned the possibility of South Korea expanding its weapons purchases, which aligns with this context.

Negotiations Are Just Beginning... South Korea's Burden May Increase

On the 26th (local time), President Lee Jae Myung delivered a policy speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington DC, USA. Photo by Yonhap News

For now, the likelihood of U.S. troop reductions in South Korea during future negotiations is considered low, as destabilizing the security situation on the Korean Peninsula would also be strategically disadvantageous for the United States. However, under the U.S. policy of "alliance modernization," South Korea's burden is expected to grow. In particular, increasing the defense budget, raising cost-sharing contributions, expanding military exercises in the Asia-Pacific region, and the potential involvement of South Korean forces in the Taiwan Strait crisis are emerging as major challenges.

While the summit was "historic," the real negotiations are just beginning. Major issues such as the ownership controversy over U.S. bases in South Korea, defense cost-sharing, and increases in the defense budget are expected to become key topics on the diplomatic agenda between South Korea and the United States. Whether President Trump's remarks remain mere political rhetoric or are used as actual leverage in future diplomatic negotiations is likely to become the biggest variable in upcoming bilateral talks.

From South Korea's perspective, redefining relations with China will also become an increasingly difficult challenge. Ultimately, U.S. security demands amount to a call for South Korea to sever ties with China. Given that trade with China still constitutes a significant portion of South Korea's economy, this is not a decision that can be made lightly. Economic shocks and the need for social consensus must also be considered, meaning the Lee Jaemyung administration will have to navigate U.S. demands while taking all these factors into account.