Diplomacy & Crisis News

/ Israël, Migrations, Judaïsme, Religion - Migrations et réfugiés / Israël, Migrations, Judaïsme, Religion - Migrations et réfugiés

/ Monde, Minorité nationale, Judaïsme - Minorités / Monde, Minorité nationale, Judaïsme - Minorités

Institutions under assault will not deliver for Americans.

Russia seeks to change, not end, the conflict in Ukraine.

Cette fois, à la différence de ses prédécesseurs lors d'autres luttes, M. Laurent Berger, le secrétaire général de la CFDT, n'a pas lâché. Comment comprendre le regain de combativité dans lequel s'inscrit ce changement de ligne ? Sans doute en revenant à l'histoire récente du « dialogue social ». / (...) / Retraites, France, Mouvement de contestation, Syndicalisme, Politique - 2023/04

With the beginning of 2025 bringing in a new American administration, the effects of the new policy regime is eliciting reactions towards the great weight of American pressure on different parts of the world. The new test on the seriousness of America First policies may be seen as a trap by some or as empty threats by others, but in either case will have a lasting effect nonetheless.

The tariff threats to Mexico and Canada show that Mexico is likely going to work with the US in sorting out common interests as migration flows from abroad are also a detriment to Mexico. The Nearshoring of many companies from China to Mexico will bring a tremendous amount of investment into Mexico. Mexico’s manufacturing base and Agro sector’s focus towards the US market has always been a benefit to Mexico. Even when considering America First policies, many manufactured goods will still be made outside of the US due to cost considerations and benefits to the US market. Security issues are best dealt with using over the border supports as linking trade and safety is essential. Challenging negative elements like gang activity or foreign involvement that harms the US by using Mexico’s close relationship with the United States will be a common focus on both sides of the border, continuously working within that framework. Despite Mexico’s Government having a left wing orientation, the focus on promoting Mexico’s economy will be a productive approach as it involves added funding for social development and poverty reduction strategies.

The issue of security at the northern border seems to be vacant in the Canadian narrative on the upcoming tariffs. Canadian leaders touring US media to improve their personal reputation does nothing but use the tariff threat and new American administration as an election tool for local power shifts in Canada. With the exception of local leaders within Canada itself, the Federal Government of Canada chose to implode itself right before its most essential negotiation in ten years by avoiding discussions of simply securing the border. There are little to no mention of the major issues on the northern border, issues that are tied to international security threats to both Canadians and the United States. The management of expectations are that tariffs are coming, no matter what the costs, with no ability to work with the US administration on these issues. The internal personal stakes of self focused political leaders will cost Canadians greatly, a historic lose-lose scenario that should have never occurred. Canada would do well to not heavily counter-tariff the US and put Canada into an economic depression, but this has already been threatened via the energy market.

The ability to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine comes at a time where little movement has taken place since 2014, minus the shores of the Black Sea towards Crimea and Ukraine’s recent movement into Russia itself. Considering the costs to both sides, and the depletion of weapons from both NATO allies and an almost completely diminished Soviet stockpile, preserving stable countries in the region might benefit all sides with the rise of terror attacks within Russia and Europe itself. At this point, the losses on both sides for so little gain may allow for a renewed recognition that families often have relatives on both sides of the conflict. While peace may not be the key element, the need for stability in the region is better than mutual weaknesses that collapses both nations from pressures abroad. The shared history of a united front against aggressors from abroad may be able to be re-constituted if there are willing partners who can work together to challenge a common threat. In reality, the world in 2025 abound with such threats.

Addressing conflicts in the Middle East will determine much of the security issues over the next decade. Any sign of weakness in negotiations or in response to threats to US interests and those of their allies will be exploited in the most erratic of ways. These few short weeks of January has already been characterized by chaos resulting from threats from abroad mixed with weakness in basic policy approaches towards health and safety. New methods using drones and asymmetric conflict will be pervasive if there are safety gaps within Western societies and even within the Secret Service themselves, soft targets being a focus along with using new tactics to evade security screening. Weakness in policy will encourage more instability, with Russia’s southern region, China’s sphere of influence and streets in the West being key battlegrounds for tensions. Stability vs. Chaos will determine new ties between Governments, as dashes for power come when weaknesses are momentarily exposed. Normalising these failures should be something that needs to be avoided, and allies who work against this framework should be met with tariffs or other similar policy responses.

Don’t mistake bluster and cynicism for toughness and wisdom.

Why normalization without Palestinians won’t bring stability to the Middle East.

Can Trump reach real settlements in Ukraine and Gaza?

Economic pain won’t turn the tide in Ukraine.

The “Salt Typhoon” hack revealed America’s profound vulnerability.

Tags: CHIPS Act, Defense Industrial Base, Jones Act, Shipbuilding, and South Korea From CHIPS to Ships: The Next Step in the U.S.-ROK Alliance January 20, 2025 By: Thomas Byrne, and Joseph Lim Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

The Chinese Naval fleet has become the world’s largest, threatening the U.S. maritime dominance and unrestricted freedom of navigation in East Asia and the South China Sea. Although the U.S. Navy wants to build 381 ships by FY2042, public shipyards have their hands full. Delays in ship production and industrial inefficiencies have ramped up costs. Yet reforms to shore up the shipbuilding ecosystem remain insufficient. Amid this backdrop, President-elect Trump said in a post-election phone call with President Yoon that the United States seeks cooperation with South Korea, namely in the Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO).

The U.S. Naval military-industrial base needs a SHIPS Initiative with shipbuilders from close allies—namely South Korea—just as the American manufacturing base is being bolstered by South Korean firms participating in the CHIPS Act (Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors for America). In contrast, bilateral naval cooperation can be accomplished through deregulation supplemented with tax and supply-side incentives rather than through massive cash subsidies. Such constructive cooperation would have to surmount political hurdles in the United States. Still, industrial collaboration would avoid adding to unsustainable federal budgetary spending on subsidies—already interest payments on government debt exceed defense expenditures.

