Responsible for being a plant minister, tweeting was fired...

Esper insulted and kicked out


Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper was the most prominent three-dimensional character in the Trump administration.

Early in his presidency, he was the man who worked harder than anyone to match the code to President Trump.

Most of the high-ranking military generals are inexperienced in flattering President Trump, but Esper, who has also worked as a lobbyist for a defense company, frequently relays reckless praise to Trump's satisfaction in public speeches.

It seemed too natural to classify him as Trump's loyalist, but at the time, Politico even scolded Esper for serving as a minister like a bystander.



But Esper publicly protested against former President Trump in the process of suppressing the protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd.

He rebelled against former President Trump, who wanted to invoke the Riots Act to force combat troops into Washington, D.C. and push the protesters out.

He said, "I do not agree with the Riot Suppression Act," and held a press conference as determinedly as a person who had been appointed.

When the protests were intense at the time, protesters were dispersed with tear gas and former President Trump went to the church in front of the White House to take a photo, then followed with Chairman Milley of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was heavily criticized for politicizing the military in the military community.

As if to assert his innocence, he directly refuted the will of the person in charge of appointment and lay down, saying, 'I will not be enlisting in the military'.

Trump wanted to strike Esper on the head right away, but he left it there for fear that it might negatively affect the election.

Trump did not hesitate to insult Esper by calling him 'Yesper'.

As a de facto plant minister, Esper was on a business trip abroad, and immediately after the election, he went through Trump's 'disrespectful dismissal process', when he was notified of his dismissal via a tweet.


Memoir 'Sacred Oath' that came out after a litigation with the Ministry of National Defense

Enlarging an image


In an interview with a military magazine shortly before he left office, he described himself as a minister who resisted Trump in his cabinet.

He looked at the article and thought it was too late to say this, but after his retirement he disappeared from his memory.

But recently, his memoir, 'The Sacred Oath', was reported extensively by the American media.

Esper said that immediately after his resignation, he completed the manuscript after about half a year, and that he spent a very long time in the Department of Defense pre-examination of publications.

In the process, the Department of Defense determined that as many as 50 pages of Esper's book were classified as state secrets.

Former Secretary Esper sued the ministry he worked for.

Esper countered that the comments in the book were not state secrets and that freedom of expression should be given priority.

Former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton was the first to fight such a lawsuit.

In America, where freedom of expression is a priority, Bolton has also published his memoirs as he pleases.

Former Secretary of State Esper succeeded in publishing the book by compromising with the Pentagon, which has drastically reduced requests for deletion.

However, he drew a black line out of the Department of Defense's request for deletion so readers could guess what it was.

(If you look at the context in relation to Korea, you can see that the content requested by the Korean government to the United States has been deleted.)



In this book, you can see just how many countries the United States has in mind when planning its military strategy for the world.

Among them, there are surprisingly many contents related to Korea.

In particular, there were a lot of content related to USFK, so it was structured so that the story surrounding the Korean Peninsula in the Trump era could be replayed.

I think the US military strategy serves as a great reference book for foreign affairs and security in itself, as there are many more things that are not discarded due to a change of government.

The description of the situation was more vivid than Bolton's memoir, which was written rather dryly, and there were many parts to refer to.



After the book was announced, the American media also did a lot of interviews with Esper, but unfortunately, the reporters did not ask questions about Korea, so Esper did not have a chance to talk about Korea.

Because of this, I contacted Esper for an interview, and he was willing to do an interview with the Korean media as well.

During the interview, I asked a lot of questions on quite a variety of subjects, and he did not use vague language.

To the best of his knowledge, he was specific and direct.

He reproduced the main points of the interview with him in question-and-answer format.


"It is important to expand the nuclear umbrella in Korea"...

"Disappointed that there is no explicit mention of China"

Enlarging an image


Q. How do you rate President Biden's visits to Korea and Japan?



[Esper/Former US Secretary of Defense: I think this tour is very important.

I wanted Biden to tour quickly within six months or a year after taking office.

Because the Indo-Pacific region is the most challenging, and China is America's strategic adversary.

First of all, this tour seems to have gone well.]



Q. You have decided to expand the Korea-US joint exercise.

Do you think this action is reasonable?

What message do you think was sent to North Korea?



