Search results
59 results
-
Xi Jinping's Visit to Pyongyang: North Korea's Nuclear Ambitions and Global Tensions On June 8, 2026, the worlds attention will turn to Pyongyang as Chinese President Xi Jinping visits North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at his invitation. This marks Xis first visit to North Korea in seven years, since 2019. On the surface, the summit aims to reaffirm the friendly relations between the two countries. However, the timing of this visit suggests deeper implications.North Korea has recently showcased its uranium enrichment facilities, signaling its intent to bolster its nuclear capabilities. Meanwhile, the United States continues to emphasize its commitment to complete denuclearization. The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine has become protracted, and the Middle East remains mired in unstable ceasefires and military tensions. The U.S. and China are engaged in a strategic competition over AI, semiconductors, advanced industries, and military technology.Xis visit to Pyongyang is not merely a bilateral summit; it symbolizes the current state of a shifting global order following the Ukraine war and highlights that the Korean Peninsula remains a central stage in international politics. Today, Pyongyang is not just a local issue; it has become a nexus of international relations connecting Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul, and Brussels. The world is returning to an era dominated by geopolitics.Since the end of the Cold War, there was a belief that free trade and globalization would reduce conflicts between nations. It was thought that economic development would lead to fewer wars. However, the reality has proven otherwise. The war in Ukraine, which began in 2022, has fundamentally challenged this belief. Russia attempted to alter borders through military force, while the U.S. and Europe responded with extensive military aid and economic sanctions. The world is shifting back to a period dominated by power politics. The war is not merely a European issue; it has disrupted energy markets, caused grain prices to soar, and reshaped global supply chains. International financial markets now face new uncertainties. Most importantly, there has been a polarization in international politics, with a new strategic alliance forming around China and Russia, contrasted with the Western bloc led by the U.S. and Europe. While the divisions are not as stark as during the Cold War, it is clear that the world is once again moving based on strategy, security, national interests, and power. In this changing landscape, North Korea is also redefining its position.North Korea has long viewed nuclear weapons as a means of ensuring regime survival. Recent actions indicate that it seeks to establish nuclear weapons not just as a deterrent but as part of its national identity. North Korea is moving towards solidifying its status as a nuclear power, regardless of international recognition. However, the international community, including the U.S., South Korea, Japan, and the United Nations, does not recognize North Korea as an official nuclear state. Nonetheless, North Korea continues to enhance its nuclear capabilities to increase its bargaining power. Some international relations experts suggest that one reason for North Koreas strengthened cooperation with Russia is to elevate its international standing amid the Ukraine conflict. Particularly, North Korea may aim to highlight that it is no longer an isolated nation but strategically connected to major powers like Russia and China. While this does not guarantee recognition of its nuclear status, there is a plausible strategic calculation at play.For Kim Jong Un, this summit is not just a diplomatic event. North Korea faces the urgent challenge of economic recovery. International sanctions remain in place, and its industrial base is fragile. Therefore, economic cooperation with China is crucial for North Korea. China is North Koreas largest trading partner and essentially serves as its economic lifeline. Kim is likely to seek expanded economic cooperation and political support during this summit, while also sending a message to the international community that North Korea is not isolated. Managing stable relations with China, especially in the context of strengthening ties with Russia, is a key diplomatic objective for North Korea.Xis calculations are also complex. China cannot afford to abandon North Korea, not merely for ideological reasons but for geopolitical ones. From Chinas perspective, North Korea serves as a strategic buffer directly adjacent to the U.S. alliance system. China does not desire rapid changes or chaos on the Korean Peninsula, nor does it want the collapse of the North Korean regime or excessive military provocations. Stability is what China seeks: a stable North Korea, a predictable Korean Peninsula, and a controllable state of tension are fundamental to Chinas strategy. Xis visit to Pyongyang reflects these strategic objectives. Moreover, China is currently engaged in a comprehensive competition with the U.S. across various domains, including semiconductors, AI, batteries, electric vehicles, military technology, and space industries. In this context, the Korean Peninsula is a strategic space that China cannot afford to overlook.At the center of contemporary international politics is AI. While 20th-century international relations revolved around oil, 21st-century dynamics are increasingly centered on semiconductors and AI. The competition between the U.S. and China can ultimately be viewed as an AI