South Korea

Lee Jae-myung’s hardscrabble path to the South Korean presidency mirrors his country’s stratospheric rise from grinding poverty to one of the world’s leading economies.

When Lee, a scandal-prone school dropout-turned-lawyer who was elected in a landslide on Tuesday, was born in 1963, South Korea’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was comparable with sub-Saharan African nations.

South Korea was so poor, in fact, that Lee’s exact birthday is a mystery – his parents, like many families alert to the sky-high infant mortality of the era, took about a year to register his birth.

Yet even by the standards of the day, Lee’s early years were marked by deprivation and adversity, including stints as an underage factory labourer.

Known for his populist and outspoken style, Lee, the standard bearer for the left-leaning Democratic Party, has often credited his humble beginnings with moulding his progressive beliefs.

“Poverty is not a sin, but I was always particularly sensitive to the injustices I experienced because of poverty,” Lee said in a speech in 2022.

“The reason I am in politics now is to help those still suffering in the pit of poverty and despair that I managed to escape, by building a fair society and a world with hope.”

The fifth of seven children, Lee dropped out of school in his early teens to move to Seongnam, a satellite city of Seoul, and take up employment to support his family.

At age 15, Lee was injured in an accident at a factory making baseball gloves, leaving him permanently unable to straighten his left arm.

Despite missing years of formal education, Lee graduated from middle and high school by studying for the exams outside of work hours.

In 1982, he gained admission to Chung-Ang University in Seoul to study law and went on to pass the bar exam four years later.

During his law career, Lee was known for championing the rights of the underdog, including victims of industrial accidents and residents facing eviction due to urban redevelopment projects.

In 2006, Lee made his first foray into politics with an unsuccessful bid for the mayorship of Seongnam, which he followed two years later with a failed run for a parliamentary seat in the city.

In 2010, he finally broke into politics by winning Seongnam’s mayoral election on his second attempt and went on to earn re-election four years later.

From 2018 to 2021, Lee served as governor of Gyeonggi, the country’s most populous province, which surrounds Seoul.

Both as mayor and governor, Lee attracted attention beyond his immediate electorate by rolling out a series of populist-flavoured economic policies, including a limited form of universal basic income.

After stepping down as governor, Lee entered the national stage as the Democratic Party candidate in the 2022 presidential election, which he lost to Yoon Suk-yeol by 0.73 percent of the vote – the narrowest margin in South Korean history.

Despite facing a slew of political and personal scandals, culminating in at least five legal cases, Lee led the Democratic Party to one of its best results in last year’s parliamentary elections, delivering it 173 seats in the 300-seat National Assembly.

After Yoon’s impeachment and removal from the presidential office following his short-lived declaration of martial law in December, Lee earned his party’s nomination without serious challenge, garnering nearly 90 percent of the primary vote.

“His communication style is direct and straightforward, and he is astute at recognising social and political trends, which is a rare quality among politicians of his generation in Korea,” Lee Myung-hee, an expert on South Korean politics at Michigan State University, told Al Jazeera.

“However, this direct communication style can sometimes hinder his political advancement, as it may easily offend his opponents.”

During his election campaign, Lee played down his progressive credentials in favour of a more pragmatic persona and a milder iteration of the populist economic agenda that powered his rise to national prominence.

In the weeks leading to the vote, Lee’s victory was rarely in doubt, with his closest competitor, Kim Moon-soo, of the conservative People Power Party, often trailing the candidate by more than 20 points in opinion polls.

‘A progressive pragmatist’

As president, Lee has pledged to prioritise the economy, proposing, among other things, a major boost in investment in artificial intelligence, the introduction of a four-and-a-half-day work week, and tax deductions for parents in proportion to the number of children they have.

On foreign affairs, he has promised to mend relations with North Korea while pushing for its ultimate denuclearisation – in keeping with the traditional stance of his Democratic Party – and maintain the US-Korea security alliance without alienating China and Russia.

“I would call him a progressive pragmatist. I don’t think he will stick to any consistent progressive lines or even conservative lines,” Yong-chool Ha, director of the Center for Korea Studies at the University of Washington, told Al Jazeera.

“Critics call him a kind of manipulator; his supporters call him flexible,” Ha said.

“I would say he is a survivor.”

While Lee will enter office with the backing of a commanding majority in the National Assembly, he will take stewardship of a country that is deeply polarised and racked by divisions following Yoon’s impeachment.

“The Korean political landscape remains highly polarised and confrontational, and his ability to navigate this environment will be crucial to his success,” said Lee, the Michigan State University professor.

Lee will also have to navigate a volatile international environment shaped by the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, great power rivalries, and United States President Donald Trump’s shake-up of international trade.

For Lee personally, his election, after two unsuccessful bids for the presidency, marks an extraordinary comeback befitting the against-the-odds origin story that propelled his rise.

Lee had been facing five criminal proceedings, including charges of election law violations and breach of trust in connection with a land corruption scandal.

Following his election, Lee is all but certain to avoid trial during his five-year term in office.

Under the South Korean constitution, sitting presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution, except in cases of insurrection or treason – although there is debate among legal scholars about whether the protection extends to proceedings that are already under way.

To remove ambiguity, the Democratic Party last month passed an amendment to the criminal code stating that criminal proceedings against a person who is elected president must be suspended until the end of their term.

Seoul, South Korea – After six hours of emergency martial law, hundreds of days of protests, violence at a Seoul court and the eventual impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol, South Korea is now hours away from choosing a new leader in the hope of restoring stability to an unsettled nation.

From 6am to 8pm on Tuesday (21:00 to 11:00 GMT), South Koreans will vote for one of five presidential candidates in a race led largely by the opposition Democratic Party’s Lee Jae-myung. He is followed in the polls by the governing People Power Party candidate Kim Moon-soo.

The election – involving 44.39 million eligible voters – is expected to see either of these two top contenders replace Yoon. The expelled former president last week attended his fifth court hearing where he faces charges of leading an insurrection and abusing power due to his failed imposition of martial law on December 3.

If convicted, Yoon could face a maximum penalty of life in prison or even the death sentence.

Participation in the election is predicted to be at an all-time high amid the political turmoil resulting from the brief imposition of military rule, which still resonates in every corner of society and has sharply divided the country along political lines. There are those who still support Yoon and those who vehemently oppose his martial law decision.