[Esper / Former U.S. Defense Secretary: I read the ROK-U.S. Joint Declaration.

I thought it was a positive statement.

Many things were mentioned, including the scope of military exercises and the resumption of high-level dialogue with the United States.

Important things are mentioned.

The planting site in Taiwan was also important.

However, it was disappointing that the ROK and the US did not explicitly mention China, which is both a challenge and a threat.]



Q. The ROK and the US included an extension deterrent clause in this joint declaration.

What do you think about this?



[Esper/Former US Secretary of Defense: It is important to expand the nuclear umbrella for South Korea while pursuing denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.

I don't think the Trump administration makes any difference in this policy either.

I think it is an extension of the policy of the US government.

This re-emphasis is important so that Kim Jong-un will understand that the United States will support its allies given the circumstances.]



Q. You argued in the book that Korea should join Quad.

Why?

A decision has not been made during this tour, but do you think there is a possibility that Korea will join Quad in the future?



[Esper/Former US Defense Secretary: I think Korea should keep pushing to join the quad like that.

America must welcome it.

Korea is a country with military capabilities.

The economy ranks 12th.

It is a technologically advanced society and a developed democracy.

For all these reasons, Korea has become a developing country in the Indo-Pacific region.

All this talk is that Korea should join Quad, and I think that's important.]


"Biden's defense of Taiwan is important in itself"...

"Taiwan should join the WHO as well as the IPEF"


Q. President Biden answered yes to whether US troops would be deployed when China attacked Taiwan.

If China attacks Taiwan, will US troops join the war?



[Esper/Former US Secretary of Defense: This is the third time President Biden spoke yesterday.

He said the US would defend Taiwan militarily.

We don't know exactly what that means.

It depends on the situation.

Whether it is providing war supplies, long-range missiles, or sending troops, everything depends on the situation.

It's hard to say anything very specific in the current situation.

But President Biden's bold statement is that the United States will defend Taiwan.

That's important in Biden's remarks.]



Q. But Taiwan fell out of the IPEF.

Shouldn't Taiwan have been there too?



[Esper/Former US Defense Secretary: I think Taiwan should be involved in other activities of the UN as well as IPEF.

Even now, there is no reason why Taiwan should not be a member of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the midst of a global pandemic.

It is important for Taiwan to join international and regional organizations.]


"If Trump succeeds in re-election, there is a possibility that US troops will be withdrawn from Korea"

Enlarging an image


Q. In the memoir, there is a passage that President Trump continued to demand the withdrawal of US forces from Korea, saying that Koreans are terrible at negotiating.

Can you explain in more detail how this story came to be?



[Esper/Former US Secretary of Defense: The president was skeptical of many of his allies.

He was especially so when he was in the process of deploying troops abroad, such as Europe or Asia.

As for South Korea, Trump said South Korea is not paying its fair share, which is unfair.

America provides security, they sell us TV.

The trade imbalance was the reason why we considered withdrawing troops from the Korean Peninsula.]



Q. There is also a passage that Secretary Pompeo said that the withdrawal of US troops from Korea should be a top priority for the second Trump administration.

If President Trump is re-elected, do you think he will actually push the withdrawal of US troops from Korea as a top priority?



[Esper/Former US Defense Secretary: First of all, I don't think that Secretary Pompeo believed and said that Trump should make the withdrawal of US troops from Korea a top priority in the second term.

He was trying to get the president to get away from that thinking and focus on something else.

He helped divert Trump's attention.

As for your question of what the future holds, during his tenure, Trump has repeatedly addressed the issue of unfair defense cost-sharing of US troops deployed abroad, including Europe and Asia.

So, I believe that if he succeeds in re-election, there is a possibility that he will actually push for the withdrawal of US forces from Korea unless the ROK is more active in the defense cost-sharing negotiations.

That's how he sees the situation, and for him, USFK presence is very transactional.]


"USFK is also important for the US and other allies"...

"The share of defense cost should be paid 50/50"


Q. However, USFK is a strategic interest of the US.

In particular, the presence of US forces in Korea is essential to contain China.

Do you think withdrawal is possible in this situation?



[Esper/Former US Defense Secretary: The existence of USFK is important.

It is important not only for South Korea, but also for the United States and other allies in the region.

Because USFK prevents regional conflicts and allows them to retain their capabilities.

