President-elect Donald Trump arrives to speak at a meeting of the House GOP conference in Washington, Wednesday. AP-Yonhap

Like in other countries, in Korea, a flurry of debate is underway following Donald Trump's reelection. Policymakers, business executives and think tank experts are keen to find out the winners and losers of the Trump era as the clock is ticking for his return to the White House on Jan. 20, 2025.

His aggressive campaign pledges sparked lots of soul-searching as a drastic policy shift in the U.S. looms large.

With his signature "Make America Great Again" slogan, he is poised to push around allies to carry more burdens and spend more to defend themselves rather than expecting that the U.S. would protect them.

Trump's reelection has also kept the private sector entities busy. They are wary of the consequences of the trade policy shift. Trump vowed to impose 10 percent universal baseline tariffs on all imported goods, while imports from China will suffer from 60 percent or higher blanket tariffs.

It remains uncertain whether Trump will implement those aggressive measures as he promised during the campaign trail. Some observers say those campaign pledges may be his bargaining chips designed to gain concessions from foreign exporters, rather than a viable policy vision. But if he were to act on his words, Trump's second term will become the epicenter of global economic chaos.

Is South Korea prepared to brace for the shocks soon to be triggered by Trump 2.0? How should it respond to the shift? The Korea Times on Tuesday invited three experts to preview Trump's second term and address how South Korea should prepare for it. The three experts invited to the roundtable interview are Cho Byung-jae, the former chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy and author of the book, "Trump's Return"; Lee Hyo-young, a professor at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security; and retired Army Gen. Chun In-bum who served as commander of the Special Forces Korea.

Cho said media coverage of defense-cost sharing is exaggerated and it is not a huge bilateral issue as it was reported, adding South Koreans' overreaction to the issue is the result of media hype. He said the more important issue the nation should watch carefully is Trump's redefinition of the role of the U.S. in his second term. He said Trump's message is clear. He is telling the world that the U.S. is not going to do the world's police role any more, and therefore, nations should find a way to protect themselves, instead of relying on the U.S.

Chun said South Korea would have no choice but to accept if the Trump administration proposes renegotiating the defense-cost sharing agreement. Given the crucial role of the alliance, he said South Korea must be ready to contribute more to the cost-sharing effort. However, it could address related issues, such as the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods, and propose offering in-kind contributions, like South Korean military equipment, to the U.S. military.

Chun said the proposed "give and take" strategy may work out well as Trump is a talented businessman great at negotiating and making deals if conditions are met.

Meanwhile, Lee called for a calm reaction to the prospect of a U.S. trade policy shift. She said that she felt fears of Trump's return to the White House have been exaggerated. She said that Trump's trade pledges are too radical to be implemented, and, therefore, experts are divided with regard to the potential effectiveness of Trump's "America First" measures for the U.S. economy.

Instead of panicking, she advised that South Korea should wait and see if these measures are actually adopted, and if so, to what extent, much like the Trump administration's trade policies.

Following are the views of the three experts shared at The Korea Times Roundtable, titled "What Will Trump 2.0 Mean for South Korea?," which was held on Tuesday at the meeting room of The Korea Times in Seoul. Korea Times chief editorial writer Shim Jae-yun moderated the event.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Cho Byung-jae, a retired career diplomat having served as former chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy and author of the book, "Trump's Return," speaks during the Korea Times roundtable, "What Will Trump 2.0 Mean for South Korea?, held on Tuesday at the meeting room of the newspaper in Seoul. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

Q: Will Trump meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un again for a summit in his second term? If he does, how will the Trump-Kim meeting turn out and how will it impact South Korea?

Cho Byung-jae: I think Trump will certainly meet Kim again in his second term. It will be a matter of time and the only thing we don't know yet is when it will happen. My view about the Trump-Kim summit is based on my years of observation of related news articles. First and foremost, Trump hinted that he is open-minded toward dialogue with North Korea. Second, the U.S. president-elect commented positively about Kim. In 2017, for example, Trump praised Kim, saying, “At a very young age, he was able to assume power … So, obviously, he's a smart cookie.” Third, I found out that Trump's view of North Korea's nuclear program is quite different from what South Korea and the U.S. have maintained during the past decades. During his campaign rally in July, he said, “It's nice to get along when somebody has a lot of nuclear weapons or otherwise.” Trump rarely used expressions like “dismantling of North Korea's nuclear program.” I took this as a signal that Trump has a flexible view about the nuclear issue.

