Should South Korea's foreign policy become more audacious?

South Korea today faces multiple geopolitical challenges. North Korea continues to advance its missile and nuclear capacity, while China’s conflict with Taiwan threatens security in the South China Sea. Beyond East Asia, the Russia-Ukraine War has widened the geopolitical divide between the West and revisionist states. The strategic competition between the U.S. and China increases concerns for South Korea’s economy, which depends on reliable access to the world’s two largest economies. Finally, the impact of climate change poses multifaceted global challenges, which South Korea also cannot avoid.

When President Yoon Suk Yeol was inaugurated last year, he pledged that South Korea would assume a greater role in partnering with other countries to overcome these geopolitical challenges. Specifically, Yoon proposed an “audacious plan” to North Korea to achieve “a lasting peace” on the Korean Peninsula.

Yoon’s foreign policy has focused on expanding strategic partnerships with countries whose strategic interests are aligned with South Korea. The Yoon government has pursued the institutionalization of trilateral partnerships with the U.S. and Japan over multiple security areas, including missile defense, science and technology. After adopting a partnership program with NATO this summer, South Korea signed the Downing Street Accord with the U.K. last month, which pledged bilateral cyber and energy security cooperation.

At the same time, the Yoon government has displayed caution toward escalating geopolitical conflicts. South Korea has declined to send direct military aid to Ukraine despite reports of North Korea supplying arms to Russia. South Korea has reassured China that a trilateral partnership with the U.S. and Japan will not lead to the creation of an “Asian NATO.” Despite North Korea’s military provocations, South Korea attempted to retain most clauses of its Comprehensive Military Agreement with the North, though the latter eventually suspended the agreement last month.

The Yoon government’s foreign policy has strived to mitigate South Korea’s geopolitical uncertainties through strengthening security partnerships while limiting geopolitical conflicts. The critics, however, have evaluated the foreign policy as too cautious, lacking in the “audacity” Yoon has promised. The two common criticisms have been that South Korea’s foreign policy should have bargained more forcefully with its strategic partners and negotiated more proactively with strategic adversaries.

The first criticism is that South Korea should have been more assertive in attaining cooperation and reassurance from its strategic partners, especially the U.S. and Japan. The South Korean government has received criticism for focusing on strengthening U.S. extended nuclear deterrence rather than boldly negotiating for its own independent nuclear armament. There has also been criticism that South Korea should have bargained harder for Japan’s concessions over long-enduring bilateral disputes. Subsequently, despite the recent improvements in the trilateral partnership, critics have portrayed them as insufficient in guaranteeing South Korea’s long-term security.

The second criticism is that South Korea should have been more proactive in diplomatic overtures to resolve geopolitical conflicts with North Korea and China. The South Korean government has been criticized for not implementing bold, creative strategies to overcome diplomatic gridlock with North Korea. Instead, South Korea’s foreign policy has been largely constrained to deterring threats from the deterioration of inter-Korean relations. Similarly, South Korea remains vulnerable to the U.S.-China geopolitical rivalry, struggling to balance its security alliance with the U.S. and economic ties with China.

These criticisms arise from frustrations within South Korean politics that the Yoon government’s foreign policy has not fundamentally resolved South Korea’s geopolitical challenges. Worried whether these threats can remain contained for long, advocates have urged the South Korean government to pursue “audacious” transformations of its geopolitical circumstances, whether through independent nuclear armament, a “grand deal” with North Korea or perhaps through arbitrating the U.S.-China rivalry.

The risks of pursuing such strategies should be weighed together with their appeals. Though South Korea’s current foreign policy has received criticism for prioritizing “lower-hanging fruit,” it is understandable, even prudent, that a government prioritizes limited but tangible policy successes over uncertain policy outcomes. Even if South Korea achieves nuclear armament, its security vulnerability will remain if its alliance with the U.S. is damaged. The U.S.-China geopolitical rivalry is beyond South Korea’s current capacity to arbitrate. Even if South Korea is willing to propose diplomatic solutions accommodating North Korea’s demands, the deal requires trust between North Korea and the United States.

This is not to say South Korea should not pursue these strategies, but rather that the window of opportunity appears narrow at present. Subsequently, despite their limitations, the Yoon government’s foreign policy might be a prudent reflection of the current geopolitical circumstances. Strengthening external strategic partnerships and maintaining cautious deterrence against potential strategic adversaries might not provide fundamental solutions to South Korea’s geopolitical threats. Nevertheless, they may be the realistic strategies available at present for South Korea to mitigate its challenges.

A soccer team might dribble the ball in the midfield until it sees an opening. Prolonged dribbling may be frustrating for the fans, but it is a strategy to increase the team’s success in achieving a goal. There are frustrations that South Korea is caught in a geopolitical stalemate and temptations to risk an audacious strategy to transform the geopolitical circumstances immediately. However, the timing is important for implementing such strategies with prospects for success. To quote a proverb, “Look before you leap,” dissatisfaction with the current policy should be balanced with preparation to act when the window of opportunity opens.

South Korea’s current foreign policy might appear to some critics as a lost opportunity to display more “audacity.” However, when confronted with the risks of an “audacious failure,” the more predictable security strategy has merits. The hope is that the Yoon government’s foreign policy achievements, whether small or large, will contribute to the capacity of the South Korean government to achieve geopolitical breakthroughs when future opportunities arise.

Lee Jong-eun, Ph.D., is assistant professor of political science at North Greenville University.