File
|
[Outlook on Global Affaris 2025- Special Issue No.1] An Outlook on International Affairs in 2025 |
| December 19, 2024
|
-
Beom-cheol ShinSenior Research Fellow, The Sejong Institute | bcshin@sejong.org
-
As the tumultuous year of 2024 is coming to a close, the current international situation can be described as one of upheaval, where wars and conflicts have been witnessed across various parts of the world, leading to significant chaos and division. This year’s international situation should be seen as an extension of this. However, discussions on ending wars in certain regions, changing winds of change, and the shifting geopolitical landscape, such as the inauguration of the second term of President Trump, require careful observation.
The first lens through which to view the international situation in 2025 is the issue of global order. The uni-polar order led by the United States is gradually showing signs of decline, and even the term G2, referring to the relationship between the U.S. and China, is losing relevance due to China’s internal challenges. Instead, the term "multi-polarity" is becoming more common, indicating a shift toward a new global order. The upcoming new U.S. administration will likely advocate for the "great American revival" (Make America Great Again) to regain its leadership, but the means to do so—demanding that allies comply with American requests—raises questions about whether it can truly restore its influence. Both China and Russia are also losing strength compared to a few years ago. China is experiencing economic stagnation due to the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although Russia has gained its territory in Ukraine through war, its international leadership has been weakened due to the war’s illegitimate nature. These major powers will continue to play a role in shaping the international order in the coming year, but their influence is expected to diminish, and uncertainty is likely to increase.
The second lens is the regional hot spots. Since the establishment of the United Nations after World War II, efforts have been made to maintain international peace and stability. However, conflicts have persisted in different regions throughout history. The hot spots for the coming year are Ukraine, Israel and the Middle East, the South China Sea and East China Sea, and the Korean Peninsula. Because regional issues are closesly linked to the international order established by great powers, the complexities of each region make resolution difficult.
The Ukraine issue involves NATO’s eastward expansion, Russia’s sense of crisis, and Ukraine’s security guarantees. The Israel and Middle East issue is multifaceted, involving the Palestinian issue within Israel, Iran’s support for Hezbollah, and the ongoing Syrian civil war. The South China Sea and East China Sea issues are related to the U.S.-China power competition and regional alignments. The Korean Peninsula issue centers on North Korea’s nuclear weapons development and the survival of the non-proliferation regime, as well as maintaining peace in the region. What’s important is that these conflicts are not isolated but are interconnected, influencing each other. For example, the war in Ukraine has led to the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia, which in turn contributes to North Korea’s support for Russia, exacerbating the security situation on the Korean Peninsula. As such, it is crucial to observe not just one of these hotspots but to look at the broader picture and assess them as an interconnected whole.
The third lens is the international economic situation. Just as domestic politics and economics are intertwined, global issues are similarly interconnected. The imbalance in the distribution of power and wealth across the globe continues to be a source of conflict between nations. Among major powers, there is competition for military and economic superiority, while weaker countries are forming alliances to redistribute wealth. The U.S. perceives Chinese exports as unfair, attributing them to government subsidies, which fuels its efforts to counter China. Many developing countries are demanding economic assistance from major powers and are likely to pursue collective or individual cooperation depending on the scale of support. At the same time, competition for advanced technology and scarce resources is intensifying, leading to trade barriers. As a result, economic cooperation within the same bloc is increasing, while trade with opposing blocs is becoming more restricted, and efforts to ensure supply chain stability are becoming more competitive. Through these three lenses, a comprehensive review of the international situation in the coming year can be made, offering insights into how the year’s developments may unfold. -
The year 2024 was a year of turmoil. Globally, the war in Ukraine, the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Middle East, the end of the Syrian Civil War, and an international economic downturn characterized the year. Amidst these events, Trump, who won the U.S. presidential election in November, is exacerbating uncertainty with his America First agenda. The Korean Peninsula was no exception, a treaty of alliance was signed between North Korea and Russia, followed by the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia, while North Korea's nuclear capabilities were further strengthened. Domestically, political instability persisted amid the impeachment crisis of President Yoon Suk-yeol.
The war in Ukraine saw fluctuating fortunes, with intense battles marking the year. Ukraine, which had been losing territory to Russia, launched a major counteroffensive, capturing Russian territory in Kursk, shifting the momentum. Despite Russia’s control over eastern Ukraine, which gives it an advantageous position, President Putin’s struggles, including a shortage of troops, led to North Korean military support, escalating to the deployment of North Korean troops. By the end of the year, mediation efforts led by France and Poland showed promise, and full-scale negotiations are expected in the new year.
Israel continued its armed conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah, even exchanging missile strikes with Iran. However, U.S. president-elect Trump expressed intentions to bring the conflict to an early conclusion, setting the stage for a new chapter. Additionally, the end of the Syrian Civil War in December disrupted the Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape. As Russia and Iran reduced their involvement in the war, Sunni rebels seized the capital, Damascus. While the full resolution of the Syrian conflict remains uncertain, the year witnessed significant shifts in the Middle Eastern order.
