The Last Frontier – How South Korea’s New President and the Peace Movement Might Make the Withdrawal of US Troops Possible

It was an evening full of symbolism. Blue balloons, glowing candles, the murmur of a crowd celebrating not just a politician, but a vision: Lee Jae-myung, candidate of the Democratic Party, stands for more than just a change in government. He represents the promise of a policy of détente in a region that has stood in the shadow of an unfinished war for decades. The snap election in South Korea, triggered by the dramatic impeachment of ultra-conservative President Yoon Seok-yeol for an attempted coup, has brought the country to a historic crossroads. And with Lee, the peace process might not only begin anew – it might, for the first time, be meant seriously.

South Korea has long served as the outpost of an American foreign policy concerned less with regional sovereignty than with global dominance. 28,500 US soldiers are stationed across 15 military bases in the country. Camp Humphreys, the largest US base outside the United States, was almost entirely funded by Seoul – 90 percent of the construction costs, totaling over 10 billion dollars, came from South Korean funds. And yet Washington demands hundreds of millions annually for maintenance, even as a new geopolitical cold front between China, Russia, and the West solidifies. Yoon had perfected this posture: arms deliveries to Ukraine, joint drills with the US and Japan, the deliberate dismantling of any rapprochement with North Korea. The result was a cascade of escalations: missile tests, constitutional changes in Pyongyang, and a climate of hostility that left no air to breathe.

Lee Jae-myung offers a different tone. Dialogue instead of provocation. A policy that protects not only its own territory but upholds the dignity of people – on both sides of the demilitarized zone. But it will not be easy. Donald Trump, back in the White House, has expressed interest in new talks with Kim Jong-un – just as he did in 2018, when the historic Singapore summit produced tangible results: repatriation of fallen US soldiers, release of American prisoners, a moratorium on missile tests. But the same administration that opened doors then slammed them shut in Hanoi – led by the very hardliners who still occupy positions of influence in both parties and equate détente with weakness. The narrative of “constant threat” is powerful. It justifies military exercises marketed as “routine drills” but are, in reality, the opposite of de-escalation. Nuclear-capable bombers, aircraft carriers, simulated decapitation strikes against the North Korean regime – all under the guise of readiness. For Pyongyang, these exercises are war threats. For many South Koreans, they are the expression of a foreign-controlled security discourse that has little to do with peace and much with power projection.

And yet there is already a strong, organized peace movement – both in Korea and the US. Organizations like Women Cross DMZ, Nodutdol, and numerous grassroots initiatives are calling concretely for: an end to the drills, a reduction in troop levels, a peace treaty. Seventy percent of Americans, according to a Harris Poll, support a new meeting between Trump and Kim. The political atmosphere is not only tense – it is charged with expectation. And with possibility.

A new logic is emerging economically as well: according to US military base expert David Vine, US bases in South Korea cost up to 5.3 billion dollars annually. Funds that could instead be invested in education, healthcare, or public housing. A partial withdrawal – Vine says – would be an “act of seriousness” in a peace process that requires more than gestures: it needs structural change. But it is about more than numbers. It is about justice. About the recognition of harms never redressed. Korean women who were interned in so-called “monkey houses” – state-run facilities where, under US pressure, forced medical treatments for sexually transmitted diseases were carried out to “protect” US soldiers. These places still exist. And they stand for a history that was never allowed to be told – and is now finally being brought into the open.

Lee could be the president who makes that reckoning possible. Who not only negotiates with Kim, but with the past. Who opens new communication channels without becoming a pawn of Beijing or Washington. Who replaces the military logic of deterrence with a culture of coexistence. But he will need not only courage – he will need international support, especially from the US itself. Because one thing is certain: without political pressure from American civil society, there will be no lasting peace. The window is open – but it will not stay open for long. What matters now is not the next big summit or the next dramatic headline, but the building of a sustainable peace architecture, carried by people – not by military strategists. The Korean War cost four million lives, destroyed cities, and tore families apart. It was never ended, only frozen.

Maybe it is time to finally end it. Not through weapons – but through words. Not through threats – but through trust. And maybe, just maybe, Lee Jae-myung could be the first president to transform the last unresolved conflict of the Cold War into the first true peace treaty of the 21st century.