Donald Trump, the flamboyant Republican front-runner for the 2016 U.S. presidential election, reaffirmed his claim that the America’s allies are not shouldering what he viewed as a “fair share” of the costs for U.S. military support.

The prominent candidate’s remarks raised speculation in South Korea about the possible changes that the new U.S. administration may bring after November’s elections.

Democrat Hilary Clinton and Trump appear all but certain to clinch their spots as candidates for the upcoming votes. And local observers have begun to wonder if the election of the new leader will prompt any shifts in the South Korea-U.S. alliance.

At the center of such concern is Trump, who has voiced opposition against the U.S. retaining troops in wealthy countries like South Korea and Japan, and even suggested nuclear armament of the said countries to counter threats like that from North Korea.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un recently ordered his engineers to conduct a nuclear weapons test, touching off speculation that the communist country may carry it out ahead of the May 6 ruling party congress.

Trump on Wednesday said that cost-sharing with the allies was one of the main weaknesses in U.S. foreign policy and that he could pursue U.S. troops’ withdrawal upon being elected unless Seoul agrees to pay more.

“Our allies must contribute toward their financial, political, and human costs, have to do it, of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply not doing so,” he said, although he refrained from specifically mentioning South Korea as before.

He denounced U.S. President Barack Obama for watching “helplessly” as Pyongyang expanded its nuclear programs.

The Republican hopeful’s foreign policy ideas have been controversial, even after the real estate tycoon named several of his foreign policy advisers last month.

He has both on Wednesday and in the past indicated reducing U.S. commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Trump had told the U.S. media that he did not want the U.S. to decrease its role, but decrease spending in NATO.

His team of advisers include counter-terrorism expert Walid Phares, energy consultant George Papadopoulos, and former Defense Department inspector general Joe Schmitz and is led by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions. The senator is well known for his tough stance on immigration, as is Trump.
According to evaluation by the U.S. media, none of the revealed advisers are leading figures in the Republican foreign policy establishment, many of whom publicly opposed Trump.

It is a different story for Clinton, a former secretary of state. Jake Sullivan, who is thought to have in-depth knowledge about peninsular matters, resumed his role as her top adviser, a position which he held while Clinton worked at the State Department.

Clinton’s sizeable team of advisers also include Derek Chollet, a former assistant defense secretary for international security, along with Wendy Sherman and Daniel Benjamin, both of whom worked alongside Clinton at the State Department.

After having served as the highest-rank member of the Obama administration, Clinton’s policy toward the North and Seoul-Washington alliance is not expected to differ greatly from that of the current administration. While she has yet to formally announce policies concerning the alliance and the Korean Peninsula, she stressed that the U.S. should defend its allies against the North after Pyongyang’s Jan. 6 nuclear test.

Mark Landler of New York Times assessed that Clinton has displayed “instincts on foreign policy that are more aggressive than those of President Obama and most Democrats,” describing her as a hawk who believes in the importance of American intervention.

In spite of their differing views, both candidates have stressed the importance of China in resolving the current situation with North Korea.

Trump’s brash words have had local observers concerned over a potential security gap on the peninsula.

“It is clear that Trump will pressure Seoul to shoulder more of U.S. Forces Korea’s costs, or they will withdraw. … I believe it is time to consider whether the U.S.’s nuclear umbrella protection will be more beneficial to South Korea’s national interest than actual nuclear armament,” said Cheong Seong-chang, a senior research fellow at the local think tank at Sejong Institute.

But South Korea’s Defense Ministry said that the U.S. already knows that Seoul is financially contributing a “considerable mount” to retaining the U.S. forces here.

Earlier in the month, Gen. Vincent Brooks, the commander-nominee for the U.S. Forces Korea, trumped Trump’s suggestion of possibly pulling the troops out of the peninsula. He said keeping the U.S. troops in Korea would cost less than sustaining the forces in the U.S.

By Yoon Min-sik (minsikyoon@heraldcorp.com)