How will the possible Trump-Kim meeting, if it happens, impact South Korea? I think it's not a fancy situation for South Korea and the summit will damage South Korea's image. This is because if Trump and Kim were to meet, they would discuss issues like nuclear weapons and the security of the Korean Peninsula. If South Korea is sidelined without being invited to such a critical talk, the South will find it difficult to digest.

Chun In-bum: I think it's important to understand why Trump was elected president. It wasn't about cost-sharing. It wasn't about North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles. He was elected because of economic and border issues the U.S. faces.

I don't believe having a summit with Kim Jong-un will be the top priority of the Trump administration.

Besides that, I also believe that Kim Jong-un is not too keen on having a summit with Trump in the first place, either. Kim wants to be recognized as a nuclear weapon state and he wants sanctions to be lifted. Unless Kim has these preconditions, he has no reason to meet with Mr. Trump, except maybe for a photo. I don't see any summit coming soon.

Retired Gen. Chun In-bum who served as commander of the Special Forces Korea, speaks at the roundtable. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

Q: Speculations are abounding about the U.S. election outcome and its impact on the war in Ukraine. Will Russia and Ukraine be able to sign a ceasefire deal anytime soon? And what are the implications of the war on Russia-North Korea relations?

Chun: Now, the war between Ukraine and Russia, it could last for another decade. People are all tired. I think everybody wants to stop the fighting. It's just a matter of how they are going to do that. After the U.S. election, there are many speculations about what that deal will be like. But whatever the deal is, it's not going to happen soon. It's going to happen in several months. Probably next summer because that is the point where Russian President Vladimir Putin has to mobilize a considerable number of troops. But he doesn't want to do that. It will be a good opportunity for Putin to take this election outcome as an excuse to make a deal. Same for the Ukrainian leader. I think if this occurs, we might see a ceasefire and some sort of perpetual armistice like the one we have in Korea.

A message to the Korean people is to never rely on others for your defense. Because Ukraine relied on NATO and the U.S. for their defense, and they are now in a sad situation. This is the biggest lesson we can learn from the war in Ukraine.

Cho: During the presidential election, Trump said if elected, he would end the war in Ukraine immediately. Given his remarks, it seems to be obvious that the war in Ukraine will be one of the top priorities for the U.S. if he takes office in January 2025.

Does this indicate that the war will end anytime soon? I am skeptical about that. Trump will speak with Putin about a ceasefire deal and negotiations may drag on if the two sides fail to narrow their differences. The ceasefire deal, if clinched, will certainly impact Russia-North Korea relations. But it won't affect greatly Russia-North Korea relations because they signed a new treaty and the structure of their cooperation is in place. So I think their relations will stand even after the war in Ukraine.

Lee Hyo-young, a professor at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, answers questions about the Trump administration's trade policy and its impact on Korean exporters at the roundtable. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

Q: Trump vowed to impose 10 percent universal baseline tariffs on all imported foreign goods and 60 percent or higher blanket tariffs on imports from China. How should South Korean companies prepare for Trump 2.0?

Lee Hyo-young: Trump said he would introduce 60 percent or higher tariffs on imported Chinese goods, and he even vowed to revoke China's most-favored nation (MFN) status. (Editor's note: MFN requires a country providing a trade concession to its trading partner to extend the same treatment to all.) Trump also mentioned the possibility of revoking Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) from China, a radical measure that, if implemented, would essentially mean the U.S. severing normal trade ties with China. I wonder if such extreme measures would be feasible or if they would even benefit the U.S. economy.

We should closely monitor whether the U.S. president-elect will follow through on the commitments made during the campaign and introduce those measures once he is sworn in as president in January. From my perspective, revoking China's MFN status could serve as Trump's bargaining chip to pressure Beijing into negotiating and complying with U.S. demands to address the trade deficit issue.

We will see if Trump is serious about the measure when and if he unveils a lineup of key post holders in charge of trade and economic affairs, like a secretary of commerce or the United States Trade Representative.

I don't know what Trump has in his mind about the end state of China. Does he ultimately want China to transition into a free economy? Or does he simply want to fix the U.S. trade deficits with China by introducing a set of hardline measures designed for decoupling from China?

Regarding Trump's proposal of 10 percent of universal baseline tariffs, this is not a discriminatory measure specifically targeting South Korean companies, because such tariffs will be imposed on all imported goods from foreign countries. However, if introduced, those tariffs will raise the prices of imported goods, and this, in turn, will negatively affect the global economy.

How should South Korean companies prepare for the export barriers? I think South Korea should keep asking the Trump administration to give Korean companies a favorable status, such as exemptions or suspensions. Considering the South's investments in the U.S., South Korean companies have made significant investments in building manufacturing facilities during the Biden administration. This could potentially be leveraged to put pressure on the Trump administration to allow exceptions.