In terms of U.S.-China strategic competition, China's growth stagnated under the Biden administration's pressure tactics, while tensions in the Taiwan Strait remained a focal point throughout the year. However, the war in Ukraine diverted much of the U.S.'s core resources to Europe, avoiding direct confrontation between the U.S. and China. In this context, the Biden administration sought to strengthen its regional alliances in the Indo-Pacific with South Korea, Japan, and Australia to create a tighter containment network against China. Meanwhile, China sought to escape U.S. influence by strengthening ties with the BRICS and Global South countries.
The international economic situation also reflected the chaos of the year. China's transition to a low-growth trajectory had significant global repercussions, and economic stagnation spread beyond the U.S. to Europe and other regions, with competition intensifying. This led to a rise in protectionism, with supply chain rivalries becoming apparent within groups like the G7 and BRICS. The World Trade Organization (WTO), once a leader in international trade, failed to function effectively, and protectionist measures were seen, dampening free trade. In South Korea, despite achieving a record trade surplus with the U.S., a growing trade deficit with China created a new trade structure. The need for creating new markets and technological innovation to rectify this unsustainable structure has become more urgent than ever.
Finally, in the Korean Peninsula, tensions remained high, and the year ended without dialogue. Following the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia, cooperation between North Korea and Russia expanded, raising concerns about the enhancement of North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and the acquisition of advanced military technologies. Furthermore, the UN Security Council's inability to impose new sanctions on North Korea's long-range missile and satellite launches highlighted the practical limitations of the nonproliferation regime. In response to South Korean civil society’s distribution of anti-North Korean leaflets, North Korea resorted to low-intensity provocations with “waste balloons,” escalating political tensions with South Korea. Furthermore, President Yoon Suk-yeol’s sudden declaration of martial law on December 3, which was rescinded within two hours, led to a political storm of impeachment proceedings, further darkening the chaotic year of 2024. -
The year 2025 is expected to bring increased uncertainty in international relations more than ever before. The prospects on issues such as Ukraine, the Middle East, the Taiwan Strait, and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions remain unclear, and the "America First" policy of President Trump’s second administration, which will begin in January, is likely to place significant burdens on U.S. allies and partners. In this process, the democracy, free trade, and human rights that have been established by the liberal international order will face challenges, and a situation in which predicting even a step ahead will be difficult to predict.
The international order of the new year is expected to be an era of strong leadership, signaling the decline of the liberal international order that has prevailed since the Cold War. With President Trump returning to power, dialogue at the summit level with leaders such as Russian President Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping will likely influence the direction of various international issues. The most significant will be the launch of Trump's second administration. Unlike traditional U.S. presidents, Trump’s style does not spare any target from pressure. As a result, not only countries like Russia and China that challenge the U.S.-led order but also U.S. allies and partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific region are expected to face intense pressure. This American approach is likely to foster various alliances and security instability in the increasingly multi-polar international community. The scope of cooperation and conflict between the U.S., NATO members, China, Russia, the G7, the BRICS, and the Global South countries is expected to widen. Taking advantage of this, nations like Iran and North Korea, which challenge the non-proliferation regime, are expected to become bolder in their actions. As a result, the possibility of nuclear proliferation could once again emerge as a major issue in international society, as the notion of a "third nuclear age" suggests.
Uncertainty surrounding global hot spot regions is expected to continue in 2025. Regarding the Ukraine war, ceasefire negotiations are expected to begin in the near future. However, issues such as "how to define the border between Ukraine and Russia, and how to ensure Ukraine's security" are likely to lead to conflicting positions from the U.S., Europe, Ukraine, and Russia. In reality, a military demarcation line is expected to be drawn with Russia securing the territories it occupies in Ukraine. The key points will be whether European nations will deploy troops to the border areas, and the potential for a bilateral security agreement between NATO countries and Ukraine. These issues will likely determine the timing of the war's conclusion.
In the Indo-Pacific, intense strategic competition between the U.S. and China is expected to continue with the return of President Trump. Military competition in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, along with economic pressures, are likely to increase. The Trump administration is expected to strengthen bilateral military alliances with countries such as South Korea, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines, while actively engaging in trilateral networks such as the U.S.-Korea-Japan, U.S.-Japan-Australia, and AUKUS. On the other hand, China will most likely slow the pace of trilateral cooperation between the U.S., South Korea, and Japan by improving its relationship with South Korea and strengthen ties with Southeast Asia nations to break through the U.S.-led encirclement. The key issue will be whether President Trump and President Xi Jinping can find a compromise on the Taiwan issue. Considering both leaders’ desire to assert strong leadership, while physical conflict is unlikely, uncompromising competition is expected.
