[Lee Byung-jong] President Lee's pragmatic diplomacy

Korea Herald

6 hours ago

Less than two weeks into office, President Lee Jae Myung is already busy shaping a new course for South Korea's foreign policy — one he describes as 'pragmatic diplomacy.'
His packed diplomatic calendar signals both urgency and ambition. Earlier this week, he attended the G7 summit in Canada at the invitation of the host, marking South Korea's return to global diplomacy after six months of absence during the country's turbulent leadership transition.
Later this month, he is scheduled to travel to the Netherlands to participate in the NATO summit as a representative of the alliance's Indo-Pacific partners. Despite criticism over the rushed pace and pending domestic challenges, Lee is determined to reestablish South Korea as a central player on the global stage. 'Democratic Korea is back,' declared national security adviser Wi Sung-lac.
Still, many are asking: What does 'pragmatic diplomacy' actually mean in practice?
Lee's approach marks a distinct departure from the 'values-based diplomacy' of his predecessor, Yoon Suk Yeol, who prioritized alliances with countries sharing democratic values. In contrast, Lee's strategy is rooted in flexibility and realpolitik — prioritizing economic interests and strategic outcomes over ideological alignment. In today's volatile geopolitical environment, with mounting tensions among global powers, Lee seems to be betting that ideological rigidity is a liability, not an asset.
While the full contours of Lee's diplomatic doctrine are still emerging, his initial moves offer important clues. The order of his phone calls to world leaders in his first days in office has been particularly telling. As expected, his first call was to US President Donald Trump — a nod to the enduring importance of the South Korea-US alliance, especially on issues of trade and security. The 20-minute call reaffirmed the long-standing priority Korean presidents place on their alliance with Washington.
More surprising was his second phone call — to Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru. Coming from a liberal background, Lee had been expected by some to reach out to China's Xi Jinping next, following the pattern of previous liberal leaders like President Moon Jae-in. Lee has, in the past, been critical of Japan's stance on historical issues, leading many to doubt whether he would prioritize Tokyo early on. However, this decision was widely interpreted as a signal of Lee's practical mindset and willingness to improve ties with Japan despite lingering historical grievances.
Lee's third call to Xi Jinping was hardly unexpected, given that China remains South Korea's largest trading partner. But his fourth and fifth calls did raise eyebrows: He spoke with the leaders of the Czech Republic and Vietnam, countries often overlooked in the early stages of diplomatic outreach by past presidents. His rationale, again, was pragmatic. The Czech Republic recently awarded a 26 trillion-won nuclear power plant construction deal to a South Korean bid — a hard-won contract that edged out fierce competition from France. Lee's outreach aims to solidify that economic relationship and possibly expand it. Vietnam, meanwhile, is South Korea's third-largest trading partner and the leading destination for Korean foreign investment, making it a natural choice for early engagement.
The sequence of these conversations echoes one of Lee's key refrains: 'The economy is security, and security is the economy.' His decision to attend the G7 and NATO summits underscores this philosophy. At the G7, discussions focused heavily on global trade friction — particularly the fallout from President Trump's protectionist tariffs. With trade accounting for 80 percent of South Korea's GDP, these are matters Seoul cannot afford to ignore.
His participation in the NATO summit is more delicate. Lee had previously expressed reservations about Korea getting too involved in European security matters, especially the war in Ukraine. However, Europe is now a growing market for South Korean defense exports. From that angle, attending the NATO meeting is less about ideology and more about ensuring access to new economic opportunities.
But Lee's pragmatic diplomacy will soon face its toughest challenge: North Korea. A purely practical foreign policy could falter if Lee reverts to the liberal camp's traditional approach of engagement with Pyongyang at the expense of alignment with key allies. President Moon Jae-in, for example, pursued such a strategy, which strained Seoul's trilateral coordination with Washington and Tokyo. That fragile alliance, revitalized under President Yoon, President Biden, and former Japanese Prime Minister Kishida in the 2023 Camp David summit, could be tested once more — especially now that all three leaders have exited the political stage.
Despite his calls for pragmatic diplomacy, Lee may find himself pulled back toward a more ideological, nationalistic foreign policy. Personnel choices offer early signs of this tension. National security adviser Wi Sung-lac is widely viewed as an advocate of strong alliances, particularly with the US and other democratic partners. But Lee's pick for National Intelligence Service chief, Lee Jong-seok — a former Unification Minister — is a well-known proponent of an independent foreign policy that places inter-Korean relations above external alliances. These two key advisers, representing opposing schools of thought, could end up pulling President Lee in divergent directions, risking confusion and inconsistency in policy execution.
In short, President Lee's diplomatic approach shows promise in its economic focus and global engagement. His outreach to non-traditional partners and participation in key summits signal an intent to broaden South Korea's international standing. But this pragmatic posture will only succeed if it can maintain consistency and resist being derailed by ideological pulls — especially when it comes to North Korea. The balancing act between idealism and realism, between national pride and global cooperation, will define the credibility and effectiveness of Lee's foreign policy in the years to come.