competition. Military power, industrial competitiveness, and national strength are now determined by AI. South Korea possesses the worlds leading memory semiconductor production capacity and stands at the core of the AI revolutions supply chain. Consequently, issues on the Korean Peninsula are no longer merely security concerns; they have evolved into complex matters intertwined with semiconductors, AI, supply chains, data centers, advanced manufacturing, and national strategies. This complexity explains why both China and the U.S. regard South Korea as a crucial partner.The Middle East adds another variable to this equation. The global economy remains heavily reliant on energy. Conflicts in the Middle East can lead to fluctuations in international oil prices, which in turn can destabilize the global economy. Just as the Ukraine war has impacted energy markets, the Middle East continues to pose risks to global economic stability. China is one of the worlds largest energy importers, making stability in both the Middle East and Northeast Asia essential for its interests. This is why China does not want excessive tensions to escalate on the Korean Peninsula. Ultimately, the upcoming North Korea-China summit is interconnected with three significant international phenomena: the North Korean nuclear issue, the Ukraine war, and the Middle East crisis. While these may seem like separate events, they are all part of a larger process of restructuring the global order.South Korea also faces new challenges. It is no longer a peripheral player in international politics. As the worlds 10th largest economy and a key player in the global semiconductor industry, South Korea has successfully achieved both democracy and industrialization. However, with increased power comes greater responsibility. The U.S.-South Korea alliance remains a cornerstone of South Koreas security, while China is one of its largest trading partners. Despite military tensions with North Korea, South Korea cannot afford to abandon peace. In this complex reality, South Korean diplomacy cannot simply lean toward one side. It must become a nation that is not forced to choose between great powers but one that is essential to them. This is the path South Korea must take today.Historically, the Korean Peninsula has experienced numerous crises but has also created new opportunities amid those challenges. The current world stands at another significant turning point. The AI revolution is transforming industrial structures, the Ukraine war is shaking the international order, and conflicts in the Middle East are altering energy landscapes. North Korea is enhancing its nuclear capabilities, China is expanding its strategic space, and the U.S. is restructuring its alliance network. All these changes are occurring simultaneously on the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, Xi Jinpings visit to Pyongyang is not merely a diplomatic engagement; it is a microcosm of a changing global order and a symbolic event that underscores the Korean Peninsulas continued significance in global strategy.We are witnessing a pivotal moment in history. History always poses the same question: Will we become a nation that is swayed between great powers, or will we become a nation that is indispensable to them? South Korea now faces an era where it must answer that question. The future of the Korean Peninsula will not be determined solely by geopolitics; rather, it will be shaped by how geopolitics is leveraged. The most significant lesson from the meeting between Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un lies here. The world is once again in motion, and at the center of that movement stands the Korean Peninsula. The future of history will be written simultaneously in Pyongyang, Seoul, Beijing, and Washington. The crucial question is whether we will remain mere observers of history or become its protagonists. The Korean Peninsula is once again at the heart of history.* This article has been translated by AI. June 5, 2026 12:12 -
The Ongoing Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz: A New World Order Amidst War and Diplomacy As the world approaches the end of May 2026, attention is once again focused on the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz is echoing with explosions as the United States and Iran engage in both negotiations and military actions simultaneously. The White House has indicated that there is progress, but President Donald Trump has also warned that he could end it all again if necessary. Iran, while expressing a desire to maintain a ceasefire, criticizes the U.S. for its limited airstrikes, calling them a violation of the ceasefire. The current situation is characterized by a peculiar form of warfare that is neither full-scale war nor complete peace. It is not a ceasefire, nor is it a formal end to hostilities. Negotiations are ongoing, yet the sounds of conflict persist. This is a classic example of a 21st-century gray zone war. However, the essence of this conflict extends beyond mere military clashes; it intertwines issues of nuclear weapons, oil, the dollar system, U.S.