Global South approach calls for three-part diplomacy

Home > Opinion > Columns

Global South approach calls for three-part diplomacy

Published: 06 May. 2026, 00:01

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Lee Jae-seung

The author is a professor of international studies at Korea University and head of the Ilmin International Relations Institute.

To understand today’s international politics, the framework of “three worlds” proposed by John Ikenberry, a professor of international relations at Princeton University, offers a useful starting point. The Global West refers to traditional Western countries. The Global East points to a new bloc centered on China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The Global South encompasses developing countries that seek to avoid full alignment with either side. For Korea, which has already entered the Western camp, diplomacy is no longer a binary question of which side to choose, but a matter of how to manage these three spaces at once in a coordinated way.

President Lee Jae Myung shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a group photo session at the 2025 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit held at the Gyeongju Hwabaek International Convention Center on Nov. 1, 20025. [YONHAP]

Among them, the weight of the Global South is steadily growing. Countries such as India, Indonesia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and South Africa are no longer peripheral players. Many rank among the world’s largest economies or hold leverage through energy, resources, population and expanding domestic markets. From global energy flows and sanctions on Russia to supply chain restructuring and trade realignments, meaningful international agreements are increasingly difficult without their participation. The era when great powers alone set direction and others simply followed has effectively come to an end.

Yet the Global South is also difficult to grasp. From a distance, it appears as a single, unified mass, but up close its shape becomes blurred and fragmented. It is less a clearly bounded geographical entity than a concept formed by shifting political circumstances. Mistaking it for a coherent bloc risks distorting Korea’s diplomatic calculations from the outset and may lead to unrealistic expectations.

Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and South Korea's President Lee Jae Myung attend a plenary session on the opening day of the G20 leaders' Summit at the Nasrec Expo Centre in Johannesburg, South Africa, 22 November 2025. [EPA/YONHAP]

It is equally risky to equate the rise of the Global South with automatic alignment or shared values. The region is governed by pragmatic national interests. Assuming that it can be treated as a unified camp, or that appeals to solidarity alone will bring countries to one side, weakens strategic clarity. Even within groupings such as BRICS, internal rivalries are evident. India and China compete for influence, while tensions persist among Middle Eastern states. In practice, the Global South resembles a vast negotiating arena in which countries gather to expand their strategic options.

Korea has already experienced this reality at considerable cost. The recent bid to host a World Expo provided a clear example. Despite unprecedented diplomatic outreach and appeals for cooperation, many countries ultimately made decisions based on shifting national interests. Changes in position should not be seen as inconsistency but as part of a survival strategy. Rather than criticizing such behavior, Korea needs to assess what it overlooked and consider how to convert the networks formed during that process into lasting diplomatic assets. Diplomacy is not a one-time event but an accumulation of relationships and credibility over time.

Going forward, Korea requires a more refined approach that adapts to each group differently. First, toward the Global West, diplomacy must be anchored in trust. This is not optional but foundational. The Korea-U.S. alliance, along with cooperation with Europe and Japan, constitutes a long-term strategic base that extends beyond immediate interests. As global uncertainty increases, trust becomes an even more valuable asset. A firm foundation of trust also strengthens Korea’s bargaining position in other diplomatic arenas.

Second, toward the Global East, a form of “invisible diplomacy” is needed. Countries such as China, Russia and Iran remain unavoidable counterparts despite strained relations. Instead of overt gestures or public signaling, Korea should prioritize careful risk management and the quiet pursuit of practical interests. In an environment shaped by sanctions, security tensions and geopolitical rivalry, overly visible engagement risks creating misunderstandings and could undermine confidence among allies.

Chinese President Xi Jinping chairs the 25th Meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and delivers a speech titled ″Staying True to SCO Founding Mission And Ushering in a Better Future″ in Tianjin, north China, Sept. 1, 2025. [XINHUA/YONHAP]

Third, toward the Global South, “visible diplomacy” is essential. This means more than symbolic visits or short-term initiatives. It requires sustained efforts that lead partners to view Korea as an indispensable counterpart. Rather than dispersing resources across too many countries, Korea should concentrate on strategic hubs such as India, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia to establish a strong and recognizable presence. At the same time, engagement with Asean and Central Asian countries should be expanded in a focused manner. Depth and continuity matter more than simple geographic breadth.

Some argue that Korea should emulate the Global South by shifting positions flexibly to maximize gains. However, as an export-driven economy deeply integrated into global supply chains and exposed to security risks, such an approach could carry a high cost in the form of eroded trust. The central issue is one of sequence and balance. Trust with the Global West should serve as the foundation, visibility in the Global South should be built upon it and relations with the Global East should be managed discreetly.

When this order is reversed or blurred, diplomacy risks losing coherence. Exchanging the solid asset of trust for uncertain expectations would be a costly mistake. Effectively deploying the three elements of trust, visibility and discretion is the starting point for a practical diplomatic strategy capable of navigating all three worlds at once.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.