South Korean President Lee Jae-myung delivers a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, the US, on August 25, 2025. Photo: VCG

South Korean President Lee Jae-myung delivered a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a US think-tank, on August 25. He said that it's no longer possible to maintain the logic of "security with the US, economy with China," sparking widespread attention. According to Lee, in the past, "before the US had a very firm position against countering China or containing China, it is - I guess it could be said that [South] Korea relied its security on the US and its economic cooperation with China." However, in recent few years, as the competition between China and the US has "become fierce" and "the supply chains are being readjusted accordingly, it's no longer possible to maintain that kind of logic." At present, "while the US is competing with China in some areas, there are other areas in which the US is cooperating with China," Lee said, adding that "so, South Korea is currently kind of distanced from America's export controls and supply chain controls regarding China." He added that "because we are geographically very closely located to China, we are maintaining our relationship with China."

The so-called strategy of "security with the US, economy with China" was once a pragmatic path for South Korea to maximize its interests amid major power competition. It acknowledged South Korea's security dependence on the US, while recognizing its close economic ties with China. We understand and respect South Korea's choice of alliance based on historical ties and security considerations. But South Korea today seems to be using "having no other choice" as an excuse for strategic slackness, thereby avoiding a more difficult question: As a considerable medium-sized power, how can it maintain and expand its strategic autonomy in a world undergoing profound changes unseen in a century?

When the "security with the US, economy with China" approach is portrayed as a thing of the past, and when "having no other choice" becomes the latest annotation of South Korea's foreign policy, it essentially places South Korea's national interests in a subordinate position under the US' global strategy. The US' strategy of containing China and pursuing partial "decoupling" is primarily about maintaining its own global hegemony, not the protection of its allies' security and economic interests. When South Korean companies are constrained by US export control lists against China and are forced to give up some segments of the Chinese market, isn't this the bitter fruit of the so-called "having no choice"? If economic interests are sacrificed, how can national security remain solid? This is the calculation South Korea's political elites and corporate leaders must make.

Ironically, the much-vaunted "security with the US" approach has not brought South Korea genuine security. On the contrary, in recent years, as the US-South Korea alliance has been increasingly strengthened under the banner of "deterrence," tensions on the Korean Peninsula have escalated, and unprecedented security anxiety is spreading across South Korean society. At the same time, when the Yoon Suk-yeol administration chose to embed itself more deeply in the US-led, overtly exclusive and confrontational "Indo-Pacific Strategy," even joining in the creation of "small blocs" targeting specific third parties, South Korea was pushed to the forefront of great-power competition, and was compelled to take on geopolitical risks unrelated to its own national interests.

The lessons of history are not far behind us. The deployment of the THAAD missile defense system not only failed to help resolve the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, but also severely damaged China-South Korea relations and heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Today, if South Korea were to blindly follow Washington's orders to contain China on issues concerning China's core interests such as semiconductors, supply chains, the Taiwan Straits, and the South China Sea, it would be tantamount to tying its own national destiny to a dangerous chariot. This is by no means the kind of "having no other choice" that truly serves South Korea's national interests. Shouldn't maintaining a peaceful and stable surrounding environment and keeping good relations with a neighboring country that cannot be moved away be the core cornerstone of South Korea's security strategy?

The fundamental driving force behind the development of China-South Korea relations stems from the common interests of both sides. It is not directed against any third party, nor should it be influenced by any third-party factors. Looking back at the history of China-South Korea diplomatic ties, the two economies have become deeply integrated, with highly complementary industrial and supply chains. For many years, China has been South Korea's largest trading partner, its biggest export market, and its top source of imports. If Seoul shifts its "security with the US, economy with China" approach toward distancing itself from China, it will deal a severe blow to South Korea's economy and its people's livelihoods, undermining its most fundamental interests. Even the US itself seeks to manage differences with China and preserve space for cooperation; How can South Korea possibly answer the "either the US or China" question?

China and South Korea are close neighbors that cannot be moved away from each other, and share common interests in maintaining regional peace and stability. This is the key that makes China-South Korea relations different from US-South Korea relations. Managing relations with China well is not a matter of "choosing" between China and the US, but a "must-answer question" concerning South Korea's own vital interests and development. A sound and stable China-South Korea relationship is itself one of South Korea's most important strategic assets, and a solid foundation for South Korea to resist external pressure and maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula. Will South Korea act as a chess player, or merely as a pawn on a chessboard? Its political elites should show greater strategic resolve to make independent judgments and decisions based on their country's long-term interests.