Nationwide Startup Initiative Attracts 60,000 Participants, President Lee Optimistic President Lee Jae-myung praised the success of the 'Everyone's Startup' initiative, the first project of the 'National Startup Era,' stating that it opens the path toward becoming a nation centered on practical entrepreneurship.On May 16, President Lee shared a post on X (formerly Twitter) from Han Seung-sook, Minister of the Ministry of SMEs and Startups, which read, "Everyone's Startup begins with 60,000 passionate challenges." He expressed his gratitude, saying, "Thank you, Minister Han Seung-sook, for this significant achievement. I look forward to the second, third, and n-th rounds as well."In her post, Minister Han noted, "The application period for 'Everyone's Startup' has closed. The results are truly remarkable. Over 60,000 individuals have taken on this challenge with their precious dreams over the past 50 days," adding, "The National Startup Era! The 60,000 challenges of Everyone's Startup prove it."'Everyone's Startup' is a public startup audition promoted by the Ministry of SMEs and Startups. Applications opened on March 26 and closed at 8 PM the previous day, with a total of 62,944 participants.The ministry plans to select 5,000 individuals in the first round, including 4,000 from the general and technology track and 1,000 from the local track. Participants selected from the general and technology track will receive 2 million won in phased startup activity funding, mentoring from experienced entrepreneurs, AI solutions, regulatory screening, and follow-up commercialization funding of up to 100 million won.The final winner will receive a grand prize of up to 500 million won and additional support totaling over 1 billion won, including follow-up investment connections. The local track winner will receive a prize of up to 100 million won and benefits related to follow-up investments.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-16 12:48:41

Lotte Engineering Reports 13-Fold Surge in Q1 Operating Profit Lotte Engineering has demonstrated a significant turnaround this year, focusing on improving its financial structure and profitability. The company’s selective bidding strategy and enhanced cost management have yielded notable results. According to data from the Financial Supervisory Service on May 16, Lotte Engineering reported consolidated sales of 1.6012 trillion won, an operating profit of 50.4 billion won, and a net profit of 17.1 billion won for the first quarter. Notably, the operating profit surged approximately 13 times compared to the same period last year, which recorded only 3.8 billion won. The net profit also increased 4.5 times from the previous year’s 3.8 billion won, indicating a clear turnaround. The primary factor behind this strong performance is the company-wide improvement in cost rates. The cost rate for the first quarter was 91.7%, down 3.7 percentage points from 95.4% in the same period last year. The reduction in revenue from high-cost projects, coupled with a rigorous monitoring system that improved profitability at various sites, has been credited with stabilizing the cost rate. The debt ratio for the first quarter fell to 168.2%, down 18.5 percentage points from 186.7% at the end of last year, continuing its improvement below the 200% threshold. Concerns regarding project financing (PF) contingent liabilities have also largely been resolved. The scale of PF contingent liabilities, which stood at 3.15 trillion won at the end of last year, decreased to 2.97 trillion won in the first quarter, a reduction of approximately 180 billion won, bringing it below the 3 trillion won mark. This level is considered stable, as it is below Lotte Engineering's equity of 3.5249 trillion won. The company plans to reduce contingent liabilities to the low 2 trillion won range by the end of the year through the transition to main PF. With a strengthened financial position, Lotte Engineering is also enhancing its business competitiveness. In the urban redevelopment sector, led by its premium brands 'Lotte Castle' and 'Leal,' the company has secured contracts for significant projects this year, including the reconstruction of the Garak Geukdong Apartments in Songpa District (484 billion won), the redevelopment of the Kumho District 21 in Seongdong District (624.2 billion won), and the reconstruction of the Yongho District 3 in Changwon (396.7 billion won), totaling 1.5049 trillion won in contracts. The company plans to further develop its capabilities as a comprehensive developer by utilizing real estate owned by group affiliates. The diversification of liquidity acquisition methods has also received positive feedback. Recently, Lotte Engineering became the first in the industry to develop asset-backed securities (ABS) using construction receivables from nearly completed projects, issuing AAA-rated bonds to raise 300 billion won. By issuing bonds with a rating higher than its own credit rating (A0), the company significantly reduced financing costs and enhanced market confidence. A Lotte Engineering official stated, “Our efforts to strengthen management have resulted in tangible improvements in financial indicators,” adding, “We will solidify our long-term growth momentum based on stable urban redevelopment competitiveness and group-linked developer capabilities.” According to Lotte Engineering, the proposed expansion of the 'group-linked developer business' is an extension of the management policy announced during a town hall meeting by CEO Oh Il-geun in March, reflecting his strong commitment as a development expert. The company is reportedly beginning long-term reviews of some sites owned by affiliates in Seoul. A Lotte Engineering representative noted, “The group-linked developer business utilizing affiliate sites has not yet determined specific projects, but it has set a long-term growth direction. Given the nature of large-scale mixed-use developments, there are many prerequisites such as consultations with permitting agencies, and we plan to solidify a visible blueprint within the next 2 to 3 years.”* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-16 12:46:06