-China power competition, and the competition for supply chains in the AI era. The Strait of Hormuz has become a fault line for the entire global order. A key feature of the current crisis is that war and diplomacy are moving in tandem. The U.S. and Iran are discussing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for peace, with both sides signaling that there is progress. The U.S. State Department and the White House maintain that negotiations have not completely broken down, and Iran has not officially closed the door on diplomatic solutions. However, U.S. forces have conducted airstrikes on Iranian military facilities near the Strait of Hormuz just two days later, which they claim are defensive measures. They reported shooting down four Iranian drones and striking a ground control station preparing to launch a fifth drone. While this appears to be a limited confrontation, global financial markets and the international community do not view it as merely a localized conflict, given that the Strait of Hormuz is the heart of global oil transportation. A significant portion of the worlds maritime oil traffic passes through this region, serving as a lifeline for manufacturing nations like South Korea, China, and Japan. If this area were to be blocked or enter a prolonged state of instability, international oil prices could surge, global logistics could be disrupted, and inflation could rise again. The U.S. is acutely aware of these stakes. President Trump has cultivated an image as a president who does not prolong wars. He prefers to pressure and negotiate with limited military action rather than engage in large-scale ground wars. However, Iran does not operate on the U.S. timetable. While the U.S. seeks speed, Iran uses time as a weapon, a strategy rooted in the ancient survival tactics of Persian civilization. The U.S. is a young superpower with only 250 years of history, while Iran has a legacy of 5,000 years. The U.S. has historically wielded military and financial power to influence the world, but Iran has learned to endure external pressures and imperial domination throughout its long history. Thus, as U.S. military pressure increases, Iran opts for a strategy of delay and psychological warfare rather than direct confrontation. In fact, Iran is currently managing tensions rather than launching immediate large-scale retaliation, fully aware of the risks of total war. The Iranian economy is already devastated by sanctions, with rising youth unemployment, inflation, and systemic fatigue. Meanwhile, the U.S. also does not desire a full-scale war, as its economy has not fully escaped inflationary pressures, and a prolonged conflict could pose political challenges for Trump ahead of the elections. Ultimately, the current situation represents a precarious balance where neither side can fully attack nor easily retreat. The core issues in the U.S.-Iran negotiations can be summarized into four main points. First is the nuclear issue. President Trump has repeatedly stated that Irans possession of nuclear weapons is absolutely unacceptable. The U.S. is particularly concerned about Irans stockpile of 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%. Nuclear experts generally consider uranium enriched to 90% to be weapon-grade, but 60% enrichment is already deemed a significant risk, as it can be further enriched in a short time. The U.S. believes that it cannot move toward a peace settlement without eliminating or controlling this stockpile. Conversely, for Iran, nuclear capability is not merely a weapon; it is a guarantee of regime survival. The case of Libyas Gaddafi regime, which collapsed after giving up its nuclear program, has left a deep trauma in the Iranian leadership. The second issue is the handling of uranium. The U.S. strongly opposes the idea of China and Russia taking Irans enriched uranium, as these nations are strategic competitors. A potential alternative could involve third-party management, particularly with Pakistan, which is an interesting option. Pakistan is the first nuclear-armed nation in the Islamic world and maintains a strategic relationship with China while not being entirely hostile to the U.S. It also has deep ties with Saudi Arabia. If some of Irans enriched uranium could be temporarily stored in an internationally managed facility in Pakistan under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.S. could alleviate concerns about nuclear proliferation while allowing Iran to save face. Diplomacy ultimately involves creating exit strategies that do not leave the other side feeling completely defeated. The third issue is the Strait of Hormuz itself. This region is not just a maritime passage; it is a vital artery of modern civilization. The global economy still operates on oil and LNG. Even in the AI era, semiconductor factories and data centers require vast amounts of power and energy. AI consumes enormous energy, and data centers, semiconductor plants, cloud servers, and supercomputing systems demand unprecedented energy resources. This is why U.S. tech giants are competing for nuclear, LNG, and renewable energy resources. Ultimately, the AI era is not merely a post-oil age but rather a period of energy hegemony reconfiguration. Therefore, the Strait of Hormuz is likely to remain a critical variable in the global economy for the foreseeable future. For China, the Strait of Hormuz is a lifeline. As the worlds largest manufacturing nation and one of the largest oil importers, Chinas factories, logistics, cities, and industrial zones depend on the energy flow from the Middle East. If the Strait of Hormuz were to become unstable in the long term, the Chinese economy could face severe pressure. The U.S. is well aware of this, which is why its strategy extends beyond merely pressuring Iran; it also aims to control Chinas energy arteries. This is where the Middle East issue intersects with U.S.