President Lee Jae-myung’s G7 Debut and the Recalibration of South Korean Foreign Policy

President Lee Jae-myung’s first appearance on the global stage at the G-7 Summit last month marked a significant inflection point in South Korean foreign policy. While upholding the foundational commitments to the South-U.S. Korea alliance, Lee signaled a shift toward pragmatic multilateralism, recalibrated economic statecraft, and a more open posture on inter-Korean engagement. The strategic contours of Lee's emerging doctrine – ranging from conditional diplomacy with North Korea and economic assertiveness in trade relations with the United States, to expanding regional outreach and seeking to transcend the China-U.S. binary – suggest a reorientation of South Korea’s traditionally U.S.-centric foreign policy.

Taken together, these developments point to the early articulation of a “middle power plus” strategy: one that frames South Korea not merely as a loyal ally but as a sovereign actor capable of bridging divides across regions and ideologies.

G-7 as a Diplomatic Litmus Test

For South Korea, the G-7 Summit held in Canada from June 16-18 was more than a high-profile diplomatic forum – it served as an inaugural test for Lee’s international leadership. Given that Lee lacked prior exposure to major multilateral gatherings and was still assembling a foreign policy team as the summit convened, expectations were cautious. Most importantly, observers were eager to determine whether his administration would maintain the strategic contours of the Yoon Suk-yeol era or initiate a clear doctrinal shift.

What emerged was not a dramatic break but a careful recalibration: a pivot from rigid alignment to flexible, interest-based diplomacy. Lee’s approach emphasized economic nationalism, prioritized dialogue over deterrence, and extended multilateral outreach beyond the traditional Western bloc. These tendencies are expected to have deep and lasting implications for South Korea’s role in the evolving international order, especially across four key vectors: North Korea, the South Korea-U.S. alliance, regional diplomacy, and global engagement.

Inter-Korean Relations: Pragmatic But Conditional Engagement

Lee’s stance on North Korea, long the defining issue of Korean Peninsula policy, reflects a notable shift from Yoon’s. Breaking from the hawkish approach of his predecessor, Lee indicated a willingness to reengage Pyongyang under carefully defined conditions. His decision to suspend loudspeaker broadcasts along the DMZ on June 11 – a symbolic and provocative tool of psychological warfare – signaled a deliberate move toward de-escalation and dialogue.

In bilateral talks with Australia’s prime minister at the G-7, Lee reaffirmed his commitment to denuclearization while emphasizing that renewed engagement must be calibrated and conditional. Rather than returning to the idealism of earlier progressive governments that favored unconditional dialogue, Lee has advanced a form of strategic pragmatism. Sanctions relief remains a possibility, but only in response to verifiable North Korean concessions. This approach positions South Korea to reclaim diplomatic initiative on inter-Korean matters, balancing deterrence with outreach and reinforcing Seoul’s role as a key stakeholder in peninsula affairs.

The South Korea-U.S. Alliance: Strategic Affirmation and Economic Assertiveness

As expected, Lee reaffirmed South Korea’s alliance with the United States. However, the substance and tone of his engagement suggested a new kind of assertiveness. Rather than merely echoing U.S. priorities, Lee emphasized trade issues – particularly U.S. tariffs on South Korean exports – as central to the bilateral relationship. This marks a shift from the previous administration’s security-first alignment to a broader conception of national interest that includes economic sovereignty.

Lee’s emphasis on revisiting trade terms points to a desire to redefine the alliance as a “partnership of equals,” rooted in mutual benefit. While remaining firmly within the alliance framework, Lee’s position reflects the broader trend among middle powers to assert greater autonomy, particularly in economic matters. Trade, for Lee, is not separate from security but integral to it. This reframing suggests that South Korea under Lee seeks not to distance itself from the United States but to negotiate from a stronger and more confident position.

Regional Diplomacy: From Bilateral Friction to Strategic Bridges

Among the most telling moments of the summit was Lee’s exchange with Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru. The two leaders engaged in candid discussion that hinted at the continuation of the thaw in Japan-South Korea relations. Under previous administrations, bilateral ties were often constrained by historical disputes and a lack of political will. Yoon changed that by embracing Japan and sidelining historical issues, but polls showed that much of the South Korean public did not buy into his approach. With Lee and Ishiba, however, a new and more sustainable chapter appears possible – one grounded in shared strategic interests and the growing need for regional cohesion.

This outreach reflects the complex balancing act that South Korea must navigate: remaining a credible partner to Western allies while not alienating regional actors or the Global South. As geopolitical rivalries deepen, particularly between Washington and Beijing, Lee appears determined to avoid entrapment. His engagement strategy favors pragmatic cooperation over ideological alignment, signaling that South Korea is prepared to act as a regional bridge rather than a geopolitical pawn.

Multilateralism and Middle Power Diplomacy

Lee Jae-myung’s much-anticipated first summit with Donald Trump was canceled when the U.S. president departed early to focus on the Iran-Israel conflict. Fittingly, however, Lee’s sideline meetings with leaders from Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Mexico, South Africa, and the United Kingdom signaled an expanded diplomatic vision. These meetings reflect more than simple outreach; they embody a repositioning of South Korea as a connector between advanced industrial economies and the emerging Global South. This orientation builds upon Seoul’s increasing involvement in forums such as APEC, G-20, and the United Nations.

In each of these meetings, Lee’s clear focus on global technological cooperation – ranging from AI to clean energy and digital infrastructure – underscored South Korea’s intent to contribute to global norm-setting in key future industries. Moreover, efforts to modernize free trade agreements and deepen economic ties with Latin American nations highlighted a new strategy of diversified engagement. Lee’s promotion of South Korea’s defense industry on the sidelines of the summit further underscored how economic diplomacy and national strategy are becoming increasingly intertwined.

This evolving multilateral approach points to a post-binary diplomatic framework – one that avoids zero-sum choices between Washington and Beijing and instead leverages South Korea’s technological, commercial, and developmental assets to enhance global relevance.

Recasting South Korea’s Global Role

For Lee, the G-7 Summit was both a diplomatic debut and the early expression of a new presidential foreign policy doctrine. Though yet unnamed, its contours are becoming discernible. It blends empathy with strategic calculation, developmental partnerships with economic fairness, and security cooperation with sovereign diplomacy. Rather than dismantling the U.S.-aligned legacy of the past, Lee is reshaping it – accepting its utility while demanding more balanced terms.

Lee’s vision reflects a sharpened version of middle power diplomacy that is more intentional, more strategic, and more globally engaged. In doing so, the new government seeks to align South Korea’s global identity with its growing capabilities and aspirations.

Lee’s performance at the G-7 did not signal a sudden transformation, but it did establish the foundations for a new trajectory in foreign policy. His conditional outreach to North Korea, assertiveness in economic matters with the United States, pragmatic approach to Japan, and engagement with the Global South all reflect a coherent shift toward recalibrated internationalism.

The test now is whether this vision can be institutionalized. That will require a fully staffed and capable diplomatic team, resilience under geopolitical pressure, and a consistent voice in a region increasingly prone to volatility. But if the summit offered any indication, Lee is not content to merely react to world affairs – he aims to shape them. The era of reflexive alignment is giving way to a more sovereign and multidimensional South Korean foreign policy in a rapidly changing global landscape.