Q: Please tell us how Trump will handle the Taiwan issue. Will the U.S. Forces in Korea be redeployed in the event of China's invasion of Taiwan?

Cho: We must understand who Trump is. I think he is not an ideologically-oriented person. He is a pragmatist. He is a businessman-turned-politician, and he is willing to make a deal once conditions are met. Since 2016, he has told his supporters that he would end wars that were underway overseas. What he said during the recent campaign trail or in his first term made me think that he will be the last person to wage a war against other countries. If he does, it would be a trade war, not a ground war. He would prioritize economy, science and technology over military confrontations with other countries. He puts pressure on China probably because he wants to secure jobs for Americans and help the U.S. build manufacturing infrastructure rather than going to war with China.

I think the same holds true for Taiwan. Trump has maintained strategic ambiguity about the Taiwan issue.

What can South Korea do about Taiwan in the event of a contingency there? I think we don't need to overreact to the Taiwan issue, and instead, we should carefully watch how it develops without making hasty predictions about the prospects of a war between China and Taiwan.

Chun: I think it's time to address a very important issue. Why are the U.S. troops based in South Korea? Are they here to defend South Korea? Or are they here to achieve the American policy priority, which is termed strategic flexibility? We've never come to an agreement about this.

My personal view is that the U.S. Forces Korea and their primary mission is the defense and stability of South Korea. But at the same time, their secondary priority is the pursuit of American national interests in the Asia Pacific. So, if the U.S. decides that they must redeploy some forces on the Korean Peninsula to address issues between China and Taiwan, or even some other issues in Africa or Europe, it is the U.S.' sovereign right to do so.

So, we are now at a crossroads where we must recognize and agree which one it is. It's not an easy question to address but we must do it. If we acknowledge that the U.S. Forces Korea have these two missions, then the U.S. is not going to pull out everyone here. They are going to, at least, maintain forces to conduct the initial mission of maintaining the stability of the Korean Peninsula and other missions like the China-Taiwan standoff. When we think of that, then the role of Korean troops can be expected. What are we to do in order to maintain some capabilities of American forces here? Should we send our capabilities to the Pacific? Maybe yes. Maybe no. But I think that's where we should start on this question.

Q: Defense-cost sharing has emerged as an issue after Trump won the election. Please tell us how South Korea should react if the Trump administration were to demand renegotiation of the defense-cost sharing. Inside South Korea, calls are growing that the nation should have nuclear weapons to defend itself.

Chun: We should acknowledge that the U.S. Forces Korea are priceless. So, we should embrace the fact that we need to increase cost-sharing when asked to do so. Then the issue is how we are going to finance it. We don't have to give money. How about we build warships for the U.S. Another option can be exporting K-9 self-propelled artillery pieces. We have been trying to export K-9s to the U.S. Army but have been unable to do that. We also have other weapons systems perfect for the alliance. We can give $5 billion worth of Korean weapons. I think there is lots of room for negotiations.

I also think that with an increase in defense-cost sharing, we should negotiate our atomic agreement so that we would be allowed to reprocess spent fuel.

Cho: Defense-cost sharing has surfaced all of a sudden as if it is the biggest bilateral issue with the U.S. This is not true. We should understand what message Trump is trying to deliver with his remarks about defense-cost sharing and burden-sharing. His message is clear. He is saying that the U.S. under Trump will not pursue the world police-like role as it has done in the past. He is demanding that NATO should carry the burden of regional security on its own without relying on the U.S. The president-elect also puts pressure on European countries to increase their defense budget up to 3 percent of their GDP. His message to Asia is the same.

Q: Please share your concluding remarks.

Lee: Trump's envisioned trade policy is very aggressive. Despite this, we should wait and see how his second term will turn out, instead of making premature predictions about his forthcoming presidency. Fearmongering doesn't help our nation. And we don't have to be worried too much about his second term because we don't know yet whether his campaign pledges will be implemented or not.

Cho: I agree. We don't need to be overwhelmed by his rhetoric. We should carefully watch his actions.

Chun: President-elect Trump is a businessman-turned-politician, and a strong America is in South Korea's best interests. South Korea needs to align its interests with the U.S., particularly in collaboration with Japan.

From left, Retired General Chun In-bum, Cho Byung-jae, the former chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy, Lee Hyo-young, a professor at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, and Korea Times chief editorial writer Shim Jae-yun pose before they attend the Korea Times roundtable about the U.S. presidential election outcome and its impact on Korea held on Tuesday at the newspaper's meeting room in Seoul. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul