Why President Lee Jae-myung Skipped the NATO Summit – A Practical Choice, Not a Diplomatic Blunder

By a Concerned Middle-aged Korean Citizen

When the news broke that President Lee Jae-myung would not be attending the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, the response was, predictably, divided. Conservative critics quickly labeled it a diplomatic disaster. They warned of weakened alliances and lost strategic ground. Some media even suggested that South Korea was straying from the "freedom-loving" camp, tiptoeing closer to neutrality or worse, appeasement.

As a Korean in my 60s who’s seen decades of shifting alliances, I felt compelled to offer a calmer, more grounded view.

First, we must remind ourselves: South Korea is not a NATO member. It never has been. The recent invitations to NATO summits—like the one extended during the Ukraine crisis in 2022—were driven by global emergency and optics, not obligation. While participation in such events may enhance international visibility, they rarely yield concrete benefits for a non-member nation like ours. It is not betrayal to skip an optional event, especially when national priorities lie elsewhere.

Second, critics argue that this absence damages our position in the so-called "value diplomacy" framework. But let's not forget: value diplomacy can become a double-edged sword. Under the previous administration, aligning too closely with the West's containment agenda toward China and Russia sparked tension with two of our largest trading partners. The resulting economic uncertainties were real. President Lee, by choosing to skip this summit, seems to have favored stability and balance over hollow symbolism.

Moreover, let’s consider the summit's primary focus: persuading NATO members to boost their military spending—aiming for 5% of GDP by 2035, largely in response to pressure from Donald Trump. That’s a massive financial commitment even for NATO countries. South Korea, already burdened with defense obligations near the 38th parallel, has no business being drawn into distant defense pledges with no clear return.

Some say the summit could’ve been a chance to meet Trump or other influential leaders. Perhaps—but the truth is, Trump’s appearance was brief and uncertain. Betting our foreign policy presence on a possible handshake is hardly a sound strategy. If anything, President Lee’s absence reflects prudence, not passivity.

Finally, it’s worth noting that Australia and Japan—countries with deep military ties to the West—also opted out. This was not an isolated decision but a coordinated signal. It tells Washington that while we share democratic values, we also reserve the right to navigate foreign affairs based on our national interest—not someone else's agenda.

I’m not a partisan. I’ve supported both progressive and conservative leaders over the years. But I do know this: good diplomacy often means saying “no” when everyone expects you to say “yes.” It’s not weakness. It’s maturity.

In this case, President Lee did the right thing.