The president is absent from the NATO summit, considering domestic issues and the situation in the Middle East.

Introduction: NATO Summit, Who's the Diplomatic Stage For

In June 2025, President Lee Jae-myung decided to not attend the NATO Summit held in The Hague, Netherlands. This was not merely an adjustment of diplomatic scheduling but a significant choice that clearly reflected the strategic direction and philosophy of South Korean diplomacy. The presidential office stated that the decision was made after considering both domestic issues and the situation in the Middle East, drawing attention from domestic and international media as well as diplomatic experts, thereby causing political and diplomatic repercussions. Particularly, contrasting this decision with the precedent set during the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, where the South Korean president was the first to attend a NATO summit and promoted ‘global pivotal state’ diplomacy, highlights the keywords of diplomacy that the Lee Jae-myung administration aspires to—namely flexibility, practicality, and national interest-centered judgment. Is there indeed justification and benefits for South Korea to continuously participate in NATO summits? Does it contribute to national interest and serve as a practical diplomatic strategy for peace? This article aims to comprehensively analyze the structural incompatibility between NATO and South Korea, the lack of benefits from past attendances, and South Korea's position in the changing international landscape, arguing why President Lee Jae-myung's decision to abstain is strategically sound and can be interpreted as the practice of flexible diplomacy.

Main Point 1: NATO and South Korea, the Reality of Structural Incompatibility

NATO is a collective security system centered on Europe and North America, established to contain the expansion of the Soviet Union after World War II. Even today, NATO has not significantly deviated from its essence of maintaining a U.S.-led military order, with its operational scope and interests primarily focused on Europe and North America. In contrast, South Korea is a peninsula nation located in Northeast Asia, which has traditionally maintained its national security based on a bilateral security system with the United States. South Korea is not a formal member of NATO and has not entered into any collective defense treaties. Since 2006, it has maintained a limited cooperative relationship under the title of 'Global Partner,' but this has remained strictly non-military and practical in nature. Above all, NATO has shown neither the actual capability nor the willingness to intervene in the most urgent security threats that South Korea faces—namely, North Korea's nuclear and missile issues. Therefore, South Korea's repeated attendance at NATO summits is difficult to attribute more significance than that of a symbolic gesture beyond strategic benefits.

Main Point 2: The Participation of the Yoon Seok-yeol Administration and Its Limitations

In 2022, the Yoon Suk-yeol government attended the NATO summit for the first time as the President of South Korea, emphasizing "values diplomacy." It advocated for solidarity around universal values such as freedom, human rights, and the protection of international norms, declaring a "global pivotal state diplomacy" to express its willingness to expand South Korea's diplomatic stage. However, the actual achievements of South Korea during that summit were limited. While it was mentioned that K-defense exports were expanded during the meeting, this was more akin to bilateral contracts with individual countries like Poland rather than a result of multilateral cooperation with NATO. In other words, the NATO platform itself did not become a diplomatic foothold it was merely coincided with the timing of separate economic transactions. The bigger issue is that this participation provoked backlash from China and Russia. China interpreted it as siding with the U.S. Indo-Pacific security strategy, while Russia identified South Korea as a supplier of weapons to Ukraine, escalating diplomatic tensions. This was seen as a sign that South Korea was deviating from its long-held "balanced diplomacy," which is characterized by strategic flexibility and a non-aligned pragmatism.

Main Point 3: Lee Jae-myung's Government's Absence, Practice of Flexible Diplomacy

The decision of President Lee Jae-myung to abstain was not merely a reduction of diplomatic schedules, but a multi-layered strategic judgment. In June 2025, the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the United States rapidly destabilized the Middle East, posing a direct threat to South Korea's energy security. South Korea imports more than 70% of its crude oil from the Middle East, with 68% of it passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The tensions in this region inevitably have negative impacts on the South Korean economy. Immediately after the crisis occurred, President Lee convened an emergency meeting chaired by the National Security Office and activated an emergency response system covering diplomatic, economic, and energy sectors. This was a clear example of a practical diplomacy that focuses on domestic and international crisis responses, rather than a mere show of diplomacy in Europe. At the same time, domestic political schedules became an important variable. In a situation where politically sensitive issues such as the confirmation of the prime minister candidate and delays in cabinet formation piled up, the president's overseas visit could be interpreted as a lack of responsibility towards the public and the National Assembly. Ultimately, President Lee Jae-myung realized a diplomatic stance that harmonizes flexibility and realism by coordinating the timing and priorities of diplomacy.

Main Point 4: The NATO summit must not become a symbol of lining up

The recent NATO meeting is increasingly characterized by U.S.-led global military strategy, particularly focused on intensifying pressure on China and Russia. The U.S. is attempting to draw countries like Korea, Japan, and Australia into the NATO arena as an extension of its Indo-Pacific strategy, which is interpreted as an intention to expand the military network into the Asia-Pacific region. However, Korea has a deep economic interdependence with China and is in a position where it must maintain security and diplomatic communication channels with Russia. Repeated participation in NATO meetings could simplify this complex diplomatic landscape, potentially narrowing Korea's diplomatic autonomy. Flexible diplomacy is not about wandering back and forth without principles, but rather a highly strategic act that adjusts the direction and intensity of diplomacy based on national interests. The Lee Jae-myung government's non-participation in NATO can be interpreted not as 'closing' options in diplomacy, but rather as an action to 'keep them open.' Diplomacy is sometimes the art of securing a broader negotiation space by taking a step back.

Conclusion: Absence is a strategy, not avoidance

The decision of President Lee Jae-myung to not participate in the NATO summit was not an escape from the international stage, but a realistic judgment centered on national interest and a concrete practice of flexible diplomacy. NATO has a weak structural connection to South Korea's security environment, and continuous participation may impose more burdens than benefits. While the past government's participation under Yoon Seok-yeol may have expanded symbolic diplomacy, it clearly revealed limitations in strategy and effectiveness. South Korean diplomacy must now move away from diplomacy aimed solely at 'participation itself.' Simply sitting in the conference room is not sufficient. True diplomacy is about the intricate choices of 'when, where, and with whom to engage in dialogue.' Expanding the options of diplomacy, rather than just lining up, is the essence of flexible diplomacy, and this non-participation in the NATO summit is a clear manifestation of that philosophy. Moving forward, South Korean diplomacy must maintain its own position within the international order based on practicality, a sense of balance, and autonomy.