So it is very important to America.

Withdrawing USFK from the Korean Peninsula would harm regional stability, and for that reason I was against it.

But on the other hand, I have publicly pointed this out.

What President Trump was right about is that South Korea is the 12th largest economy in the world.

So Korea can bear more burden.

By my calculations, South Korea pays about 1/3 of the cost of stationing US forces in Korea.

But those costs don't come from the US or the US Treasury.

That goes back to the Korean economy.

From the perspective of not only Korea but also the whole world, the share of defense cost should be shared equally at least 50/50.

From there we can talk.

From my point of view, the presence of the US military is very important not only for local security but also for regional security and security of the United States.]



Q. Regarding the defense cost-sharing that South Korea has to bear, President Trump said that it is up to $5 billion a year, a 400% increase from the previous one. amount was presented.

What was the rationale for this suggestion?



[Esper/Former US Secretary of Defense: I do not know.

I think it came from the White House.

I also thought that was a very surprising figure.

I've seen that the Korean government pays less than $1 billion a year, which is about 35% of the cost of stationing US forces in Korea.

But South Korea had to pay more than $1 billion.

The 50/50 ratio must be borne by both countries.

However, the Moon Jae-in government did not take much interest in it.

I thought it was unreasonable.]



Q. The South Korean government reached an agreement on a 13.9% increase in defense cost sharing in the first year after the Biden administration took office.

Do you think we need to raise it further from this amount?



[Esper/Former US Secretary of Defense: A 13.9% increase from 1/3 of the burden is honestly not that much.

It sounds like you're paying a lot for a year, but it's not.

I'm talking 50/50 of the share.

To put it another way, let's say that the total cost of stationing and supporting USFK is $2 billion.

It's not an exact number, it's just an example.

Then, the starting point is to pay 1 billion dollars in Korea.

Most of the money goes back to the Korean economy.

It is the wages of Korean workers working in logistics, electricity, water, and US bases.

It's not about going back to America.

Look at the whole thing from a distance, not the amount raised now.

This is not just for Korea, but for allies around the world with other partners.

Major economies like Korea, Japan and Germany should start paying half equally.

But it is different if the US military is stationed in a third world, such as Africa or Latin America.]


Esper jumped at the question of whether the US military was a mercenary...

"Standing to stop the bad things Trump is doing"

Enlarging an image


Q. I also served in the USFK as a KATUSA Soldier.

But the appearance of the US military so obsessed with money is very unfamiliar.

Some pointed out that the US military became a mercenary in this negotiation process.

What do you think of him?



[Esper/Former US Secretary of Defense: No.

That's completely wrong.

The United States has always been focused on allocating its budget on how to retain the United States each year.

If we go back to the Gulf War of 1990 and 1991, Saudi Arabia paid a lot of money for providing resources such as urea, food and water so that our troops could be stationed in the desert.

Cost sharing comes in many different forms.

Such as support from the host country, the sale of military weapons, or the cost of joint training.

So this is not a mercenary.

Countries around the world are facing budget constraints.

The United States has a budget deficit of $300 trillion.

Besides, we are now facing 9% inflation.]



[Esper/Former US Secretary of Defense: I think US taxpayers have a duty of good stewardship for the money they pay to the government.

We cannot pay for the defense of every nation in the world.

Countries that do this are true partners and allies.

And as partners, we must approach security equally.

Someone has to share the money fairly for the defense of others.

No one should pay unilaterally for the defense of others.

that's my point of view

This is not a mercenary at all.

As a mercenary, I will pay this much money, so please go to war and fight.

This is it.

That's not the way we work.

This is a matter of how the contribution will be divided and how the host country will support it.

That's how we do it.]



Q. Why didn't you step down until the end of your term?

Was it because he was afraid that Trump would pull out USFK?



[Esper/Former Secretary of Defense: To be precise, I did not step down, and was fired a week after the November 9 election.

This wasn't my decision.

The reason he didn't resign earlier was because so many strange ideas were coming into President Trump's head, and he was afraid that something bad was being proposed for the country.

I saw it as more important not only to stay seated and do important things, but to prevent bad things from happening.

I thought such bizarre things would undermine national security.

The withdrawal of USFK, for example, was something I was worried about, but I wasn't convinced that the president wouldn't push for a full loyalist to do it.