From an economic perspective, President Trump is expected to use tariffs as a tool to pressure China, while also seeking to establish new production bases that can replace Chinese-made goods. A key consideration is that imposing high tariffs on all Chinese products may be difficult, as it could lead to rising consumer prices in the U.S. As a result, pressure will likely be focused on high-value-added goods with less impact on inflation, which could provide new opportunities for export-driven countries like South Korea. China’s response will also be a crucial variable. If China retaliates with counter-tariffs against the U.S., the global economy could spiral into further chaos. However, if China seeks a compromise, U.S.-China relations may return to the level seen during Trump’s first term. At the same time, China will likely try to avoid U.S. pressure by forming alliances with as many countries as possible, though the willingness of countries that have experienced China’s unilateral diplomatic approach under Xi Jinping remains uncertain. Given the four-year time constraint of Trump’s second term, if the U.S. is seen as exerting excessive pressure on China, the Xi administration may attempt to buy time and wait for a new U.S. administration. With the added concern of tariff competition alongside supply chain competition, global economic recovery is expected to be slow.
On the Korean Peninsula, the possibility of renewed U.S.-North Korea talks and North Korea's provocations are likely to interact. Unlike President Trump, who has expressed a willingness to meet with Kim Jong-un, key figures in the Trump administration's second term, such as Secretary of State Rubio and National Security Advisor Waltz, are not expected to adopt a conciliatory approach to the North Korea issue initially. Ultimately, the degree to which North Korea ranks among President Trump’s priorities will be a key variable in determining the timing of any potential talks. The early appointment of former U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, as a special envoy for North Korea suggests that efforts to initiate talks may take place sooner rather than later.
North Korea has previously carried out strategic provocations, such as nuclear tests and long-range missile launches, to attract the attention of the new U.S. administration. It remains uncertain whether North Korea will repeat this pattern next year, or if it will focus on consolidating its strengthened ties with Russia after its involvement in the Ukraine war, prioritizing economic and military advancements in the meantime. If the latter scenario unfolds, North Korea is likely to raise its stakes in response to U.S. dialogue offers, waiting for concessions from the Trump administration, which will be under pressure from the four-year timeline. If North Korea recognizes the necessity of dialogue, it may actively pursue a summit with the U.S. President. Meanwhile, the diplomatic challenges arising from instability in South Korea's domestic politics are expected to be more pronounced than ever, and it will be important to closely monitor North Korea’s potential "gray zone" provocations or disguised diplomatic efforts. -
The year 2025 is expected to witness the unfolding of an uncertain international landscape, where countries will repeatedly engage in cooperation and conflict through their self-centered foreign policies. The multilateral alliances and shifting partnerships in the multipolar era will differ significantly from the Cold War period or the post-Cold War U.S.-centric era. In an international society where there are no eternal friends or eternal enemies, countries will cooperate on a case-by-case basis to mitigate the risks of the uncertainties they face. This evolving international situation presents several implications for South Korea.
First, South Korea must reduce the risks of uncertainty that may arise in the South Korea-U.S. relationship. Preventing discord between South Korea and the U.S. in the early stages of the Trump administration's second term will have a positive impact on South Korea's North Korea policy and diplomacy with neighboring countries. Had South Korea's domestic politics been stable, an early summit could have been expected, allowing for discussions and agreements on various issues. However, this is currently not possible. Therefore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of National Defense should emphasize the alliance’s ties and manage key issues to be resolved after political stability, ensuring there is no discord. Particularly in terms of economic security, as South Korea may easily be led by the U.S., the government should strengthen cooperation with businesses and delay the resolution of trade issues between South Korea and the U.S.
Second, South Korea must reduce the risks of uncertainty that may arise in diplomacy with neighboring countries. China, Japan, and Russia will likely try to take advantage of South Korea's domestic political situation to seize the initiative in bilateral relations. South Korea must maintain a steady diplomatic and security policy in the first half of the year while preparing for the second half. The silver lining is that China will seek to draw South Korea into its orbit to counterbalance the U.S., Russia will be preoccupied with the Ukraine issue, and Japan's interest in South Korea-Japan relations will likely diminish due to domestic political reasons. Therefore, the focus should be on preventive diplomacy aimed at managing the situation rather than expecting changes. South Korea should also prepare for important diplomatic tasks, such as the APEC summit in the latter half of 2025, in a stable manner.
Third, South Korea must reduce the risks of uncertainty surrounding North Korea. Regarding the North Korean nuclear issue, South Korea must remain vigilant about the potential for “Korea passing.” If the U.S.-North Korea summit is held without reaching a consensus at the South Korea-U.S. summit level, there is a concern that a "freeze-for-freeze" deal could lead to the entrenchment of North Korea's nuclear capabilities. Therefore, even if high-level cooperation is limited for the time being, South Korea’s government, various ministries, the National Assembly, and the private sector must actively convey South Korea's security concerns to the U.S. and commit to denuclearization. Meanwhile, given North Korea's military support to Russia, a full-scale provocation is unlikely, but various forms of gray-zone provocations aimed at causing confusion within South Korean society are expected. Therefore, in terms of integrated deterrence, the government’s ability to maintain social stability through the coordination of civilian, military, and government capabilities will be required more than ever.
| Three perspective on international affairs in 2025
| Review of International Affairs in 2024
| Outlook for 2025: Growing Uncertainty
| Policy implications and preparing for ‘triple risks’
※ The opinions expressed in 'Sejong Focus' are personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official views of the Sejong Institute