-China power competition. China is strengthening its strategic relationship with Iran, as is Russia. Meanwhile, the U.S. seeks to establish a new Middle Eastern order centered around Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel. Ultimately, the Middle East is becoming a crossroads for a new Cold War. Whereas the previous Cold War was a clash between liberalism and communism, the current conflict is far more complex, involving AI hegemony, semiconductor supply chains, energy control, maritime logistics, the dollar system, and digital finance, all intertwined with religious and civilizational factors. The issue of the dollar system is particularly significant. The U.S. has controlled the global economy through the dollar. The SWIFT payment network and international financial systems are essentially structured around U.S. interests. Sanctions against Iran were ultimately a financial blockade through the dollar system. However, recently, China, Russia, and some Middle Eastern countries have been expanding their de-dollarization efforts, increasing transactions in yuan, gold trading, and energy transactions in their own currencies. While this has not yet shaken the dollar system, the U.S. is feeling a sense of crisis, as one of the core elements of dollar hegemony has been the Middle Eastern oil payment system. If the Middle Eastern order shifts from a U.S.-centric model to a multipolar system, the dollar system will inevitably be affected in the long term. In fact, the conflicts currently unfolding in the Middle East are not merely clashes of national interests. They encompass simultaneous conflicts between Jewish and Islamic civilizations, Shia and Sunni sects, and the U.S.-centric order versus a multipolar system. Since the Trump era, the Middle East has begun to create a new dynamic through the Abraham Accords, establishing a pragmatic coexistence order centered around Israel, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. However, Iran remains excluded from this framework. Therefore, moving forward, it is essential to evolve from the Abraham Accords to the Noah Accords. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ultimately share a common root. The lineage of Shem, one of Noahs descendants, connects the spiritual origins of todays Jewish, Arab, and Persian worlds. True peace in the Middle East can only begin with the recognition that one cannot completely eliminate the other. Currently, the global financial market operates on three massive axes: the AI revolution, U.S.-China power competition, and Middle Eastern risks. Until now, global stock markets have been driven by the AI rally, with U.S. AI semiconductor companies and big tech remaining at the center of the market. However, the Middle Eastern variable poses a significant risk that could disrupt this trend at any moment. If the U.S. and Iran succeed in reaching a limited agreement and stabilize the Strait of Hormuz, global stock markets are likely to continue their AI-driven upward trajectory. Conversely, if negotiations collapse completely and the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz escalates, international oil prices could soar, and global inflation could resurface. The U.S. Federal Reserve may find it difficult to lower interest rates, and the world economy could face the risk of stagflation. Chinese manufacturing and European industries could suffer significant blows, and South Korea would inevitably experience direct impacts. Although South Korea is geographically distant from the Middle East, it is not in a safe zone. The South Korean economy is export-driven and heavily reliant on energy imports. Instability in the Strait of Hormuz would directly lead to increased costs for South Korean industries. Semiconductor companies like Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix ultimately grow based on global financial stability and energy security. A surge in international oil prices and geopolitical conflicts would inevitably burden the entire South Korean stock market. Therefore, South Korea must simultaneously pursue energy supply chain diversification, strengthen its competitiveness in AI and semiconductor industries, and implement a balanced diplomatic strategy in the Middle East. Today, the world does not operate solely on military power. We are in an era where energy, AI, finance, supply chains, civilization, and geopolitics move simultaneously. The Strait of Hormuz is not just a body of water; it is a microcosm of the 21st-century world order. Humanity is currently testing a new order over that sea: a system of coexistence rather than a balance of warfare, a management system of trust rather than the fear of nuclear weapons, and a civilizational imagination that transcends the Abraham Accords towards the Noah Accords. This is the path for the Middle East and the world to survive together.* This article has been translated by AI. May 28, 2026 14:54 -
AJP DEEP INSIGHT: Hormuz's final tug-of-war — nuclear stakes, civilizational fault lines, and a new world order in the AI age SEOUL, May 28 (AJP) - In late May 2026, the world is watching the Middle East once again with unflinching attention. Explosions continue to echo across the Strait of Hormuz. The United States and Iran are simultaneously pursuing negotiations and military action. The White House signals "progress." Yet in the same breath, President Donald Trump warns that he could "finish it again" if necessary. Iran insists it intends to uphold the ceasefire, while condemning limited American airstrikes as violations of it. What the world is witnessing is a strange kind of war. Not a full-scale conflict, but not genuine peace either. Neither a ceasefire nor a true end to hostilities. Negotiations proceed even as the guns keep firing. This is the defining character of the 21st-century gray zone war. But its essence runs deeper than any conventional military clash. Beneath the surface lie nuclear ambitions and oil, the dollar system and the U.S.