Local Election Competition Rate Hits Record Low of 1.8 to 1 The competition rate for candidates in the 9th nationwide local elections, scheduled for June 3, has been recorded at an average of 1.8 to 1. This figure, based on preliminary data before the candidate registration deadline, matches the final competition rate of the 8th local elections in 2022, indicating a trend of historically low competition. According to the National Election Commission, the overall competition rate stands at 1.8 to 1, with rates of 3.2 to 1 for metropolitan mayors, 2.6 to 1 for local mayors, 2.0 to 1 for provincial council members, 1.7 to 1 for local council members, and 3.3 to 1 for education superintendents. The competition rate for the National Assembly's by-elections is approximately 3.4 to 1. While there are variations by election unit, these figures generally reflect a decrease in competition intensity compared to the past. However, the term 'historically low' should be used cautiously, as it is based on preliminary figures rather than final counts. There may be some fluctuations once the candidate registration period closes. Nonetheless, the current trend suggests a potential structural change, as competition levels are similar to or lower than previous elections. The competition rate in local elections is a direct indicator of political participation. Generally, a higher competition rate indicates active political engagement and a wider array of choices. Conversely, a lower rate suggests a reduction in the pool of candidates and limits voter options. Particularly low competition rates in local council and mayoral elections may signal a weakening of local political foundations. Several factors contribute to this phenomenon. First, there is a decrease in incentives for political participation. While local politics are closely tied to residents' lives, there remains a strong perception that their influence and rewards are limited compared to national politics. This perception hinders the influx of new talent into the political arena. Second, there are institutional barriers to entry. The burden of election costs, organizational mobilization structures, and a party-centered election environment have been cited as factors limiting the entry of political newcomers. In particular, the structure in which party nominations determine election outcomes can weaken competition in the main elections and lead to lower overall competition rates. Third, there is a general fatigue with politics. Ongoing political disputes and low trust in policies contribute to a decline in the willingness to participate in politics. This affects not only voters but also potential candidates. However, the decline in competition rates should not be viewed solely as a negative phenomenon. In some respects, it reflects a reduction in the excessive proliferation of candidates in the past, leading to a reorganization around candidates with genuine competitive viability. Additionally, issues such as population decline and regional extinction also impact local election competition rates. In certain areas, the shrinking voter base is accompanied by a decrease in political participation. Ultimately, what matters more than the competition rate itself is the context behind it. Whether the current low competition rate results from a 'healthy refinement' or a 'decline in political participation' will shape policy responses. However, a comprehensive review of recent trends raises concerns that the latter is more pronounced. Addressing this issue requires a structural approach. Improvements in election cost mitigation, transparency in the nomination process, and expanded support for political newcomers must be pursued concurrently. It is also crucial to enhance the authority and responsibilities of local governments to elevate the practical significance of political participation. Local elections are a fundamental institution that underpins democracy. The competition rate of 1.8 to 1 is not just a statistic but a warning about the structure of political participation. A democracy with fewer choices cannot be healthy. What is needed now is not merely the expression 'historically low,' but a sober analysis of why such figures are recurring. Opening the doors to politics and restoring participation is the starting point for revitalizing local governance.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-16 12:25:25

The Politics of Food Diplomacy: Trump, Kung Pao Chicken, and Peking Duck What is the most enduring language in international politics? It is neither military might nor economic power. Sometimes, it is a bowl of noodles, a piece of roasted duck, or a cup of tea. China has understood this for a long time. As Confucius stated in the "Analects," "Rituals value harmony" (禮之用 和爲貴), indicating that Chinese civilization has historically read its counterparts and adjusted relationships at the dining table before resorting to swords.During President Donald Trump's visit to Beijing, China once again showcased the essence of 'food diplomacy.' The final lunch menu presented by President Xi Jinping surprisingly featured not an extravagant royal dish, but Kung Pao Chicken, a Sichuan-style stir-fried chicken. At first glance, it appears to be a simple dish, but in Chinese diplomacy, food is never just food; it is a code and a message.Kung Pao Chicken is one of the most deeply rooted Chinese dishes in American society. It was created and consumed by Chinese laborers who migrated to the U.S. in the 19th century for railroad construction, mining, and farming. Its spicy yet familiar flavor has become a symbol of American Chinese cuisine. China chose to serve this dish to President Trump.Adding to the intrigue is a play on words. Trump's Chinese name is 'Chuanpu' (川普), while Sichuan cuisine is referred to as 'Chuan Cai' (川菜). This reflects China's unique cultural code of ambiguity, cleverly juxtaposing Trump's blunt political style with the bold flavors of Sichuan cuisine. The menu for the state dinner exemplified the meticulous nature of China's 'food diplomacy.' It was not merely a display of traditional Chinese dishes; it carefully considered President Trump's palate, American tastes, and Western dining culture.The state dinner on May 14 at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing included Peking Duck, a dish that symbolizes Chinese tradition and royal culture. Known for its crispy skin and tender meat, Peking Duck is a staple at state banquets for foreign leaders and represents the pride of China's capital.The menu also featured Cantonese lobster soup, crispy beef, and slow-cooked salmon with mustard sauce. Additionally, there were Chinese-style crispy dumplings, shell-shaped pastries, and even Italian tiramisu.The composition of the menu was highly symbolic. Peking Duck represented China's traditions and royal culture, while Cantonese seafood dishes signified openness and internationalism. The salmon with mustard sauce catered to Western tastes, and the tiramisu served as a bridge to European sensibilities. The flavors of East and West were harmoniously intertwined without conflict. The dining table effectively mirrored the current state of U.S.