The Democratic Party’s Lee is currently the clear frontrunner, with Gallup Korea’s latest poll on May 28 placing his support at 49 percent, compared with People Power Party Kim’s 36 percent, as the favourite to win.

Early voting, which ended on Friday, had the second-highest voter turnout in the country’s history, at 34.74 percent, while overseas voting from 118 countries reached a record high of 79.5 percent.

Lee Jae-myung’s second chance

In the last presidential election in 2022, Yoon narrowly edged out Lee in the closest presidential contest in South Korea’s history.

After his crushing defeat in 2022 to a voting margin of just 0.73 percentage points, Lee now has another chance at the top office, and to redeem his political reputation.

About a month ago, South Korea’s Supreme Court determined that Lee had spread falsehoods during his 2022 presidential bid in violation of election law.

In addition to surviving a series of bribery charges during his tenure as mayor of Seongnam and governor of Gyeonggi Province, which he claimed were politically motivated, Lee also survived a stabbing attack to his neck during a news conference in Busan last year.

Fortunately for Lee, the courts have agreed to postpone further hearings of his ongoing trials until after the election.

On the campaign trail this time around, Lee addressed his supporters from behind bulletproof glass, with snipers positioned on rooftops, scanning the crowds for potential threats, as counterterrorism units patrolled on foot.

Lee has also been joined on his campaign by conservative lawmakers, his former opponents, who have publicly supported his run for office numerous times during the past month, seeing him as a path back to political stability.

People Power Party candidate Kim was served an especially hard blow when his parliamentary colleague, Kim Sang-wook, defected from the party in early May to join Lee’s Democratic Party.

According to polling data from South Korea’s leading media outlet Hankyoreh, only 55 percent of conservative voters who supported Yoon in the 2022 election said they would back the People Power Party’s Kim this time around.

While such shifts represent the crisis that the mainstream conservative party is facing after the political fallout from Yoon’s botched martial law plan and removal from office, it also testifies to Lee’s appeal to both moderate and conservative voters.

Future president faces ‘heavy burden’

“The events of the martial law, insurrection attempt and impeachment process have dealt a heavy blow to our democracy,” said Lim Woon-taek, a sociology professor at Keimyung University and a former member of the Presidential Commission on Policy Planning.

“So, the new president will receive a heavy burden when assuming the president’s seat,” Lim told Al Jazeera.

Youth unemployment, social inequality and climate change have also become pressing issues that Yoon’s administration failed to tackle.

According to recent research, South Korea’s non-regular workers, including contract employees and part-timers, accounted for 38 percent of all wage and salary workers last year.

Lee has promised to champion business-friendly policies, and concentrate on investment in research and development and artificial intelligence, while refraining from focusing on divisive social issues such as the gender wars.

His stance has shifted considerably from his time moving up the political ranks when he promoted left-wing ideas, such as a universal basic income.

Events on the night of the declaration of martial law on December 3, also helped cement Lee’s image as a political freedom fighter. A former human rights lawyer, Lee was livestreamed scaling the walls of the National Assembly as the military surrounded the compound, where he rallied fellow legislators to vote and strike down Yoon’s decision to mobilise the military.

Among Lee’s most central campaign pledges has been his promise to bring to justice those involved in Yoon’s martial law scheme and tighten controls on a future president’s ability to do the same. Lee also wants to see a constitutional amendment that would allow presidents to serve two four-year terms, a change from the current single-term five years.

While Lee’s closest challenger, Kim, has agreed on such policies and made sure to distance himself from Yoon, the former labour-activist-turned-hardline-conservative has also said the former president’s impeachment went too far.

Trump, tariffs and South Korea’s new direction

The election also unfolds as United States President Donald Trump has proposed a series of tariffs on key South Korean exports such as steel, semiconductors and automobiles.

In the face of those threats, Lee has promised to stimulate demand and growth, while Kim has promised to ease business regulations. Kim also emphasised his plan to hold an immediate summit meeting with Trump to discuss the tariffs.

Lee, on the other hand, has promised a more pragmatic foreign policy agenda which would maintain relations with the US administration but also prioritise “national interests”, such as bridging closer relations with neighbouring China and Russia.

On North Korea, Lee is determined to ease tensions that have risen to unprecedented heights in recent years, while Kim has pledged to build up the country’s military capability to counter Pyongyang, and wants stronger security support from the US.

Lee has also promised to relocate the National Assembly and the presidential office from Seoul to Sejong City, which would be designated as the country’s new administrative capital, continuing a process of city-planning rebalancing that has met a series of setbacks in recent years.

Another major issue that Keimyung University’s Lim hopes the future leader will focus more on is the climate situation.

“Our country is considered a climate villain, and we will face future restrictions in our exports if we don’t address the immediate effects of not keeping limits on the amount of our hazardous outputs,” Lim said.

“The future of our country will really rest on this one question: whether the next president will draw out such issues like the previous administration or face the public sphere and head straight into the main issues that are deteriorating our society.”

The results of Tuesday’s vote are expected to emerge either late on Tuesday or in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

In the 2022 election, Yoon was proclaimed the winner at 4:40am the morning after election day.

With Lee the clear frontrunner in this election, the outcome could be evident as early as Tuesday night.

But enhanced surveillance at polling stations this year due to concerns raised about counting errors may be a factor in slowing down any early announcement of the country’s next president.

Voters in South Korea are choosing a new president to replace Yoon Suk-yeol who was impeached and removed from office over his brief and ill-fated martial law bid in December.

The snap election on June 3 is pivotal, with implications for South Korea’s democratic future, as well as its ties with China, the United States and its nuclear armed neighbour, North Korea.

The winner – who will serve a single term of five-years – faces the task of addressing the fallout from the martial law decree, which lasted six hours but unleashed political chaos, including mass protests, a riot at a court and three caretaker leaders in six months.

The new president will also have to tackle a deepening economic downturn and manage tariff negotiations with the US, which has imposed a 25 percent levy on key exports such as steel, aluminium and automobiles.

Here’s what you need to know about the June 3 poll:

Who are the candidates?

There are six candidates on the ballot, but the main contenders are Lee Jae-myung of the opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DP), and Kim Moon-soo of the governing conservative People Power Party (PPP).

Who is expected to win?

Lee, 61, a human rights lawyer-turned-politician, is the clear frontrunner.

A Gallup Korea poll on May 28 showed 49 percent of respondents favoured the liberal candidate, while 36 percent said they would vote for Kim, 73, a staunch conservative who served as labour minister in Yoon’s government.

