President Lee Jae-myung and the First Lady board their flight to the G7 Summit on June 18. (©Lee Jae-myung/FB)
Is Lee Jae-myung a pragmatist or a populist firebrand?
Since taking office on June 4, South Korea's new president has defied easy classification. Critics on the right dismiss him as a leftist populist bereft of a coherent philosophy. Others view him as a shrewd realist, driven by a desire for more political power.
Moon Chung-in, a former presidential adviser and expert on East Asian affairs, offers a different take. He describes Lee as a principled pragmatist — a leader guided by a clear-eyed pursuit of national interest.
In an exclusive interview with JAPAN Forward, Moon, a distinguished professor at Yonsei University, discussed the early direction of Lee's foreign policy and how his administration is likely to diverge from that of his conservative predecessor.
Pragmatist, Not Populist
Is Lee Jae-myung a left-wing populist as some describe?
From what I have observed, Lee is neither a leftist nor a populist in the conventional sense. A better way to describe him is as a progressive pragmatist. His goals lean progressive, championing peace, equality, and justice. But his methods are grounded in pragmatism. He seeks truth through facts and prioritizes people's tangible interests over lofty abstractions.
Distinguishing between populism and pragmatism is difficult because the line separating them may be paper-thin. Policy driven by practicality but lacking in foundational principles quickly descends into opportunism and populism. When anchored in firm principles, however, pragmatism becomes an effective means of navigating complex domestic and global issues. I see the new president being the latter.
Lee has been criticized for skipping the recent NATO Summit. What are your thoughts?
President Lee didn't attend the 2025 NATO Summit in June and instead sent his National Security Advisor. By contrast, his predecessor, Yoon Suk-yeol, had attended the summit for three consecutive years, beginning in 2022. Lee's absence drew sharp criticism from conservatives at home and the United States, who saw it as a retreat from the American-led alliance. They argue his decision, likely influenced by fears of backlash from China, Russia, and North Korea, signals wavering commitment to the traditional alliance.
But such criticisms seem misplaced. The presidential office cited urgent domestic issues and global economic uncertainty following the Israel–Iran conflict as reasons for skipping the international forum. In truth, Lee was not fully prepared to attend. Less than three weeks into office, his cabinet remains incomplete, with no foreign or defense ministers appointed.
There was also a practical concern. A bilateral meeting with President Donald Trump would have been a crucial benchmark for success. But due to Trump's shortened trip, that meeting was unlikely to happen. Their previous meeting at the G7 in Canada had been canceled at the last minute. Lee likely wanted to avoid a similar embarrassment.
Walking a Tightrope
How does Lee's government diverge from the previous one?
The previous administration prioritized value-driven diplomacy, focusing on concepts like democracy and human rights. Yoon often called the Seoul–Washington partnership a "value alliance."
In contrast, President Lee takes a more interest-driven approach, emphasizing national interests over abstract ideals. This suggests that Lee's administration may pursue improved relations with China and Russia while maintaining close bilateral ties with Washington and trilateral cooperation with Tokyo and Washington. It's a hard balance to strike, for sure.
The approach to peace is another important dividing line. Yoon stressed the principle of 'peace through strength' and advocated the doctrine of preemptive strike, decapitation of North Korean leadership, and massive retaliation and punishment. Lee takes an opposite posture. He favors the principle of 'peace first through reconciliation and cooperation.'
He once said, "A dirty peace is still better than a winning war." His top priority is on preventive diplomacy that can reduce tensions, enhance confidence-building, and open a pathway to the denuclearization of and the creation of a peaceful regime on the Korean Peninsula.
Yoon is known to have, by and large, delegated foreign policymaking to his immediate and trusted staff. But Lee is less inclined to delegate his power and authority. He will handle major foreign policy issues personally, while closely consulting with his staff and external advisors.
Will the relationship with Japan evolve?
Reviving South Korea–Japan relations was a top priority for former President Yoon, with backing from President Joe Biden at the time. Washington believed closer ties between Seoul and Tokyo were essential for advancing the US Indo-Pacific strategy.
President Lee is expected to maintain the overall policy direction toward Japan. While he may reduce the frequency of trilateral military exercises with the US and Japan, he will continue to honor the Camp David declaration signed in 2023.
His administration is also likely to retain the Yoon-era third-party compensation scheme for wartime forced laborers. However, he may simultaneously urge reciprocal measures from Tokyo, such as contributions from Japanese companies or industry groups like Keidanren (Japan Business Federation).
On territorial issues like Dokdo [Takeshima] or other historical matters, the new president may take a firmer stance.
Will Lee be able to navigate Trump 2.0?
My hope is that the US will not compel South Korea to choose between Washington and Beijing, as Vice President Joe Biden did in 2013 during the Obama administration. It's a demand that is neither appropriate nor constructive.
The Trump administration might exert immediate pressure by tying an increase in Seoul's defense cost contributions for American forces to a potential reduction or withdrawal of troops stationed in South Korea. Indeed, President Trump has urged Seoul to increase its defense spending to 5% of GDP and raise its cost-sharing for US forces from the current $ 1.1 billion to $10 billion.
I don't believe the Lee administration can easily comply with such demands, given strong domestic opposition. President Lee will need to carefully weigh a strategic balance of loyalty, advocacy, and leverage. But one thing is clear: Lee is a tough negotiator. He, therefore, will not blindly follow Washington’s conditions as some previous administrations have.
RELATED:
- Lee Jae-myung Wins: A New Era for South Korean Diplomacy?
- INTERVIEW | Moon Chung-in on Escalating Tensions on the Korean Peninsula
Author: Kenji Yoshida