-China relations: competitive yet coexisting, clashing yet unable to completely turn away from one another.The atmosphere at the dinner was also carefully curated. The music included a mix of American and Chinese songs. Notably, when the song 'YMCA,' frequently used by Trump during his campaign, played, diplomats remarked that "China thoroughly researched Trump's personal political style and preferences." This was a classic example of Chinese hospitality aimed at honoring the guest's pride and narrowing psychological distances.Sun Tzu's "Art of War" states, "The best victory is the one that is achieved without fighting." Chinese diplomacy sometimes designs its banquet menus more intricately than missile strategies. Interestingly, this food diplomacy is not exclusive to Trump.Earlier this year, when South Korean President Lee Jae-myung visited China, President Xi Jinping personally recommended Beijing-style Jajangmyeon at the state dinner. This was not the sweet black bean noodles familiar to Koreans but a savory and light version typical of northern China. Xi reportedly said, "Try it and see how it differs from Korean Jajangmyeon."That remark was not merely a joke. Jajangmyeon originally came from Chinese Shandong laborers who brought it to Incheon and Seoul. However, it has since transformed into a completely different cultural dish in Korea. China is aware of this. In other words, Jajangmyeon represents a shared cultural memory between China and Korea amid conflict and competition. Xi Jinping placed that memory on the dining table.When welcoming Russian President Vladimir Putin, the menu changes again. China has shown a tendency to favor hearty northern dishes rich in meat and flavor for Russian leaders. Smoked duck, lamb dishes, stir-fried seafood, and rich broth-based foods frequently appear. Alongside these, vodka and traditional Chinese liquor, Baijiu, are served. This is not just hospitality; it symbolizes the geopolitical bond of "continental powers."Indeed, the dining settings for China-Russia summits often resemble a representation of the Eurasian continental order. The emphasis is on meat over seafood, and the robust flavors of northern cuisine are highlighted over the delicate Cantonese dishes. This indicates that China views Russia not as a "maritime power" but as part of the same continental civilization.The atmosphere shifts again when French President Emmanuel Macron visits Beijing. France considers food itself a part of its national identity. China emphasizes Cantonese seafood and wine pairings to highlight delicacy and artistry. It naturally connects French wine culture with Chinese tea traditions, and the dessert selection leans more towards European styles. This conveys the message that "China is not just a factory but a civilized nation." Macron, well-versed in cultural diplomacy from the Louvre and Versailles, was accurately understood by China.Dinners with German chancellors tend to have a more pragmatic atmosphere. Germany values order, balance, and stability over extravagance. Thus, China often presents relatively simple and structured course meals rather than overly stimulating or decorative dishes. Typical offerings include light fish dishes, health-focused mushroom and vegetable dishes, and restrained desserts. This reflects a dining experience of "trust and stability" tailored to Germany's industrial and manufacturing characteristics.In fact, food in Chinese diplomacy is not merely about hospitality. It is a vast narrative where history, civilization, economy, strategy, psychology, and symbolism all operate simultaneously. For 5,000 years, China has been a "civilization at the crossroads." As merchants, envoys, monks, and armies passed through the Silk Road, China developed the skill of understanding its counterparts. And at the center of this has always been food.The "Tao Te Ching" states, "A great nation remains lowly" (大國者下流), meaning that the stronger a nation is, the more it must embrace others. China sometimes seeks to embody this philosophy at the banquet table. Of course, the reality of U.S.-China relations is far from romantic. Strategic competition over semiconductors, AI, Taiwan, the South China Sea, and tariffs is becoming increasingly intense. However, it is interesting that even clashing nations strive to respect each other's cultures at the dining table.Trump enjoys Peking Duck, President Lee Jae-myung tastes Beijing-style Jajangmyeon, Putin indulges in Chinese lamb, Macron savors Chinese tea, and the German chancellor enjoys light Cantonese fish dishes. International politics is ultimately a human endeavor. And humans remember best when they share a meal together. Perhaps the world order is gradually shifting not at the summit table but in the banquet halls behind it.Between a plate of Kung Pao Chicken and a bowl of Jajangmyeon, the world quietly negotiates today.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-16 12:16:48

AJP Korea-India Essay Contest Winner: Bronze Prize SEOUL, May 15 (AJP) - As someone working at a facilities management corporation in Korea, the things I face most often are not the shining exteriors of buildings, but the invisible foundations and chains of safety measurements that support them. People often measure a city’s growth by the height of its skyscrapers. But from an engineer’s point of view, the true quality of a city is not about how high its buildings rise. It is about how safely those buildings can stand over time. Korea experienced rapid growth over the past several decades, and through many painful lessons, we built a detailed system for facility maintenance and safety management. When I think about this experience meeting today’s India — a country now going through one of the largest construction booms in the world — I believe the future value both countries can create together is limitless. India is currently one of the most dynamic countries in the world when it comes to building cities and infrastructure. Through projects such as the Smart Cities Mission and large-scale infrastructure development, roads, bridges, and high-rise buildings are being built every day. But from the perspective of a facility manager, construction is never the end point. It is only the beginning of a very long journey that may continue for decades. If the skill of raising a building is called “construction,” then the skill of keeping that building safe and alive for many years is called “facility management.” India’s construction market is expanding at an incredible speed, but the need for systematic maintenance and safety standards is growing just as quickly. As more structures are built, the importance of preventing large accidents and managing facilities properly becomes even greater. This is where a new form of trade between Korea and India can begin. In the past, trade mainly meant exchanging visible goods. But the trade of the future should involve sharing invisible values such as systems, knowledge, and safety. Korean facility management organizations have built strong experience in areas such as maintenance history systems, standardized inspections, and real-time monitoring technology. These systems could become powerful support for India’s massive infrastructure network. In particular, Korea’s advanced digital twin technology could work very well with India’s smart city projects. By creating virtual versions of real buildings, engineers can predict aging and risks before problems appear in real life. This is perhaps the most ideal form of cooperation: Korea’s advanced software technology meeting India’s enormous hardware market. I dream of a future where India’s talented young engineers learn Korea’s advanced facility management methods and apply them across infrastructure sites throughout India. Korea now needs new opportunities to share the knowledge and experience of its skilled safety experts, while India has a large and energetic workforce ready to absorb this expertise and protect the safety of its citizens. Indian engineers could manage their country’s growing skylines with the safety philosophy they learned from Korea, while Korea could continue improving its own maintenance technologies using the huge amount of data created through India’s expanding infrastructure projects. This would create a cycle where both countries grow together. More importantly, this is not only about technology. It is about sharing a culture that values human life and public safety above all else. In that sense, it is both a cultural partnership and a new form of trade. Facility management is never glamorous. It is a field that receives attention only when accidents do not happen. It works quietly in the shadows. But the stronger and deeper those shadows are, the brighter and taller the city above them can shine. Just as the Embassy of India and the Indian Cultural Centre have helped reduce the emotional distance between Korea and India, I believe the future relationship between the two countries should now grow further through practical cooperation in safety and infrastructure management. The small crack we inspect today may become the foundation for a much safer future tomorrow. In many ways, this idea closely reflects the theme of this contest: “Our Moments and Future.” When Korea’s experience and India’s energy come together to build a stronger foundation of safety, everyday life for Indian citizens will become more secure, and Korea’s safety industry will also gain new opportunities in the global market. I hope the sky we build together over India will be filled not with clouds of anxiety, but with the clear wind of trust. I truly believe that the path Korea and India walk together will ultimately become a road leading humanity toward a safer and more prosperous future. And I hope that the sincerity I have carried while quietly protecting people’s safety from unseen places will someday grow into something even greater above India’s rising skyscrapers. *The author, Choi Ji-su, is based in Korea. The author's writing was submitted in Korean, and was translated into English by AI. 2026-05-16 12:04:15

K-Art: Contemporary art in display at SETEC SEOUL, May 15 (AJP) -The '5th Seoul Art Fair (SAF),' diagnosing the present and envisioning the future of Korean contemporary art, opened at SETEC in Daechi-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. The event features 160 gallery and individual exhibition booths with approximately 1,200 artists participating. Beyond a simple exhibition, it presents a new type of art market based on a clear direction of being 'artist-centered.' This year, artists from China, France, Germany, Japan, and other countries have joined to showcase diverse artworks, and a 'K-Art' exhibition promoting the globalization of Korean art is also being held. Visitors can directly communicate with artists, exchange information, and purchase desired works. The fair runs for four days from Thursday, May 14 through Sunday, May 17 at SETEC near Hakdong Station in Daechi-dong, Seoul. 2026-05-16 12:03:08

AJP Deep Insight: US-China Summit: Missing are the voices of Russia and EU No sooner had President Donald Trump concluded his summit with President Xi Jinping and departed China on May 15, 2026 than news emerged that Russian President Vladimir Putin would arrive in Beijing almost immediately afterward. On the surface, such a visit may not appear extraordinary. Putin has traveled to China many times before, and Sino-Russian summits have become familiar features of the geopolitical landscape. Yet this visit feels fundamentally different. The timing itself tells the story. That Putin is rushing to Beijing almost the moment the U.S.-China summit concludes suggests not confidence, but urgency. In international politics, true great powers project composure. Anxiety, especially visible anxiety, is often the first sign of diminishing strength. The war in Ukraine has exposed Russia’s structural vulnerabilities to the world. The successor state to the Soviet Union — once the only power capable of rivaling the United States globally — still possesses vast territory and immense nuclear capabilities. Yet the prolonged conflict has revealed the limitations of Russia’s economic foundation, industrial structure, and technological competitiveness. Most notably, the gap separating Russia from the world’s leading powers in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, aerospace systems, drones, and precision-guided weapons has proven far wider than many expected. The deeper problem lies in Russia’s economic architecture itself. Despite its geopolitical ambitions, Russia remains heavily dependent on oil, natural gas, and mineral exports. Such a model may generate temporary strength when commodity prices are high, but it is poorly suited for the defining industries of the 21st century. The emerging global order is increasingly driven by artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, advanced semiconductors, and data infrastructure. In that race, Russia appears less like a future-oriented technological civilization and more like a resource empire struggling to preserve the remnants of past power. The European Union faces a different, but equally revealing, predicament. For decades, Europe was regarded as the world’s great civilian superpower — wealthy, stable, sophisticated, and morally influential. Yet the Ukraine war exposed profound structural weaknesses beneath that image. Europe’s industrial model had become deeply dependent on inexpensive Russian energy. Germany’s manufacturing engine has begun to lose momentum. France and Germany alike are facing weakening political leadership and rising internal fragmentation. Militarily, Europe still depends heavily on the American-led NATO framework for its ultimate security guarantees. As a result, the true geopolitical tigers of today’s world are no longer Russia and Europe, but the United States and China. The United States continues to dominate the global financial system, the dollar-based monetary order, advanced AI platforms, semiconductor design, and military power projection. China, meanwhile, commands the world’s largest manufacturing ecosystem, critical supply chains, rare earth resources, battery production, electric vehicles, and an enormous domestic market. The next tier of strategic powers may well belong not to Russia or Europe, but to Japan and South Korea. Japan remains a global leader in semiconductor materials, precision machinery, robotics, and industrial systems. South Korea has established unmatched competitiveness in memory semiconductors, AI infrastructure, batteries, shipbuilding, and digital cultural industries. Together with Taiwan’s semiconductor ecosystem, Northeast Asia has effectively become the oil field of the AI age. Russia and the European Union still possess military weight, historical prestige, and institutional influence. Yet in the decisive competition shaping the future — AI, platforms, semiconductors, and advanced technologies — they increasingly appear to be losing strategic momentum. In that sense, one might argue that they are gradually becoming “paper tigers”: outwardly formidable, yet drifting away from the true engines of future power. The recent U.S.-China summit symbolized precisely this transformation. Trump and Xi reportedly discussed Taiwan, North Korea, Iran’s nuclear issue, global supply chains, and the battle for AI supremacy. These are not isolated diplomatic topics. Together, they reveal the emergence of a new G2 era — not the bipolarity of the Cold War, but a new order shaped simultaneously by technology, finance, supply chains, AI, and geopolitical influence. In such an era, South Korea and Japan cannot afford to remain trapped indefinitely within the emotional architecture of 20th-century historical conflict. The wounds of colonial history are real and must never be trivialized. Memory and historical responsibility remain essential. Yet civilizations cannot survive on resentment alone. History must be remembered, but the future cannot be built solely upon inherited anger. The age of artificial intelligence is not merely a technological transition. It is ultimately a civilizational test. Humanity now faces a fundamental question: Will technology govern the human spirit, or will human wisdom govern technology? This is why the coming era must become what might be called a “Spirituality-Centered AI” age — an era in which ethics, philosophy, culture, and spiritual intelligence guide technological power. In this respect, South Korea and Japan represent a remarkably complementary partnership. South Korea possesses extraordinary dynamism, digital adaptability, semiconductor strength, and cultural influence. Japan contributes precision engineering, foundational scientific depth, industrial discipline, and systemic stability. Together, the two nations could form a civilizational and technological axis rivaled only by the United States and China. More importantly, Korea and Japan share a deeper cultural inheritance rooted in Confucian, Buddhist, and East Asian traditions. Unlike purely hegemonic models of power, these traditions emphasize harmony, balance, restraint, coexistence, and moral order. What Northeast Asia now requires is not politics imprisoned by yesterday’s emotions, but leadership capable of designing tomorrow’s civilization. The forthcoming meeting between Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and President Lee Jae-myung in Andong should therefore not remain a mere diplomatic ceremony. It should become the starting point for a genuine Korea-Japan economic and technological community. The world is rapidly reorganizing itself into strategic blocs. The United States is consolidating North American supply chains. China is strengthening a Sinocentric economic sphere. Europe still operates through the EU single market. If Korea and Japan continue exhausting themselves in historical confrontation alone, both nations may ultimately become the greatest victims of their own division. A Korea-Japan economic community should not be understood merely as a free-trade arrangement. It should encompass joint semiconductor supply chains, AI collaboration, energy security partnerships, shared research and development, educational exchanges, digital finance systems, and future-oriented industrial integration. The I Ching (周易) offers a timeless insight:“When hearts are united, they can cut through metal.” That may be precisely what Korea and Japan now require — the courage to remember the past honestly while still choosing cooperation for the future. The most difficult obstacle, of course, remains the unresolved burden of history itself. Pain, suffering, and injustice cannot simply be erased. Yet civilizations do not endure through vengeance alone. The Tao Te Ching (道德經) teaches: “Respond to resentment with virtue.” Laozi’s wisdom was not naïve idealism. It was a philosophy of civilizational endurance — the belief that lasting order is built not upon endless retaliation, but upon moral restraint and higher equilibrium. The Dhammapada (法句經) expresses the principle even more directly: “Hatred is never ended by hatred. It is ended only by compassion. This is an eternal truth.” More than two thousand years later, those words remain painfully relevant to Northeast Asia. The Bible offers a parallel truth in Romans: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” This does not mean forgetting history. Rather, it means transcending the cycle of hatred in order to build a higher and more enduring order. The world’s great scriptures speak in different languages, yet they point toward the same horizon: reconciliation over vengeance, coexistence over perpetual hostility, and the courage to create a future greater than the wounds of the past. This is an age in which Trump, Xi, and Putin move the geopolitical chessboard. Yet the true challenge for Korea and Japan is not merely how to react to great powers, but how to avoid becoming permanently trapped beneath them. The time may finally have come for Korea and Japan to become a strategic axis of their own — not only for economic prosperity, but for the preservation of peace, balance, and civilizational wisdom in the AI age now unfolding before humanity. 2026-05-16 11:59:17

Are Russia and the EU Becoming Paper Tigers in Global Power Dynamics? Beijing is experiencing a peculiar tension this May. As President Donald Trump concludes his visit to China, news emerges that President Vladimir Putin of Russia is heading to Beijing immediately afterward. At first glance, this may seem like a familiar scene; Putin has visited China multiple times, and China-Russia summits are not unusual. However, this situation is different. The fact that President Putin is rushing to Beijing right after the US-China summit between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping indicates Russia's urgency. In international politics, powerful nations typically project confidence. Conversely, haste often reveals a weakening of power. The war in Ukraine has exposed Russia's vulnerabilities to the world. Despite being a successor to the Soviet Union, which once competed with the United States for global dominance during the Cold War, Russia has revealed limitations in its economic strength, industrial base, and technological capabilities amid a prolonged conflict. The gap between Russia and the West in advanced semiconductors, AI, space, drones, and precision-guided weapon systems is significantly larger than anticipated. A more serious issue is Russia's economic resilience. The country remains heavily dependent on oil, natural gas, and mineral resources. While it appears strong when energy prices are high, its industrial structure is far from a future-oriented advanced economy. In the 21st century, as industries shift towards AI, biotechnology, quantum computing, and next-generation semiconductors, Russia's economy is increasingly being sidelined. The European Union (EU) faces similar challenges. Once regarded as the world's largest economic bloc capable of countering the United States, the EU's structural weaknesses have been laid bare by the Ukraine war. Industries reliant on cheap Russian energy are faltering, and Germany's manufacturing sector shows signs of stagnation. Political leadership in France and Germany has also weakened. Militarily, Europe continues to rely heavily on the United States and NATO. Ultimately, the real power players shaping today's global order are the United States and China. The U.S. maintains dominance through its control of the dollar, military strength, AI platforms, semiconductor design technology, and the global financial system. China counters with its vast manufacturing capabilities, supply chains, rare earth elements, batteries, electric vehicles, and a massive domestic market. The next tier of power may belong to Japan and South Korea. Japan retains world-class competitiveness in semiconductor materials, equipment, precision machinery, and robotics. South Korea holds a unique position in memory semiconductors, AI infrastructure, batteries, shipbuilding, and the digital culture industry. Notably, the East Asian semiconductor belt, led by Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and TSMC, has become a strategic asset akin to oil in the AI era. In contrast, Russia and the EU, while still possessing military strength and remnants of past glory, are increasingly being pushed aside in the competition for future industries and AI platforms. To put it bluntly, they are becoming "paper tigers"—imposing in appearance but distanced from the technologies and platforms that drive the future. The recent US-China summit symbolically illustrates this reality. Trump and Xi reportedly discussed issues ranging from Taiwan and North Korea to Iran's nuclear program, global supply chains, and AI dominance. This underscores the reconfiguration of the global order around a G2 framework, distinct from the bipolar system of the Cold War era. This time, the G2 order integrates economics, technology, AI, data, supply chains, and finance. In such an era, South Korea and Japan must not remain trapped in outdated historical conflicts. While the past is undeniably significant, with the scars of colonialism and historical issues requiring remembrance and reflection, strategic cooperation for the future is equally essential amidst the monumental civilizational shifts of the 21st century. The AI era is not merely a time of technological competition; it is an age where human spirit, ethics, culture, and philosophy must guide technology. It is a time when humanity's spirituality and civilization should lead AI, marking the era of "Spirituality-Centered AI." In this context, South Korea and Japan could form a remarkable partnership. South Korea brings dynamism, digital transformation capabilities, and strengths in content and semiconductors. Japan contributes precision manufacturing, foundational science, craftsmanship, and system stability. If the two countries collaborate, they have the potential to emerge as a new axis in AI, semiconductors, biotechnology, energy, and cultural industries, following the United States and China. Moreover, South Korea and Japan share a civilizational foundation rooted in Confucianism, Buddhism, and the East Asian community. This is a civilization characterized not by a Western-style hegemonic model but by philosophies of coexistence, order, moderation, and balance. Therefore, what is needed now is not politics that dwells solely on past grievances but politics that designs the future. The upcoming meeting between Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaiichi and President Lee Jae-myung in Andong should not merely end as a diplomatic event. It should serve as a historic starting point for the two nations to advance toward a new economic and technological community. The world is moving into a significant era of bloc formation. The United States is establishing a North America-centered supply chain, while China is strengthening its economic sphere in the Chinese-speaking world. Europe operates based on the EU single market. If South Korea and Japan continue to consume each other in historical conflicts, they risk becoming the biggest victims of their own actions. The Korea-Japan economic community is not just a concept of free trade. It should evolve into a future-oriented strategic alliance encompassing AI semiconductor supply chains, energy security cooperation, joint research and development (R&D), future talent exchanges, and digital finance collaboration. The "I Ching" states, "Those who share the same intentions can even break metal (同心之言 其利斷金)." What South Korea and Japan need now is precisely that: the courage to remember past wounds while joining hands for the future and the determination to create a new order in East Asian civilization. The most challenging issue in Korea-Japan relations remains the historical grievances. History carries wounds and scars that cannot be erased. However, civilization does not endure solely through resentment. Memory is necessary, but a future cannot be built on hatred alone. The "Tao Te Ching" states, "If you repay hatred with hatred, hatred will never cease (報怨以德)." Laozi believed that softness lasts longer than strength and that virtue creates order rather than revenge. This is not a philosophy of defeat but a philosophy of civilization. The "Dhammapada" also teaches, "Hatred is not resolved by hatred, but by compassion. This is an eternal truth." The teachings of the Buddha from thousands of years ago still apply today in Northeast Asia. Inter-state relations cannot be sustained through endless hostility and hatred. Ultimately, understanding, moderation, and the wisdom of coexistence are essential. The Bible also contains a verse that states, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." This does not imply forgetting. Rather, it suggests creating a higher order beyond the wounds. The great texts of human civilization may use different languages, but they ultimately point in the same direction: towards reconciliation, coexistence, and courage for the future, rather than the repetition of hatred. We live in an era where Trump, Xi, and Putin are active. However, what is truly important is the wisdom to not be dragged between great powers. Now, South Korea and Japan must become a unified axis. This may be the most realistic path to maintaining peace in Northeast Asia and opening up prosperity for future generations.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-16 11:24:00

President Lee Jae-myung's Visit to Rural Areas Highlights Agricultural Issues President Lee Jae-myung's visit to rural areas in Andong, Gyeongbuk, and Gunwi, Daegu, where he engaged directly with residents, has been positively received. On Teacher's Day, he visited his former teacher, participated in rice planting, and conversed with farmers, clearly conveying a message of 'field-centered governance.' His commitment to personally inspecting the field, moving beyond a bureaucratic reporting system, is a significant approach to governance. However, if such actions remain one-time experiences or symbolic gestures, their policy impact will inevitably be limited. Field communication should be the starting point of policy, not the end goal. What the public expects is not 'politics of display' but 'politics that brings about change.' The key issues highlighted during this visit are agriculture and regional development. In the agricultural sector, the President's hands-on experience with rice planting is significant as it allows him to grasp the labor intensity faced by farmers. However, the structural problems in South Korean agriculture are already well-known, including an aging farming population, a lack of youth influx, and inefficiencies in production and distribution. According to data from the Statistics Korea and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the farming population continues to decline, with the aging rate exceeding 40%. While the production base weakens, improvements in the distribution structure are slow. These issues cannot be resolved merely through field experiences or empathetic messaging. Practical policy measures such as expanding smart agriculture, reducing distribution stages, and strengthening price stabilization mechanisms must be implemented concurrently. The issue of the Daegu-Gyeongbuk Integrated New Airport is similarly complex. This large infrastructure project, pursued by the city of Daegu and Gyeongbuk Province, faces significant challenges, including funding methods and project delays. Concerns have arisen regarding the sustainability of the project, particularly as the financial burden on local governments increases. This matter requires a structural response at the central government level, going beyond simple field inspections. Without a review of financial support methods, project restructuring, and the establishment of a risk-sharing system, the issues of project delays and cost increases are likely to recur. Ultimately, the key question is whether field communication translates into policy. If the opinions gathered from the field do not lead to actual institutional improvements, the significance of communication will be limited. Policies are evaluated based on concrete execution and results. In particular, issues related to agriculture and regional development are structural challenges that cannot be resolved with short-term solutions. With population decline and industrial structural changes occurring simultaneously, many argue that existing policy frameworks are insufficient to respond effectively. Therefore, an approach that redesigns the entire system, rather than merely expanding support, is necessary. The advantage of field visits lies in the ability to directly verify reality. However, this also increases the responsibility for policy. If issues are identified but do not lead to change, the gap between expectations and reality may widen. The President's recent actions are significant in that they clearly establish a 'field-centered' direction. However, future evaluations of governance will be determined not by these actions themselves but by their outcomes. Concrete results such as improving agricultural income, revitalizing local economies, and mitigating project risks must follow to enhance the completeness of policies. Politics begins with messaging but is evaluated based on results. The field has been sufficiently showcased. Now, what is needed is the speed and execution of policies. It is time to respond with results, not just images.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-16 11:15:58

Trump and Xi Discuss North Korea at US-China Summit: Can Peace Prevail on the Peninsula? In May 2026, the US-China summit held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing was more than just a diplomatic event between the two nations' leaders. It was a pivotal moment where the world's largest strategic competitors, the United States and China, recalibrated the direction of global order amid a delicate balance of conflict and cooperation. Central to these discussions was the ongoing issue of North Korea. President Donald Trump stated shortly after the meeting that he had discussed the North Korean issue with President Xi Jinping. This brief comment prompted immediate reactions from the international diplomatic community, signaling that North Korea had once again become a key topic in the US-China strategic dialogue. For decades, the North Korean issue has been one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the international order of Northeast Asia. For the United States, it represents a nuclear threat; for China, it is a matter of regime stability and a buffer zone; for South Korea, it is a question of survival amid the specter of war and peace. Japan views it through the lens of security anxiety, while Russia sees it as a geopolitical issue linked to its Far East strategy. Recent visits by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to Pyongyang underscore this trend. His first visit to the North Korean capital in over six years sent a significant political message. Following the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war, relations between North Korea and China have been marked by a new level of tension. North Korea has rapidly strengthened its ties with Russia, while China has appeared to distance itself somewhat. Since the Ukraine war, the relationship between North Korea and Russia has evolved into a military alliance. Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un have strengthened strategic cooperation through summit meetings, with Western intelligence suggesting that North Korea has provided munitions and military supplies to Russia. In return, Russia has offered military technology, energy, and food assistance to North Korea, deepening their ties. From North Korea's perspective, Russia has become a strategic ally that alleviates the pressure of international sanctions. Meanwhile, Russia, facing a protracted conflict in Ukraine, has found a military supply chain in North Korea. The interests of both nations have aligned. However, for China, North Korea's excessive alignment with Russia is an unwelcome scenario. North Korea falls within China's traditional sphere of influence, and Beijing does not desire a sudden change in the Korean Peninsula's status quo, nor does it want North Korea to tilt entirely toward Russia. Thus, Wang Yi's visit to North Korea is seen as an effort to restore and reaffirm China's influence in the region. Interestingly, the relationship between President Trump and Kim Jong Un remains significant. Trump has repeatedly emphasized that he maintains a good relationship with Kim. The unprecedented diplomacy displayed during their meetings in Singapore and at the Panmunjom border surprised the world. However, since the collapse of the Hanoi summit, US-North Korea relations have effectively stalled. Kim has grown increasingly distrustful of the United States, while Trump has had to deprioritize the North Korean issue amid domestic political pressures. Nonetheless, Trump still aspires to be remembered as the US president who resolved the North Korean nuclear issue and achieved peace on the Korean Peninsula. The motivation behind this ambition is clear. Resolving the North Korean issue transcends mere diplomatic achievement; it carries the potential for a Nobel Peace Prize-level significance. No US president has fundamentally resolved the North Korean nuclear issue in history. If Trump can achieve tangible progress in freezing North Korea's nuclear program, implementing phased denuclearization, and establishing a peace regime, it could be recorded as one of the greatest diplomatic accomplishments since the Cold War. However, the reality in North Korea is challenging. Recently, North Korea has rapidly advanced its nuclear weapons systems and defense industry. It is moving beyond simple nuclear development to establish a multi-layered nuclear capability, including tactical nuclear systems, solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), hypersonic missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). This represents a qualitative shift from the past. North Korea now views nuclear possession not as a bargaining chip but as an absolute condition for regime survival. The Kim regime has elevated nuclear power to a constitutional level of national strategy, while the defense industry has been restructured as a core pillar of the national economy. The expansion of military cooperation with Russia is introducing new variables into North Korea's defense industry modernization. Discussions of military technology exchanges and potential satellite technology cooperation are emerging. North Korea aims to strengthen its asymmetric capabilities to withstand US military pressure. In this context, South Korea's role is becoming increasingly important. President Lee Jae-myung has recently emphasized the need for easing tensions between the two Koreas and establishing a phased peace roadmap. His approach advocates for restoring dialogue through economic cooperation, military tension reduction, and humanitarian exchanges. The Lee administration is particularly inclined to approach the Korean Peninsula issue not merely as an ideological confrontation but as a matter of survival and economics. As the possibility of war increases, the South Korean economy, financial markets, and foreign investment sentiment face direct threats. However, the reality is complex. The United States is strengthening security cooperation with South Korea and Japan to counter China, while Japan is accelerating its defense spending and long-range strike capabilities. Conversely, North Korea, Russia, and to some extent China are strategically aligning, creating a new Cold War atmosphere in Northeast Asia. Some analysts suggest that a de facto 'US-South Korea-Japan versus North Korea-China-Russia' structure is already forming in Northeast Asia. This implies the potential emergence of a collective security framework similar to NATO in Europe. Yet, Northeast Asia is distinct from Europe. Its history, ethnicities, and economies are far more intricately intertwined. China and the United States are each other's largest trading partners, even as they clash, and South Korea's security is deeply connected to the US while its economy is intertwined with China. The North Korean issue is not merely a military concern but is also intertwined with regime stability, history, economics, and ethnicity. The ancient Chinese text, the Dao De Jing, states, "A great nation should remain lowly." This suggests that stronger nations should prioritize humility and order over power. This sentiment resonates deeply in today's US-China relations and the Korean Peninsula issue. Additionally, the Analects of Confucius states, "The noble person seeks harmony but does not seek sameness; the petty person seeks sameness but cannot achieve harmony." This reflects the ancient wisdom of East Asian civilization, advocating for coexistence and harmony despite differing systems and ideologies. The Buddhist Dhammapada also teaches, "Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love." This ancient wisdom prompts us to reconsider what the last hope for human civilization is amid nuclear weapons, missiles, military alliances, and hegemonic competition. Ultimately, the path to peace is not easy. However, paradoxically, the higher the tension, the greater the need for dialogue. Nuclear weapons, missiles, military alliances, and strategic competition alone cannot resolve the future of the Korean Peninsula. The discussions between President Trump and President Xi on the North Korean issue may have reaffirmed this reality. Great powers often rediscover the necessity of negotiation just before the brink of conflict. Likewise, the prospect for peace on the Korean Peninsula may gradually advance through a cycle of confrontation and negotiation. Spring does not arrive overnight. Yet, throughout history, humanity has always awaited spring after a long winter. The same applies to peace on the Korean Peninsula. Today, Northeast Asia stands under a vast geopolitical cloud, but within it, the refusal to abandon the possibilities of dialogue, restraint, and mutual coexistence is the true beginning of diplomacy.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-16 11:03:00