Trailing in third place is Lee Jun-seok of the conservative New Reform Party, at 9 percent.

What are the key issues?

Yoon’s botched martial law bid has cast a shadow over the race.

It put Lee, who lost the last election to Yoon in 2022, back on track for the presidency.

The leader of the opposition was instrumental in foiling the president’s plan. On December 3, when Yoon declared martial law – in a bid to quash the Democratic Party-dominated parliament, which he portrayed as “anti-state” and a “den of criminals” – Lee rushed to the National Assembly and climbed the walls of the building to avoid the hundreds of armed troops deployed there. He livestreamed his exploit, urging supporters to come to the parliament and prevent the arrest of legislators.

Despite the troop blockades, enough legislators managed to make it to the parliament and vote to end martial law. The assembly went on to impeach Yoon on December 14.

“This election would not have happened if not for the declaration of martial law by Yoon Suk-yeol and his impeachment,” said Youngshik Bong, research fellow at Yonsei University in Seoul. “These issues have sucked in all others like a vortex. Everything else is marginal.”

On the campaign trail, Lee has pledged to bring to justice anyone involved in Yoon’s failed bid and has also promised to introduce tighter controls on the president’s ability to declare martial law.

Where the candidates stand on the martial law attempt

Lee, the opposition leader, has also proposed constitutional changes to introduce a four-year, two-term presidency – at the moment, South Korean presidents are only allowed a single term of five years. Lee has also argued for a run-off system for presidential elections, whereby if no candidate secures 50 percent of the popular vote, the top two candidates take on each other in a second round.

“A four-year, two-term presidency would allow for a midterm evaluation of the administration, reinforcing responsibility,” he wrote on Facebook, calling for a constitutional amendment to enable the change. “Meanwhile, adopting a run-off election system would enhance the legitimacy of democratic governance and help reduce unnecessary social conflict.”

The PPP’s Kim has accepted Lee’s proposals for a constitutional amendment to allow a two-term presidency, but has suggested shortening each term to three years.

Yoon’s martial law bid, however, has left the PPP in crisis and disarray.

Infighting plagued the embattled party as it tried to choose the impeached president’s successor. Although Kim won the party primary, its leaders tried to replace him with former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. On the eve of the party’s campaign launch, they cancelled Kim’s candidacy, only to reinstate him after party members opposed the move.

Bong, at Yonsei University, said the infighting as well as divisions in the conservative camp over Yoon’s decree has cost it support.

“Kim Moon-soo has not set his position clearly on the martial law declaration,” Bong said. “He has not distanced himself from the legacy of Yoon, but at the same time, he has not made it clear whether he believes the declaration of martial law was a violation of the constitution. So the PPP has not really had enough energy to mobilise its support bases.”

Still, Kim appears to have eroded what was a more than 20 percent point gap with Lee at the start of the campaign.

But he has failed to convince the third placed contender – Lee Jun-seok – to abandon his bid and back the PPP to improve its chances. The New Reform Party’s Lee, who is 40 years old, said on Tuesday there would be “no candidate merger” with “those responsible for the emergency martial law”.

What about foreign policy?

Although policy debates have taken a backseat, the outcome of the election could reorient South Korea’s approach towards North Korea. The two neighbours are technically in a state of war as the Korean War of 1950-1953 ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty, and ties between them are at a new low.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has called for rewriting his country’s constitution to scrap the longstanding goal of unifying the war-divided nations and described Seoul as an “invariable principal enemy”. Pyongyang has also severed communication lines, and the two countries have clashed over balloons and drones carrying rubbish and propaganda.

Lee of the Democratic Party has promised to ease tensions if elected, including by restoring a military hotline, and committed to maintaining the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons from the Korean Peninsula.

Kim, however, has backed Yoon’s hardline approach, promising to secure “pre-emptive deterrence” through tools such as ballistic missiles and the redeployment of US tactical nuclear weapons. He has said he would also seek a path for the country to pursue nuclear armament by securing the right to reprocess nuclear fuel, a key step towards building atomic weapons.

The two candidates also differ in their approach to the US, the country’s most important security ally, and to China, its biggest trading partner.

Lee, who espouses what he calls a pragmatic foreign policy, has said it is crucial to maintain South Korea’s alliance with the US and pursue security cooperation with Japan. However, he has pledged to prioritise “national interests” and said there’s “no need to unnecessarily antagonise China or Russia”.

Kim, meanwhile, has questioned Lee’s commitment to the US-South Korea alliance, and has promised to hold an immediate summit meeting with US President Donald Trump if elected to discuss tariffs.

“I have a very friendly and trusting relationship,” with the US leader, Kim has said.

He has also indicated a willingness to discuss sharing more of the cost of stationing US troops in the country, something Trump has demanded for years.

Lee Sung-yoon, board member of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, described the policy differences between the rival camps as “immutable” and referred to earlier comments by the Democratic Party’s Lee, because of which some view him as being soft on China and Russia.

“In the past, Lee has said South Korea should not get involved in China’s posture towards Taiwan, and just say thank you to both Beijing and Taiwan and stay out of the conflict. He has said of the trilateral defensive drills among US, Japan and South Korea as ‘a defence disaster’ and an ‘extremely pro-Japanese act’. And more than once he has said that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy incited Russia to invade because he was a political novice who said unfortunate things.”

The analyst said Lee has – over the course of the election campaign – tried to walk back some of his statements in a bid to appeal to more moderate voters.

However, “I would venture to guess that people sitting in the councils of power in Washington, DC, or Tokyo or in Kyiv, Ukraine, are not overly jubilant at the prospect of a Lee administration,” he said.

When will we know the results?

Koreans overseas have already cast their ballots, and early voting took place on Thursday and Friday. Large numbers of people turned out for the early vote, including the two frontrunners.

According to the National Election Commission, some 44.4 million people in the country of 52 million are eligible to vote. On election day, which is a public holiday, polling stations will open at 6am (22:00 GMT) and close at 8pm (20:00 GMT).

Counting will begin immediately and the winner will be known that evening or in the early hours of the following day. The candidate who receives the most votes will be deemed the winner, even if they don’t win 50 percent of the votes.

China’s drills near the Scarborough Shoal came as South Korea announced finding new Chinese buoys in the Yellow Sea.

China’s navy has conducted “combat readiness patrols” near the disputed Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, while South Korean officials separately announced the discovery of more Chinese buoys in contested waters in the Yellow Sea.

The Southern Theatre Command of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) conducted the drills in the “territorial waters and airspace of China’s Huangyan Island and surrounding areas”, state-run news outlet Xinhua reported on Saturday, using China’s name for the Scarborough Shoal.

The report said the PLA had been conducting drills in the area throughout May to “further strengthen the control of relevant sea and air areas, resolutely defend national sovereignty and security, and resolutely maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea”.

The Scarborough Shoal is a rocky islet claimed by The Philippines, located 220km (119 miles) west of Luzon, the nearest landmass. Beijing blockaded and seized the territory, a traditional fishing ground, from Manila in 2012.

The Chinese navy regularly carries out provocative military drills in the area as part of its claims of sovereignty over almost all of the South China Sea, despite a 2016 international tribunal ruling that Beijing’s claims had no legal basis under international law.

In late April, Manila accused Beijing of carrying out “dangerous manoeuvres and obstruction” after a Chinese naval ship damaged a Philippine coastguard ship with a water cannon near the shoal.

Tension in the Yellow Sea

Also on Saturday, South Korean officials announced they had recorded three new Chinese buoys installed near overlapping waters with South Korea, bringing the total number of such devices installed by China in the Yellow Sea to 13.

“[We] are closely monitoring activities within the provisional maritime zone [PMZ], including China’s unauthorised installation of structures, and will closely [cooperate] with relevant agencies to protect our maritime sovereignty,” a Ministry of Defence official said, according to South Korea’s official Yonhap news agency.

Two of the Chinese buoys – first detected in May 2023, but only announced this week – have been installed near the zone, according to Yonhap.

The third buoy is located inside the maritime zone, a contested area where the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) claims of South Korea and China overlap, Yonhap added.

China asserts its maritime boundary is based on a 1962 agreement signed with North Korea which cuts into waters South Korea considers part of its economic zone.

The Yellow Sea PMZ allows joint management of marine resources and prohibits activities beyond navigation and fishing.

However, tensions have grown between Beijing and Seoul as China has repeatedly erected installations in the waters, including 10 three-metre-wide and six-metre-tall observation buoys since 2018 and a fixed steel structure in 2022.

Last week, China declared three no-sail zones within the zone, in a move “believed to be for military training purposes”, according to the Korea Joongang Daily newspaper.

The no-sail declarations caused concern in Seoul over a potential uptick in Chinese military activity in the area.

Sejong, South Korea – By the standards of South Korea’s teeming metropolises, Sejong is not much of a city.

With a population of 400,000 people, Sejong, a planned city located about 100km (62 miles) south of Seoul, does not even crack the top 20 urban centres.

But if South Korea’s likely next president has his way, Sejong could soon become the country’s “de facto” capital.

Lee Jae-myung, the overwhelming favourite in Tuesday’s presidential election, has pledged to relocate the presidential office, legislature and numerous public institutions to Sejong as part of a renewed push to establish a new administrative capital.

“I will make Sejong the de facto administrative capital and Daejeon a global science capital,” Lee said in the run-up to the election, referring to the nearby central city.

“I will also push for the complete relocation of the National Assembly and presidential office to Sejong through social consensus.”

Sejong was conceived of in 2003 by late President Roh Moo-hyun, who believed that moving the capital would achieve the twin aims of reducing congestion in Seoul and encouraging development in South Korea’s central region.

Roh’s ambitions for Sejong were dealt a setback the following year when the Constitutional Court ruled that Seoul should remain the capital.

While the prime minister’s office and about a dozen ministries have moved to Sejong over the years as part of successive governments’ decentralisation efforts, Seoul has remained not only the official capital but also the centre of political, economic and cultural life.

Greater Seoul is home to about 26 million people – half of South Korea’s population – and most of the country’s top companies, universities, hospitals and cultural institutions are clustered in the region.

On a recent Friday afternoon, Sejong’s wide streets were mostly quiet, a world away from the bustling alleyways of downtown Seoul.

At the city’s express bus station, a number of government workers were waiting on a bus to take them to the capital.

Kevin Kim, a 30-year-old civil servant, travels to Seoul for the weekend at least twice a month.

“My family, friends and girlfriend are in Seoul,” Kim, who has lived in Sejong for nearly two years, told Al Jazeera.

“I have to go to Seoul, as all the big hospitals are there.”

Lee Ho-baek, who works for a start-up in Sejong, also visits Seoul several times a month.

“There just isn’t enough infrastructure or things to do in the city for us,” he told Al Jazeera, explaining that he is not sure if he will stay much longer despite having moved to Sejong only a year ago.

After years of roadblocks to Sejong’s development, including concerns about costs and constitutional legitimacy, candidate Lee’s pledge has stirred tentative signs of growth in the city.

In April, real estate transactions increased threefold compared with the same period the previous year.

But with Sejong’s fortunes so closely tied to the changing whims of politicians, there are concerns about its long-term sustainability.

During discussions about the possible relocation of the presidential office and legislature by Lee Jae-myung’s Democratic Party in 2020, apartment prices jumped by 45 percent – only to decline in the following years.

In Sejong’s Nasung-dong, a central neighbourhood surrounded by parks, shopping centres and flashy apartments, the streets were quiet as Friday afternoon turned into evening.

M-Bridge, a highly anticipated multifunctional mall designed by global architect Thom Mayne’s firm, was largely empty.

According to the Korea Real Estate Board, Sejong has a 25 percent vacancy rate for mid- to large-sized shopping centres, the highest rate in the country.

Few draws for young people

“In our city, the weekdays are busier than the weekends,” Jace Kim, a restaurant owner who came to Sejong in 2015, told Al Jazeera.

“Most public workers who work within the city spend their time and money outside of the city limits. Our city is relatively small and newly built, so it’s ideal for mothers and children. But we don’t have any universities or major companies that will attract young people to come here.”

Moon Yoon-sang, a research fellow at the Korea Development Institute (KDI), said Washington, DC, could be a model for Sejong’s growth and development.

“If the centre of the government moves to Sejong, it’s the hope that conventions and important meetings will happen there instead of in Seoul,” Moon told Al Jazeera.

“Today, there are only two major hotels in the city, but people are expecting a monumental effect with the moving of the National Assembly.”

Park Jin, a professor at KDI’s School of Public Policy and Management, said he supports Sejong becoming the official capital.

After the 2004 Constitutional Court ruling, relocating the capital would require an amendment to the constitution, which would need to be approved by two-thirds of the National Assembly and half of voters in a referendum.

In a 2022 survey by Hankook Research, 54.9 percent of respondents said they approved of moving the capital to Sejong, but 51.7 percent disapproved of moving the National Assembly and the president’s office out of Seoul.

“As all of the country’s talent pool and key infrastructure are staying within Seoul, the country needs to invest in developing our other major cities,” Park told Al Jazeera.

“For Sejong, this means combining with neighbouring Daejeon to become the nation’s centre for administration and research.”

Park believes that the country’s five major cities outside the greater Seoul area should have at least 4 million residents to maintain healthy urbanisation.

Busan, South Korea’s second-largest city, has 3.26 million people. Last year, the Korea Employment Information Service officially categorised Busan as being at risk of extinction due to record-low birth rates and a declining young workforce.

Population declines in regional parts of the country have been further exacerbated by internal migration to Seoul. More than 418,000 people moved to the capital region last year.

Sejong has a goal of reaching 800,000 residents by 2040, roughly double its current population.

“Today, many people won’t think about moving to Sejong. In an age where it’s expected for both members of married couples to be working, it’s very difficult for both members to find jobs outside of Seoul,” Moon said.

“Maybe in the next 10 years, we might see differences in how people view Sejong.”

Park said developing a city from scratch is not a short-term project.

“But with the relocation of the capital, we can expect some real changes to happen,” he said.

STUDENTS in the South of England are nearly twice as likely to get three A* A-level grades than those in the North, data reveals.

Just 5,800 of the 258,000 who sat the exams last year came away with three or more top grades.

Of those, 3,779 were from the South and 2,021 in the North.

Nine out of ten of the best areas for A-levels were in the South. Pupils in reading, in Berks, came out top — with seven per cent hitting the highest grades.

Dozens in London suburbs Kingston, Newham, Sutton and Barnet also got top marks.

The Government stats show Salford, Gtr Manchester, fared the worst, with a single set of three A* grades.

Social mobility expert Professor Lee Elliot Major called it a national scandal, saying: “These figures lay bare a brutal truth — your chances of the highest academic success at school are still shaped more by where you live than what you’re capable of.

“This A-star divide highlights the vast differences in support offered to today’s children and young people both outside and inside the classroom.

“Increasingly A-level grades are as much a sign of how much support young people have had as much as their academic capability.

“This isn’t just a North-South education divide. It’s a London and South East versus the rest Divide.”

The Department for Education said: “We are taking measures to tackle baked-in inequalities.”

1

The intricate and multifaceted matters of normative relations among the nations of the Northeast Asian countries, even though they are entangled in specific issues stemming from territorial disputes, challenge a well-established norm and order of diplomatic relations. One of the problems is the matter of Dokdo Island’s ownership, which was disputed by the authorities of South Korea and Japan. With its significant historical and geopolitical implications, this dispute is a key factor in the region’s diplomatic landscape. On the other hand, with another matter of dispute, China and South Korea still have an issue with the overlapping territory of the exclusive economic zone. The problem is currently exacerbated by China’s installation of aquaculture facilities in the Provisional Measures Zone (PMZ), a move that has significantly heightened the tension in the region and underscores the need for resolution. This territory is located off the west coast of the Korean Peninsula, making it a complex challenge to maintain Korea-China’s diplomatic relations.

At the same time, China and Japan confronted another issue similar to the South Korean dispute. Both of them claim the Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands. The controversy also concerns the island’s ownership and reflects each country’s historical and cultural perspectives. Japan’s government called the island the Senkaku Islands, while China’s authority named the islands the Diaoyu Islands.

Amid the tariff oppression, which refers to the imposition of high tariffs on Chinese goods by the Trump administration, China has to face two different challenges. In one position, China has to stand against the high-handed Donald Trump’s ruling, which is seen as aggressive and unfair, but in the other position, China also struggles to bring a solution with its nearest neighbor countries in Northeast Asia, where the territorial disputes add a layer of complexity to the already well-established relations.

China’s authority realizes the crucial role of Japan and South Korea, which act as part of the US’s allies in Asia. Their relationship is strategic for the US and makes sense for China, as their connections become part of the US’s long history. This is in stark contrast to China’s past, when it was the US’s opponent during the Korean War. However, China might be letting Japan and Korea connect to the US as allies because they were China’s nearest neighbors in Northeast Asia, which could share and maintain a partnership without causing overwhelming disruptions. The mutual respect and relationship between China, Japan, and South Korea is a beacon of hope, offering a promising and positive outlook for the region’s future.

China and the US, as two economic powerhouses, often find themselves at odds. However, it’s important to note that their relationship is not solely defined by geopolitical tensions. The two countries are deeply intertwined economically, with significant trade and investment ties. This economic interdependence, which is further underscored by their influence in the G20 forum and their status as major trading partners with Korea and Japan, is a complex web that cannot be easily untangled. Despite China’s efforts to diversify its economic relationships, it continues to value the US’ political, legal, and justice systems and its socio-economic structure. The significance of these financial ties cannot be overstated, as they play a crucial role in shaping the geopolitical landscape of Northeast Asia.

Despite the unfortunate geopolitical situation, the Chinese government’s steadfast commitment to resolving the interrelations crisis is unwavering. China’s Foreign Minister Spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, clarified that the construction of the aquaculture facilities, a point of contention, did not violate any previous agreements. The Chinese government’s decision to send its delegation, led by Hong Liang, Director-General of the Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for in-person dialogue with a South Korean representative is a clear demonstration of this commitment. The recent meeting between Hong Liang and Kang Young-Shin, Director-General for Northeast and Central Asian Affairs at the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on 23 April 2025, is a promising step towards potential progress. This progress in the dialogue instills optimism for the future and underscores the potential for a peaceful resolution, providing a ray of hope in an otherwise complex situation.

The dialogue of top government officials presents a pivotal platform for resolving the prolonged standoff initiated by both countries in 2019. The potential for a mutually accepted agreement in the Yellow Sea dispute dialogue is not just a beacon of hope but a realistic possibility that should inspire optimism. However, it’s essential to acknowledge that the outcome of this dialogue may not necessarily mirror the outcome of the Dokdo or Takeshima Island dispute. The Yellow Sea dispute dialogue, which encompasses territorial claims and maritime rights, remains crucial in Northeast Asian geopolitics.

Nevertheless, the Yellow Sea dialogue’s resolution couldn’t significantly affect how the Japan-South Korean government resolves the entire Dokdo or Takeshima Island dispute. Beyond territorial claims, this dispute symbolizes the intricate historical and cultural relations between Japan and South Korea. Diplomatically, South Korea and Japan have made substantial progress in finding a solution, presenting various evidence and approaches to ensure a fair judgment for both. However, as of the end of 2024, the problem remains in a stalemate without a final resolution. This situation underscores the critical need for a nuanced approach in international relations, where tact and understanding can pave the way for resolution, highlighting the importance of understanding the complexities.

The past geopolitical landscape in Northeast Asia is deeply entrenched in a long and complex history, notably Japan’s occupation of Chinese territory, South Korea, and some Southeast Asian countries. This historical context, with its layers of complexity and depth, is an undeniable part of the current geopolitical landscape. The Chinese can never forget this dark period, even though Japan and China have officially tightened diplomatic relations to construct a prospective and reliable Asia. Similarly, South Korea may never forget what Japan did in the past. Indeed, Koreans have not entirely forgiven what Japan did. This historical backdrop underscores the depth of the issues and the need for a nuanced approach to diplomatic relations in Northeast Asia. It’s not a matter of simple solutions but of understanding the intricate web of history, culture, and politics that shapes these relations. This complexity and depth of the problems in the region necessitate a nuanced approach, making the audience feel the weight of the issues at hand and the importance of understanding the historical and cultural context. Only by understanding this context can we hope to navigate the complexities of Northeast Asian geopolitics.

South Korea is also determined not to be left behind in economic and diplomatic relations with others. Therefore, today, Korea actively seeks intense cooperation with China and Japan regarding global security, trade, and cultural exchange, and fosters candid cultural and financial enhancement. This intense cooperation includes regular high-level diplomatic dialogues, joint security exercises, and collaborative economic initiatives. South Korea recognizes it cannot stand alone without China and Japan, as they are pivotal neighbors in Northeast Asia.

The governments of Northeast Asian countries are acutely aware that the US-China trade war significantly impacts the global economic landscape. This trade war, which has led to economic uncertainties and geopolitical tensions, has also influenced the diplomatic relations and security strategies of countries in the region. Despite the region’s bleak history, it is becoming increasingly clear that the countries in Northeast Asia are not isolated entities but deeply interconnected and interdependent. South Korea’s sustainable diplomatic relations with China and Japan are crucial for its global standing and security. By collaborating with these countries, South Korea can strengthen its position in the international community and ensure its protection in the face of global challenges, including those arising from the US-China trade war. The trade war has forced countries in the region to reassess their economic and security strategies, leading to a more interconnected and interdependent Northeast Asia. This reassessment includes a shift towards diversifying trade partners and strengthening regional security alliances, highlighting the region’s adaptability and resilience in the face of global challenges.

Northeast Asian interdependence underscores the need for peaceful and constructive relations among these countries and their collective influence on the worldwide community. The economic and diplomatic ties between South Korea, China, and Japan are not just about mutual benefits and shared security and prosperity in the region but also about the potential for increased economic growth and enhanced security. This collaboration offers reassurance about the potential benefits of these ties and the collective strength they can bring, reassuring the audience about the future and the positive outcomes that can be achieved through such cooperation.

Disclaimer: The Author wishes to reiterate that this article reflects his views and does not represent any institution. He also wants to emphasize that he takes personal responsibility for the content and accuracy of the information in this article, and any decision made based on this information is the reader’s responsibility.

Candidates Lee, the frontrunner, and his opponent Kim clash in the first of three televised debates.

South Korea’s two leading presidential candidates, Lee Jae-myung and Kim Moon-soo, have held the first of three televised debates as the race intensifies to replace former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was removed in April over his contentious move to declare martial law late last year.

Yoon’s ouster has stoked political turmoil in the nation, and a snap election is set for June 3.

During Sunday’s heated debate, Lee, who is the main opposition Democratic Party’s candidate and the frontrunner in the race, faced criticism about being too friendly towards China from his opponents, who cited his comments that South Korea does not need to get involved in China-Taiwan disputes.

But Lee, who considers pragmatism as key to his foreign policy, said the country “should not go all-in” on its alliance with traditional ally the United States and called for the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

He added that managing China and Russia relations was important, while noting that security cooperation with the US and Japan is necessary.

Lee also advocated putting South Korea’s interests first in response to US tariffs, more investment in artificial intelligence (AI), protection for unionised workers, and a four-and-a-half-day working week.

There was no need for Seoul to rush to reach a trade agreement with Washington, Lee said during the two-hour debate.

South Korea has begun trade talks with the US and is seeking a waiver from the 25 percent tariffs that US President Donald Trump slapped on the country in April – after which Seoul was one of the first countries to hold face-to-face talks with Washington, following in the footsteps of Japan.

“I think we should prepare well for this situation delicately and competently,” Lee added, also arguing that South Korea needs to nurture high-tech and renewable energy industries to overcome low economic growth.

“We will focus on developing so-called sovereign AI so our people can at least use something like ChatGPT for free like an electronic calculator,” he said.

Kim, candidate for the conservative People Power Party, vowed to create jobs and deregulate to foster businesses.

Kim has also pledged to create a government agency dedicated to innovating regulations and to invest more than five percent of the budget in research and development.

Asia’s fourth-largest economy contracted in the first quarter as exports and consumption stalled, amid fears over the impact of Washington’s aggressive tariffs and political turmoil at home.

Lee holds a lead with 51 percent support in the latest Gallup Korea poll released on Friday, with Kim trailing far behind at 29 percent.

Lee called earlier in the day for constitutional reform to allow a four-year, two-term presidency and a two-round system for presidential elections through a referendum. South Korean presidents currently serve a single five-year term.

He also vowed to curb the presidential right to declare martial law and hold to account those responsible for the December 3 declaration.

Former President Yoon had claimed at the time he declared martial law that antistate and North Korean forces had infiltrated the government. But senior military and police officials who were sent to shut down the country’s National Assembly have testified that he ordered them to detain rival politicians and prevent the assembly from voting to lift his military rule order.

SEOUL — In South Korea, the Trump administration’s 25% tariff on imported cars has sent local automakers Hyundai and Kia scrambling to protect one of the country’s most valuable exports. But General Motors, which last year shipped 418,782 units from its factories here to American consumers — or 88.5% of its total sales — may be facing a much larger predicament.

Unlike Hyundai and Kia, which control over 90% of the domestic market here, the Detroit-based automaker produces budget SUVs like the Chevrolet Trax or Chevrolet Trailblazer almost exclusively for the U.S. market. The Trax has been South Korea’s most-exported car since 2023.

That business model has made GM, which operates three factories and employs some 11,000 workers in the country, uniquely exposed to Trump’s auto tariffs, resurfacing long-running concerns in the local automobile industry that the company may ultimately pack up and leave.

Until last month’s tariffs, cars sold between the U.S. and South Korea were untaxed under a bilateral free trade agreement. That helped South Korea become the third-largest automobile exporter to the U.S. last year to the tune of $34.7 billion — or around half of its total automobile exports. In contrast, South Korea bought just $2.1 billion worth of cars from the U.S.

Earlier this month, GM executives estimated that the tariffs would cost the company up to $5 billion this year, adding that the company would boost production in its U.S. plants to offset the hit. With additional factories in Mexico and Canada, GM currently imports around half of the cars that it sells in the U.S.

“If the U.S. tariffs remain in place, GM will no longer have any reason to stay in South Korea,” said Lee Ho-guen, an automotive engineering professor at Daeduk University.

“The tariffs may add up to $10,000 to the sticker price on cars shipped to the U.S., while GM sells less than 50,000 units a year in South Korea. There is very little room for them to adjust their strategy.”

Kim Woong-heon, an official in GM Korea’s labor union, said that the union is approaching current rumors of the company’s potential exit with a dose of caution, but added that broader concerns about the company’s long-term commitment remain.

“The cars we’re manufacturing here are on the lowest end of GM’s price range so labor costs will make it impossible to immediately shift production to the U.S.,” he said.

“But we have painful memories of GM shutting down one of its factories in 2018, so we get nervous every time these rumors surface.”

GM Chevrolet automobiles bound for export sit parked at the Port of Incheon in South Korea.

(SeongJoon Cho / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

This isn’t the first time that GM’s prospects in the country have come under question. The company first established itself in South Korea in 2002 by acquiring the bankrupt Daewoo Motor Co. in a government-backed deal that some at the time criticized as “GM taking the cream off Daewoo for almost nothing.”

Struggling to compete with the likes of Hyundai, GM briefly positioned itself as a production base for European and Asian markets until its bankruptcy in 2009.

Amid the global restructuring efforts that followed, concerns that it would close its South Korean operations led the government to once again intervene. In the end, GM stayed after receiving $750 million in financing from the country’s development bank on the condition that it would remain open for at least 10 more years.

But in 2018, the company closed its factory in the city of Gunsan, which had employed around 1,800 workers, and spun off its research and development unit from its manufacturing base — a move that many saw as the company strategically placing one foot out the door.

In February, shortly after President Trump announced the 25% tariffs on foreign-made cars, Paul Jacobson, GM’s chief financial officer, hinted that the company may once again be facing similarly tough decisions:

“If they become permanent, then there’s a whole bunch of different things that you have to think about in terms of, where do you allocate plants, and do you move plants.”

In recent weeks, executives from GM Korea have sought to assuage the rumors that the company’s South Korean operations would be affected.

“We do not intend to respond to rumors about the company’s exit from Korea,” said Gustavo Colossi, GM Korea’s vice president of sales, at a news conference last month. “We plan to move forward with our sales strategies in Korea and continue launching new models in the coming weeks and months, introducing fresh GM offerings to the market.”

The union says the company’s two finished car plants have been running at full capacity, with an additional 21,000 units recently allocated to the factory in Incheon, a city off the country’s western coast — a sign that business will go on as usual for now.

But with GM’s 10-year guarantee set to expire in 2027, Kim, the union official, said that their demands for measures that prove the company’s commitment beyond that have gone unanswered.

These include manufacturing GM’s electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in South Korean factories, as well as making a greater range of its products available for sale in South Korea and other Asian markets.

”If the company intends to continue its operations here, it needs to make its business model more sustainable and not as reliant on imports to the U.S.,” Kim said.

“That will be our core demand at this year’s wage and collective bargaining negotiations.”

GM’s immediate prospects in the country will depend on the ongoing tariff talks between U.S. and South Korean officials that began last month with the goal of producing a deal by July 8.

Although South Korean trade minister Ahn Duk-geun has stressed that cars are “the most important part of the U.S.-South Korea trade relationship,” few expect that Seoul will be able to finesse the sort of deal given to the U.K., which last week secured a 10% rate on the first 100,000 vehicles shipped to the U.S. each year.

Unlike South Korea, which posted a $66-billion trade surplus with the U.S. last year, the U.K. buys more from the U.S. than it sells. And many of the cars that it does sell to the U.S. are luxury vehicles such as the Rolls-Royce, which Trump has differentiated from the “monster car companies” that make “millions of cars.”

“At some point after the next two years, I believe it’s highly likely GM will leave and keep only their research and development unit here, or at least significantly cut back on their production,” Lee, the automotive professor, said.

In the southeastern port city of Changwon, home to the smaller of GM’s two finished car plants, local officials have been reluctant to give air to what they describe as premature fearmongering.

But Woo Choon-ae, a 62-year-old real estate agent whose clients also include GM workers and their families, can’t help but worry.

She says that the company’s exit would be devastating to the city, which, like many rural areas, has already been under strain from population decline.

GM employs 2,800 workers in the region, but accounts for thousands more jobs at its suppliers. The Changwon factory, which manufactures the Trax, represented around 15% of the city’s total exports last year.

“People work for GM because it offers stable employment until retirement age. If they close the factory here, all of these workers will leave to find work in other cities, which will be a critical blow to the housing market,” she said.

“Homes are how people save money in South Korea. But if people’s savings are suddenly halved, who’s going to be spending money on things like dining out?”

BEIJING — China will allow visa-free entry for nationals of five Latin American countries for one year to boost closer connections with the region.

Starting June 1, citizens of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru and Uruguay will be allowed to enter China for up to 30 days without a visa, China’s Foreign Ministry announced Thursday. The trial program will be in effect for one year.

“We welcome more foreign friends to visit China, to experience the colorful and vibrant China,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said at a daily briefing.

Beijing hosted the China-CELAC, or Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Forum earlier this week, aiming at strengthening its alliances in the region as a counterweight to U.S. influence.

China has been opening up to dozens of countries including most of the European nations, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia to boost the economy after strict pandemic travel measures. China and Uzbekistan will also begin mutual visa-free entry for up to 30 days starting June 1, according to China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Authors: Darynaufal Mulyaman and Abdullah Akbar Rafsanjani*

In June 2025, South Korea will prepare to hold elections, and there is a figure who is in the political spotlight, namely Lee Jae-myung. He is the leading candidate of the Democratic Party in South Korea and represents a new direction of pragmatic progressivism based on the socio-economic reality of society and not an idealistic and rhetorical one. His views on inter-Korean relations, foreign policy, and his approach to the United States and China reflect an effort to balance national identity with geopolitical realities. If you look back at history, in the history of politics in South Korea, there are two big names that show or define progressivism, namely Kim Dae-jung and Moon Jae-in.

Both figures have left a legacy through diplomacy and careful engagement with North Korea. However, Lee Jae-myung comes with a different approach; he still brings the spirit of peace, but the style he carries is a more populist, more grounded style, and his commitment to inter-Korean peace has not diminished. With the presence of Lee Jae-myung as a candidate, it signals a return to building engagement with North Korea. Lee Jae-myung offers more policies, such as conditional sanctions relief, which is linked to verifiable denuclearization, where sanctions will be eased if North Korea shows real and verified steps in the denuclearization process. What Lee Jae-myung is doing is completely different from Kim Dae-jung’s “Sunshine Policy,” which is more based on trust and reconciliation without harsh conditions.

At the same time, however, his economic initiatives, such as reviving joint tourism projects, show continuity with the Moon Jae-in era with thawed relations and cultural diplomacy. Economic projects such as joint tourism, cultural exchange, and cross-border cooperation still remain part of Lee Jae-myung’s vision. He believes that economic stability and social interaction can be a stepping stone to broader peace. However, what sets Lee Jae-myung apart is his distinctive voice in the broader geopolitical discourse and the most prominent aspect of Lee Jae-myung’s foreign policy, namely his vision to make South Korea a strategically autonomous country.

He argued that South Korea should not choose between Washington and Beijing. In a world that is now polarized between the United States and China, Lee Jae-myung offers a pragmatic, non-aligned approach, not as a passive neutral, but as an active position to balance South Korea’s national interests amid the pressures of the world’s two major powers. This is a bold vision because instead of choosing one of the camps to approach, Lee Jae-myung is pushing for policies that can better allow South Korea to maintain close relations with the United States, especially in the defense-security fields, such as through military alliances and defense system development. And at the same time, it continues to establish relations and economic cooperation with China, which is South Korea’s main trading partner. So this is a bold vision because it recognizes the strategic needs of the U.S. alliance and the gravity of China’s economy.

This approach is very different from conservative governments that are more inclined towards the United States as a whole or even from previous liberal strategies that were sometimes too soft on China. In Lee Jae-myung’s vision, diplomacy is a tool to maintain sovereignty in decisions and not a tool to fully conform to the will of foreign powers. In the midst of new tensions and a global realignment, Lee Jae-myung’s candidacy provides him with a sobering reminder that diplomacy works best not when chasing headlines, but when building trust done slowly. With this approach, Lee can also strengthen South Korea’s position at the regional level, especially through East Asia initiatives that encourage collaboration between countries on energy, technology, and climate change issues. In terms of rich communication, when compared to Moon Jae-in, who tends to be calm and diplomatic, Lee Jae-myung has a more aggressive and approachable communication style than Moon Jae-in. Then, compared to Kim Dae-jung, Lee Jae-myung is more grounded in working-class reality than Kim Dae-jung. Although their communication styles are different, their ambition to bring peace and dignity to the Korean Peninsula is clearly in line with theirs.

Although the style and approach brought are new, the ambition is seen in line with Lee Jae-myung, who does not necessarily reject the legacy of his predecessors to create peace on the Korean peninsula. From Kim Dae-jung, he has inherited the spirit of peace and the recognition that the problems facing Korea cannot be solved by violence. And through Moon Jae-in, Lee Jae-myung continues his efforts to include elements of cultural engagement and economic diplomacy as a tool to build greater trust.

Lee Jae-myung has realized that the South Korean people today are no longer satisfied with symbolism in politics. The South Korean people want real results, both in domestic affairs and foreign relations, especially between the Koreas. Therefore, Lee Jae-myung learns from their weaknesses. The idealism that exists in Kim Dae-jung is often used by North Korea without good faith to repay trust. And Moon Jae-in’s approach, which tends to be too diplomatic, is often criticized for being too slow and not pressuring the opponent enough. So, seeing from this, Lee Jae-myung is more of an approach that can be evaluated and measured, such as verified denuclearization, cross-border economic projects with success indicators, and diplomacy that is open but full of calculations. Therefore, his vision is not idealism, but a steady and deliberate movement towards peace.

Amid the ongoing turmoil and tensions on the Korean peninsula, the trade war between the two great powers, and the rising nationalism in many countries, the presence of figures such as Lee Jae-myung provides a more grounded alternative. Lee Jae-myung is not an idealistic hero but a technocrat who understands the importance of strategy and public communication; this style has made him beloved by many young voters and the working class. Lee Jae-myung’s vision does not dream of instant peace or dramatic reunification, but Lee offers a peace built gradually through small steps and careful calculations and based on trust that is built and tested consistently.

It is a pragmatic progressivism that sees the reality of what is happening in society and remains faithful to the principle that progress is only possible if the small people become the center of determining the direction of policy. In this context, Lee placed the people at the center to determine the direction of policy and did not place the elites or elite-centric ones who often ignored the needs and voices of ordinary citizens. Because, according to Lee, to achieve peace and especially security, it is not only about weapon systems such as missiles or soldiers but also about jobs in border areas and ensuring price stability for the South Korean people so that with development that leads to the economy, stability will be created.

This is what finally made Lee Jae-myung think about more often voicing policies of wealth redistribution, reducing inequality in society, and protection for vulnerable groups as part of achieving diplomacy and national security strategies. Therefore, pragmatic Progressivism is not trapped by moral rhetoric but is faithful to the principle that progress can be achieved or is possible if the people become the center to determine the direction of policy. And with the pragmatic progressivism carried by Lee Jae-myung, he can bring together the spirit of healthy change with a political vision that is not only ideal but also capable of being implemented in the complex realities that occur in today’s world.

*Abdullah Akbar Rafsanjani is a researcher assistant of CEO Research. Research interests are around security issues and foreign relations.