At the Korea–Japan Summit, Lee Jae Myung Refused to Follow Tokyo’s Anti-China Line and Emerged as the Leader of a Sensible Middle-Power Nation. 한일 정상회담에서 도쿄의 반중 노선을 거부한 이재명 대통령, 합리적 중견국 지도자로 부상하다.

President Lee Jae-myung said no to Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who came to Korea prepared to dutifully serve as a frontline partner in the U.S.-led strategy against China.

Despite President Lee’s more than implicit rejection of Japan’s explicit attempt to bring the ROK into the U.S.-driven strategy of confrontation against China, the DPRK, and Russia—and specifically into an anti-DPRK position—Japan’s Foreign Ministry misrepresented the summit.

According to ancient Greek custom, the mark of civilization is how one treats visitors, guests, and foreigners. In Homer’s epic poem The Odyssey, there are many passages emphasizing that the key difference between civilized people and barbarians is that civilized people treat visitors and foreigners with the utmost hospitality.

In that sense, Korea’s reception of Japan’s prime minister deserves praise. From the escort of the prime minister by the Korean traditional royal guard, to President Lee’s personal greeting, to the traditional fireworks, it was indeed first-class and a mark of a civilized people treating their guest with the utmost respect.

Dazzling rain of sparks from the traditional Andong Seonyu Julbul Nori lighting up the night sky.

South Korean civil society condemns Prime Minister Takaichi for denying responsibility for colonial rule and threatening peace in East Asia.

Leaving pleasantries aside, however, there were serious differences between the ROK and Japan, specifically regarding the two countries’ differing perspectives on the Washington-led Indo-Pacific policy.

Mainstream media coverage of the summit is distorted. None of the reports adequately reflect how President Lee Jae-myung, while acting diplomatically, effectively declined alignment with Japan’s far-right prime minister’s positions.

Indeed, mainstream outlets, including The New York Times, frame the meeting as if President Lee were simply following Prime Minister 다카이치 사나에’s anti-China agenda, rather than presenting a more nuanced account of Lee’s independent stance.

At the summit between President Lee Jae Myung and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Andong on May 19, Takaichi sought closer military cooperation with Japan, specifically in two areas: deepening discussions on a Korea–Japan reciprocal logistics support agreement and strengthening trilateral military cooperation among the United States, Japan, and the ROK against China, the DPRK, and Russia.

Prime Minister Takaichi, who has previously suggested the possible dispatch of Japan’s Self-Defense Forces in the event of a Taiwan contingency, came to Korea prepared to serve as a frontline partner in the U.S.-led strategy against China, while implicitly urging the ROK to join that alignment.

Prime Minister Takaichi emphasized:

• maintaining deterrence through the strategic linkage of the U.S.–Japan and U.S.–South Korea alliances,

• advancing a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific,”

• ensuring that both Japan and South Korea play their respective autonomous roles in supporting regional supply chains, and

• responding to North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.

But she did not get what she wanted.

Instead, President Lee drew a line against fully joining the U.S.-driven strategy of confrontation against China, the DPRK, and Russia. Lee refused to follow Japan uncritically. Here Are the Reasons Why

1. No Explicit Language About Taiwan

Under pressure from Washington, Prime Minister Takaichi—who has previously suggested the possible dispatch of Japan’s Self-Defense Forces in the event of a Taiwan contingency—signaled Japan’s willingness to serve as a frontline partner in the U.S.-led strategy against China, while implicitly urging South Korea to join that alignment. While reaffirming the importance of Korea–Japan and Korea–U.S.–Japan cooperation, President Lee immediately added that true peace and stability in Northeast Asia depend on South Korea, China, and Japan respecting one another, cooperating closely, and pursuing shared interests together, and, proposed gradually pursuing trilateral cooperation among the three countries.

2. No Explicit Announcement of Expanded Military Cooperation with Japan

Within this context, Takaichi’s explicit call for a “strategic linkage” between the U.S.–Japan and U.S.–South Korea alliances carries particular significance. It reflects an effort to integrate Japanese and South Korean security structures more systematically under a U.S.-centered regional order.

As these alliances become more tightly connected, South Korea risks becoming increasingly subordinated to Washington’s regional hegemonic strategy.

However, the joint press statement released after the summit did not include any explicit announcement of expanded military cooperation with Japan.

3. U.S.–Japan–ROK Trilateralism Exists, but the Goals Differ Between the ROK and Japan

Both sides emphasized the importance of strengthening trilateral cooperation with the United States.

However, while reaffirming the importance of Korea–Japan and Korea–U.S.–Japan cooperation, President Lee stressed the need for cooperation among China, Korea, and Japan to ensure peace and stability in Northeast Asia.

4. A Korean Peninsula Where Nations Coexist Peacefully

Takaichi stressed the importance of responding to North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.

Lee also addressed the situation on the Korean Peninsula, explaining to Prime Minister Takaichi that his government seeks to establish a peninsula where North and South Korea can coexist peacefully without fighting.

What Both Sides Officially Emphasized

Following the summit, both leaders emphasized in their joint press briefing:

• upgrading the Korea–Japan 2+2 foreign and defense dialogue from the bureau-chief level to the vice-ministerial level,

• the importance of strengthening trilateral cooperation with the United States,

• expanded cooperation on supply chains for oil, natural gas, and critical minerals amid instability caused by the war involving Iran, and

• cooperation for peace in the Middle East.

They also stressed:

• strengthening the strategic partnership between the two countries in response to international developments,

• the importance of shuttle diplomacy and regular exchanges between leaders,

• enhanced bilateral cooperation against transnational organized crime.

How Japan’s Foreign Ministry Misrepresented the ROK–Japan Summit Meeting

Despite President Lee’s more than implicit rejection of Japan’s explicit attempt to bring the ROK into the U.S.-driven strategy of confrontation against China, the DPRK, and Russia—and specifically into an anti-DPRK position—Japan’s Foreign Ministry misrepresented the summit.

It stated that Japan, the ROK, and the U.S., based on the advancement of concrete Japan–ROK–U.S. cooperation in areas including joint exercises and missile defense [the ROK did not agree to these], as well as cooperation among Japan, the ROK, and the U.S. toward the complete denuclearization of North Korea [the ROK did not agree to this]. Both points are misstatements.

The Japanese Foreign Ministry stated:

The two leaders concurred on the importance of strategic coordination, including security cooperation between Japan and the ROK, as well as among Japan, the ROK, and the U.S. Based on the advancement of concrete Japan–ROK–U.S. cooperation in areas including joint exercises, missile defense [the ROK did not agree to these], maritime security, cyber, and supply chain resilience for critical materials, they confirmed their intention to further strengthen information sharing and cooperation in order to continue and bolster concrete Japan–ROK–U.S. cooperation, including in security and economic security.

It also stated:

The two leaders also discussed their policies toward North Korea, including nuclear and missile issues, and reaffirmed that they would work closely together between Japan and the ROK, as well as among Japan, the ROK, and the U.S., toward the complete denuclearization of North Korea [the ROK did not agree to this]. Prime Minister Takaichi also requested President Lee’s continued understanding and cooperation toward the immediate resolution of the abductions issue, and the two leaders concurred on the importance of such efforts.

한일 정상회담에서 도쿄의 반중 노선을 거부한 이재명 대통령, 합리적 중견국 지도자로 부상하다

이재명 대통령은 일본이 한국을 미국 주도의 중국·북한·러시아에 대한 대결 전략, 특히 대북 적대 노선으로 끌어들이려는 명시적 시도에 대해 사실상 선을 그었으며, 그럼에도 일본 외무성은 이번 정상회담의 결과를 왜곡했다.

오히려 이재명 대통령은 미국 주도의 대중·대북·대러 대결 전략에 전면적으로 편입되는 것에 거리를 두었고, 일본의 노선을 무비판적으로 따르지 않았다. 그 이유는 다음과 같다.

1. 대만 관련 명시적 언급 부재

미국의 압박 속에서 일본 총리 다카이치 사나에는 대만 유사시 자위대 파병 가능성을 시사하며 일본이 중국 견제 전략의 전면 파트너가 될 의지를 드러냈고, 한국의 동참을 사실상 요구하는 흐름을 보였다.

그러나 이재명 대통령은 한일 및 한미일 협력의 중요성을 재확인하면서도, 동북아의 진정한 평화와 안정은 한국·중국·일본이 상호 존중과 협력을 바탕으로 공동 이익을 추구할 때 가능하다고 강조했고, 나아가 3국 협력의 단계적 추진을 제안했다.

2. 일본과의 군사협력 확대에 대한 명시적 합의 부재

이러한 맥락에서 다카이치 총리가 제시한 “전략적 연계” 구상—즉 미일 동맹과 한미 동맹을 보다 긴밀히 연결하려는 구상—은 미국 중심의 지역 안보 질서로 한국과 일본의 안보 구조를 통합하려는 시도로 해석된다.

그러나 정상회담 이후 공동 발표문에는 일본과의 군사협력 확대에 대한 명시적 합의는 포함되지 않았다.

3. 한미일 협력은 존재하나, 목표 인식은 차이 존재

양측은 미국과의 3자 협력 강화의 중요성에는 동의했지만, 그 의미와 방향성에 대해서는 차이를 보였다.

이재명 대통령은 한일 및 한미일 협력의 중요성을 재확인하면서도, 동북아의 안정은 경쟁이 아니라 협력과 상호 존중을 통해 달성되어야 한다는 점을 강조했다.

4. 한반도의 평화 공존 비전

다카이치 총리는 북한의 핵·미사일 문제 대응의 중요성을 강조했다.

이에 대해 이재명 대통령은 남북이 전쟁이 아닌 평화적 공존을 이루는 한반도를 목표로 한다는 점을 설명하며, 한반도 문제의 궁극적 해결 방향을 ‘평화’에 두고 있음을 분명히 했다.

한일 정상회담 결과에 대한 일본 외무성의 왜곡

이재명 대통령이 미국 주도의 대중·대북·대러 대결 구도에 한국을 편입시키려는 시도에 대해 사실상 선을 그었음에도 불구하고, 일본 외무성은 회담 결과를 다르게 설명했다.

일본 외무성은 한미일 간 공동 군사훈련, 미사일 방어 등 분야에서의 구체적 협력 진전과 북한 비핵화 목표에 대한 협력을 언급했으나, 이는 한국 측의 명시적 동의 없이 과장된 해석이라는 비판이 제기된다.

또한 일본 외무성 발표에는 미사일 방어, 해상안보, 사이버 협력 등 군사적 협력 강화 내용이 포함되었으나, 한국 정부의 공식 합의 범위를 넘어선 서술이라는 지적이 있다.

결론

동아시아를 대결 구도로 끌어들이는 미국의 인도·태평양 전략과, 이를 정당화하는 일본 우익 정부의 역할에 대해 우리는 경계해야 한다.

동시에 이재명 대통령이 보여준 중국·한국·일본 간 협력 중심의 접근은 주목할 필요가 있다. 그는 미국 주도의 대결 전략에 무조건 편입되는 것에 선을 그었다.

“동북아의 진정한 평화와 안정은 한국·중국·일본이 서로를 존중하고 협력하며 공동의 이익을 추구할 때 가능하다.”

Takeaway

We need to be vigilant about Washington’s Indo-Pacific plan, which draws East Asia into war, and about Japan’s far-right prime minister’s role in masking Japan’s revival of militarism.

We must support and empower President Lee’s efforts for China–Korea–Japan cooperation. President Lee drew a line against fully joining the U.S.-driven strategy of confrontation against China, the DPRK, and Russia.

“For genuine peace and stability in Northeast Asia, it is important for South Korea, China, and Japan to respect one another, cooperate, and seek common interests together.”