The Defense Minister is an important role in determining the overseas deployment of the U.S. military.

I thought it was better to stand up for America, for the Department of Defense, for our allies.]


"The deployment of THAAD is not the way we treat our partners…the biggest point of friction between Korea and the US"


Q. In order to effectively deploy THAAD, the Yun Seok-Yeol administration is attempting an environmental impact assessment.

How do you think the THAAD issue should be resolved?



[Esper / Former US Defense Secretary: I visited the THAAD installation site at the end of 2017.

The purpose of the THAAD installation is, of course, to defend South Korea and the United States.

That's an important part of what we do.

But American soldiers must be treated appropriately.

They were in a terrible situation.

They could not fully perform the mission we intended.

This is what I pressured my Korean partner for 3 years.

To be honest, I was very disappointed that we were getting support.

It was tied to local politics and everything else.

This was not the way he treated his partner.

It really was a big point of friction for the US-Korea relationship.

It wasn't just about American security.

This was also about Korean security.]



Q. The transition to wartime OPCON was a long-cherished project of the Moon Jae-in administration.

I know it's a complicated story, but do you think it's possible to transfer the entire exhibition rights?



[Esper/Former US Defense Secretary: I think there were people within the Korean government who insisted on transferring wartime OPCON earlier than prepared.

I wrote in my book that I rejected that opinion.

We must follow the terms of the transfer.

The first thing you should avoid is handing over operational control when war breaks out, or when you find yourself unprepared.

This is because it affects deterrence.

We can do it as quickly as possible, but it all depends on the conditions.]



Q. Your book clearly describes the US strategy to contain China.

Why do you say that it is impossible for Korea to take the economic policy of China and the United States for security?



[Esper/Former US Secretary of Defense: Inevitably the two are incompatible.

I talked about the problem of deploying THAAD in Seongju a while ago.

That is, both Seoul and Washington thought it was important to deploy THAAD to protect against North Korea's long-range missiles.

But China objected.

China used all its economic power to leverage it.

They blocked the tourists and I can't even remember them all, but they also cut off trade ties.

And that was the shock.

To be honest, the Seongju base should fully perform its entire function, but China used economic leverage to oppose the deployment of THAAD, making it a security issue affecting both the US and South Korea.

That's why I'm concerned about trying to become an economic partner with China.

Under such circumstances, the commitment to becoming a security partner with the United States cannot be sustained over time.

Because China will inevitably use its economic power to get what they want.

China has done it not only in Korea, but also in Australia and many other countries.

So I think other democracies need to be less economically dependent on China.]


"The GSOMIA conflict sends the wrong signal to China"...

"Trump will prefer personal diplomacy with Kim Jong-un"


Q. It is not known specifically to Korea whether the United States had such an active mediation when there was a GSOMIA conflict.

How do you think the conflict between Korea and Japan should be resolved?



[Esper/Former US Secretary of Defense: I understand the historical tragedy that occurred between the two countries.

It was terrible.

But we must move forward.

In addition to the North Korean threat, the Chinese threat is increasing.

It is the strategic change of our century.

It was very disappointing when a dispute broke out between Seoul and Tokyo over GSOMIA.

I found it unnecessary and unhelpful.

It sent the wrong signal to North Korea and China.

So I tried to find a way to go back and forth between the two countries, and luckily I did it.

It was unnecessary, and I am glad that President Yun Seok-yeol said he would move forward in a different way than his opponent, Tokyo.]



Q. The Corona situation in North Korea seems to be serious.

However, they are still refusing assistance from the US and South Korea.

What do you think their intentions are?



[Esper/Former US Defense Secretary: They have the idea of ​​'juche' (pronounced Juche, which is the Korean pronunciation of English in English) that emphasizes overcoming oneself.

They don't think they want to expose their weaknesses to their residents by getting vaccine supplies from the US or South Korea, which they consider their enemies.

It is a pity that poor North Koreans pay the price for a dictatorship in operation.

North Koreans deserve a better life.

What they have to do is look at the people of the south and think about what will happen if this government passes.]



Q. How do you think the relationship between Kim Jong-un and Trump was actually?

Do you think this relationship will continue even if Trump is re-elected?



[Esper/Former U.S. Secretary of Defense: I also did not directly witness the relationship between Kim Jong-un and Trump.