How South Korean Companies Can Help

South Korea can make world-class ships for the U.S. Navy. The Norway, Philippines, and Peru navies have relied on South Korea to manufacture their next-generation naval vessels. South Korean shipyards have already collaborated with the U.S. Navy to overhaul support ships and with U.S. private shipyards to design state-of-the-art U.S. commercial vessels. They have used high-tech production processes to churn out high-quality vessels on time without cost overruns. This is exactly the capability the U.S. Navy needs, and Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro was blown away on his visits to South Korean shipyards.

South Korean firms’ capabilities in localizing production and transferring technology will improve U.S. shipyard productivity and create new local jobs. Paula Zorensky, vice president of the Shipbuilders Council of America, said that American shipyards “are willing to work with our fellow Korean shipbuilders and allied shipyards to improve our processes and increase efficiencies.” HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, the University of Michigan, and Seoul National University signed a memorandum of understanding in July 2024 to establish a shipbuilding design and engineering exchange program to train the U.S. workforce. 

Getting Around the Jones Act

The U.S. Navy is prohibited from outsourcing the construction of naval vessels to foreign shipyards under 10 USC 7309 and 10 USC 8679 (the Byrnes-Tollefson Amendment). The laws allow the president to issue a waiver to lift such prohibitions if he determines it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so. So conceivably, President Trump could issue a waiver, and Congress could amend such laws to allow the construction of naval vessels in shipyards in countries like South Korea, with which the United States has a mutual defense treaty.

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, known as the Jones Act, requires all shipping between U.S. ports to be conducted by U.S.-built, owned, and crewed ships. The Military Cargo Preference Act extends this requirement to military cargo destined for foreign ports. These laws have the effect of jacking up the price of shipping between the American mainland, U.S. territories, and foreign ports by forcing the U.S. military to rely on a small number of Jones Act-compliant carriers to move cargo. However, repealing these acts will be politically difficult, as such action would expose American shipbuilders to superior foreign competition. 

Proposing a work-around, Senator Todd Young (R-IN), Rep. Trent Kelly (R-MS), Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) introduced the bipartisan and bicameral “Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security for America Act of 2024” (SHIPS Act) in December. The draft of the bill opens opportunities for South Korean firms. Vessels constructed in foreign shipyards can be incorporated into the U.S. strategic merchant fleet as “interim vessels” through 2029. Deregulation would free U.S. and South Korean firms to develop economies of scale and deliver ship orders on time.

Finally, the Trump administration could approve South Korean firms’ acquisitions of U.S. shipyards. In what Secretary Del Toro lauded as a “game-changing milestone in [the U.S.] new Maritime Statecraft,” Hanwha Group agreed in June 2024 to acquire Philly Shipyard from its Norwegian parent company, Aker ASA, for $100 million. The acquisition received approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) in September and was completed in December 2024. 

From CHIPS to SHIPS 

Former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Mac Thornberry noted the U.S. needs geographic diversity in its defense suppliers to provide better competition and sources of innovation. The advancement of U.S. security and prosperity will be far cheaper and more effective if Washington can tap into synergies with its global network of allies and partners.

However, long-term economic and geostrategic interests do not always prevail over domestic political considerations. The most recent example is that the Biden administration rejected Nippon Steel’s purchase of U.S. Steel on January 3, citing national security concerns despite no clear and direct defense rationale.

The South Korea-U.S. business relationship has blossomed into a vibrant two-way investment partnership spanning joint ventures on COVID-19 vaccines and electric vehicle batteries. Trusted and competitive foreign shipbuilders, such as those in South Korea, have also demonstrated their global comparative advantage. It’s time for the U.S. to more deeply tap into its capabilities and move into a new, robust military-industrial cooperation paradigm.

Thomas Byrne is the President and CEO of the Korea Society. Previously, he was the Asia-Pacific Regional Sovereign Risk Manager for Moody’s Investors Service. 

Joseph Lim is a graduate student at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.

Image: Panwasin Seemala / Shutterstock.com. 

Related Articles

• Security

Capt. John Angel Chu, the Last Flying Tiger, Passes Away at 102

On January 13, The National Interest published my story of the passing of Col. Perry Dahl (USAF, ret.), who had been one of the last living World War II fighter aces; Dahl had passed away…

• Christian D. Orr

• Security

The F-111 Aardvark: This Resilient Plane is Properly Named

While most American military aircraft are given names that connote athleticism, virility, hostility, or prowess (i.e., Lighting, Raptor, Poseidon, Thunderchief, Mustang, Apache, Talon, and Sabre), others are simply given the…

• Harrison Kass

• Security

Yoon’s Failed Coup Already Has Serious Implications for South Korea’s Security Partnerships

President Yoon Suk-yeol’s shocking coup attempt through martial law has triggered an unprecedented and historic political crisis in South Korea. For this, Yoon and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo were impeached,…

• Francis Shin

The post From CHIPS to Ships: The Next Step in the U.S.-ROK Alliance appeared first on The National Interest.

An unpredictable president could surprise Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Eight years shaped by surprising continuity—and four more to come.

A conversation with Marc Lynch.

A new economic era calls for new metrics—and new solutions.

To stay ahead of China, Trump must build on Biden's work.

Disruption and demands for loyalty would undermine national security.

He has pledged to take immediate action on issues from border security to trade.

It is unclear whether Israel’s delay is because of internal dissent within Netanyahu’s ruling coalition as his top far-right allies threaten to leave the bloc.