Beijing: During my year in Beijing, one of the most striking observations I made was the fundamental alignment emerging between China’s strategic elites and its public regarding the nation’s global role.
According to Yonhap News Agency, the confidence among Beijing’s policy circles was palpable. Senior officials and foreign policy experts spoke not merely of China’s capacity to lead globally, but of their willingness, and even obligation, to do so. Their reasoning rested on solid foundations: China possesses the world’s second-largest economy, maintains one of the world’s strongest militaries with 600 nuclear warheads, and has spent the past decade under Xi Jinping building economic resilience to address its supply chain vulnerabilities.
Altogether, Chinese elites appeared to have moved decisively beyond Deng Xiaoping’s long-standing philosophy of “Hide your strength, bide your time,” recognizing the strategic necessity of wielding greater influence. The “Peak China” narrative that is often used to question the country’s long-term economic and global prospects seems to have done little to dampen their confidence.
Beijing’s recent moves reflect this shift. Since 2022, its Global Security Initiative has expanded China’s military influence, particularly across Africa, while its Global Development Initiative positions China as a sustainability champion through massive investments in the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. Its Global Civilization Initiative serves as the diplomatic complement to these efforts, putting forth and promoting values such as respect for sovereignty, opposition to Cold War-style alliances and a counternarrative to perceived “Western universalism.”
China’s flagship Belt and Road Initiative has reached $1 trillion in cumulative spending. The revitalization of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and China’s recent strategic repositioning within World Trade Organization frameworks, including abandoning its long-held “developing country” special treatment status, all signal a calculated shift from passive participation to active leadership.
In this very context, it wasn’t entirely surprising when Chinese observers greeted President Trump’s return to office and his “Liberation Day” tariff announcements not with anxiety but with quiet confidence, viewing it as validation that the global stage was theirs to claim.
When it comes to the public, however, I was initially expecting more reservations about China’s expanding global role given its domestic economic challenges, including the real estate bubble and the overcapacity issue. What I found differed sharply from my expectations. University students, everyday citizens and professionals increasingly shared the policymakers’ worldview, and data confirms this cognitive shift.
For instance, in a recent survey conducted by The Carter Center and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 97 percent of Chinese respondents expressed confidence in their country’s global position. Likewise, Tsinghua University’s Center for International Security and Strategy found that Chinese respondents perceived their country’s global influence as virtually equal to that of the United States, and the majority were optimistic about China’s potential to enhance its global status further. As such, it seemed clear that the Chinese public has been gradually adopting what one might call a new zeitgeist: a collective spirit suited for their anticipated century of influence.
Where does Korea stand in comparison?
By objective measures, our achievements are remarkable. We rose from one of the poorest countries to become one of the world’s top 12 economies, lead in technological innovation across semiconductors and batteries, rank as a top 10 AI powerhouse by Global AI Index, and consistently place among the world’s five strongest militaries.
Diplomatically, Korea recently chaired the U.N. Security Council, hosted numerous international summits, including the 2024 AI Seoul Summit and the third Summit for Democracy, and has expanded its political footprint considerably. It is no anomaly that U.S. News ranked South Korea as the sixth most powerful country in the world.
Despite all these achievements, our foreign policy remains more reactive than proactive. While understandably shaped by our geopolitical position between major powers, our policies often emphasize responding to what the United States or China does rather than clearly articulating what Korea independently seeks in the world.
Recent administrations have brought vastly different worldviews with no consistent grand strategy, and this siloed approach has deprived both the public and policymakers of core guiding principles. Our foreign policy debates have calcified into rigid ideological camps where positions on the U.S., Japan, China and North Korea are determined more by domestic political identity than by evolving strategic realities.
The core reason may be the absence of a unified national conversation about Korea’s global role. While we host impressive international events and assume prestigious positions, we essentially lack the domestic consensus necessary to sustain a long-term strategic vision. The lack of engagement between government and citizens, practitioners and scholars, and progressives and conservatives has left us without a clear understanding of what “K-diplomacy” means in this new era.
This absence is particularly concerning given our democratic system. Unlike China’s centralized decision-making apparatus, Korea’s pluralistic democracy requires broader public buy-in for sustained foreign policy across administrations, and this process demands more time, deeper engagement and greater political maturity. But we have barely begun that process.
Korea needs its own zeitgeist for this new era – not one borrowed from Beijing or Washington, but one that is authentically Korean. This requires an honest national dialogue about fundamental questions: What kind of global role do Koreans want their country to play? What responsibilities accompany our economic success and soft power? How do we balance strategic autonomy with alliance commitments? What values should guide our international engagement?
These conversations must extend beyond policy circles into universities, corporate boardrooms and living rooms across the nation. They must bridge our political divides and generational gaps, moving past reflexive bipolar partisan frameworks to embrace the complexity of contemporary geopolitics.
Only when foreign policy is underpinned by a grand strategy and backed by a unified consensus can it represent national interests rather than partisan benefits, survive across administrations, and ensure our agenda is cherished across political transitions.
The world is not waiting for Korea to find its voice.