President Trump's diplomatic approach is innovative, and his human-to-human approach has broken the tradition for decades.

And it brought some stability to the uncertain Korean Peninsula.

At the end of 2017, when I took office as Minister of the Army, the Korean Peninsula was at the stage of actual war.

But President Trump's approach brought stability to North Korea's nuclear and ICBM tests.

I do not hope that will happen, but if President Trump is re-elected, he will prefer personal diplomacy to Kim Jong-un and North Korea over traditional diplomacy.]


"Trump, can't you shoot me in the leg?"...

Why Esper stayed in the ministerial office


Q. Trump ordered the protesters to open fire.

Was he planning to kill civilians?



[Esper/Former U.S. Secretary of Defense: President Trump saw the DC protests as overly violent.

It was true that law enforcement officers and the National Guard were wounded.

Some destroyed the city and set fire to it.

But I think it was just a small protest.

The protests were the result of the tragic murder of George Floyd.

But President Trump nevertheless tried to end the protests and suppress the protesters.

So he said to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Millie, 'Can't we just shoot them?

Can't we just shoot in the leg or something?'

That's what he said.

I don't think he actually intended to kill people.

He was just trying to hurt people.

Of course, it was a mean idea and it was expressed in front of us, but fortunately we succeeded in reversing the idea of ​​deploying incumbent soldiers to the US capital.]



Q. It is pointed out that the alarm should sound more aggressively when you are in office.

President Trump sometimes referred to you as 'yesper', but in Korea, at one time, he thought you were like President Trump.

Why wasn't your voice in the Trump administration not as strong as it is now?



[Esper/Former Secretary of Defense: It's very simple.

Had I spoken out then, I would have been fired immediately.

That is the prerogative of the president.

If I had been fired, I would not have been able to oppose the deployment of 250,000 troops at the border, the firing of missiles at Mexico, and the withdrawal of US troops from the Korean Peninsula on the spot.

And he wouldn't have been able to oppose the deployment of an army in the US capital.

But luckily I was there.

I could have prevented bad things from happening.

I thought of the oath I made to the Constitution.

The country should come first, not the president or the party I belong to.

It was much easier and better for me to step back, considering my own well-being.

So it goes back to being a natural person.

But I decided not to.

Because what I was doing was so important.]



[Esper/Former US Secretary of Defense: President Trump likes to call people by nicknames like that.

But the truth is, he hates people opposing or refusing to do so.

And then he calls them by nicknames.

Because Trump's pride can't stand anyone who opposes him.

He is such a person.

I thought it was better to oppose bad ideas and bizarre notions than to speak up and get fired right away.

who knows

If I had resigned, perhaps there would be only 10,000 American soldiers left on the Korean Peninsula today.

Or maybe they are at war with Iran.

I don't know.

After much deliberation, I created a matrix that does not strategically withdraw.

So the US forces did not withdraw from South Korea, NATO, and Japan.

It did not politicize the Ministry of Defense and did not abuse the military.

And there was no unnecessary war.

I found it very successful in doing so.

So we could hold a presidential election.]


Uneasy Biden approval rating, Trump seeking a comeback...

What will we prepare?

Enlarging an image


The worst approval ratings report awaited Biden, who returned from a tour of Asia.

Although Biden was an unpopular president, the image of an 'incompetent president' in the United States is being overlaid as inflation and the milk powder crisis overlap.

The midterm elections are the graveyard of the original ruling party, and if the midterm elections are held in November, the possibility of the Democratic Party losing its majority in both the House and the Senate is very high.

It means that US state affairs will revolve around the Republican Party, which will be much louder than it is now, and that President Biden could lose the power to run state affairs.

Former President Trump is arguably the most powerful next-generation presidential contender within the Republican Party.

Of course, there is still a lot of time until the 2024 presidential election, and there is a possibility that former President Trump may not actually run for office.

However, I think it is necessary to understand not only the policies of the Democratic Party, but also the trends and thoughts of former President Trump and the Republican Party during this period of subtle change.

In that regard, Esper's remarks, which he decided to reveal and reveal the secrets he saw and heard while serving as minister under former President Trump, are expected to serve as important reference materials for us to prepare for the future.



▶ Exposure of 'Yes Man' Esper...

What will happen if Trump is re-elected?