–China rivalry for global supremacy, the collision of Islamic and Jewish civilizations, and the contest over supply chains in the age of artificial intelligence. The Strait of Hormuz has become more than a body of water. It is the fault line of the entire world order. The most striking feature of the current crisis is that war and diplomacy are advancing in parallel. Washington and Tehran are reportedly discussing a memorandum of understanding toward an end to hostilities, and both sides have sent signals that progress is being made. The U.S. State Department and White House have indicated that negotiations have not collapsed entirely, and Iran has officially kept the door to a diplomatic resolution open. Yet simultaneously, U.S. forces launched fresh airstrikes on Iranian military installations near the Strait of Hormuz within days of the latest exchange. Washington described the strikes as defensive, citing the interception of four Iranian drones and the destruction of a ground control station preparing to launch a fifth. On the surface, it appears a limited confrontation. Yet global financial markets and the international community do not view it that way. The reason is simple: the Strait of Hormuz is the heart of the world's oil supply chain. A critical share of the world's seaborne crude passes through this narrow passage each day. It is the energy lifeline of manufacturing nations such as South Korea, China, and Japan. Any prolonged blockade or sustained instability here would send oil prices surging, fracture global logistics, and risk reigniting inflation. Washington understands this better than anyone. Trump has cultivated the image of a president who does not drag out wars. His preferred method is coercion and negotiation punctuated by limited military action — a strategy designed to bend adversaries without committing to full-scale conflict. But Iran does not operate on an American timetable. Where the United States wants speed, Iran deploys time itself as a weapon. That is an ancient Persian survival strategy. America is a young superpower, barely 250 years old. Iran is a civilization with 5,000 years of memory. It has learned, across centuries of foreign pressure and imperial domination, how to endure. And so, as American military pressure intensifies, Iran's response is not frontal confrontation but a strategy of delay and psychological attrition. In the current crisis, rather than launching immediate large-scale retaliation, Tehran has pursued managed tension. It knows the dangers of total war all too well. The Iranian economy has been hollowed out by sanctions. Youth unemployment, rising prices, and deep systemic fatigue have accumulated at home. But Washington, too, has no appetite for a full war. The American economy has not fully escaped inflationary pressure. For Trump, with domestic politics always in view, a prolonged conflict carries serious political risk. The result is a dangerously balanced standoff in which neither side can deliver a decisive blow nor easily back down. Four Fault Lines at the Heart of the Negotiations The current U.S.–Iran negotiations revolve around four core disputes. The first, and most fundamental, is the nuclear question. Trump has repeatedly and unequivocally stated that Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is an absolute red line. Washington's most acute concern is Iran's stockpile of approximately 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. Nuclear experts generally define weapons-grade uranium as enriched to around 90 percent, but material at 60 percent is already considered a significant danger threshold — technically, further enrichment to weapons-grade levels is achievable within a short window. The United States sees no path to a post-war settlement without eliminating or placing that material under verifiable control. From Tehran's perspective, however, nuclear capability is not merely a weapon. It is an insurance policy for regime survival. The fate of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi — who dismantled his nuclear program only to see his government collapse and himself killed — remains a defining trauma for Iran's leadership. No Iranian government can lightly surrender that leverage. The second dispute concerns the handling of enriched uranium. Washington has expressed strong reluctance to allow China or Russia to take custody of Iran's highly enriched stockpile. The logic is straightforward: both are American strategic rivals. The more realistic alternative may be third-country management. Pakistan presents a particularly intriguing option. It is the Muslim world's first nuclear-armed state, maintains a strategic relationship with China, is not fully hostile to the United States, and has deep ties with Saudi Arabia. A model under which some portion of Iran's highly enriched uranium is stored temporarily in an internationally co-managed facility on Pakistani soil — under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision — could allow Washington to address its proliferation concerns while offering Tehran a face-saving exit. Diplomacy, after all, is ultimately the art of creating an off-ramp for the other side without demanding their complete humiliation. The third issue is the Strait of Hormuz itself. This is not merely a shipping lane. It is a vein of modern civilization. The global economy still runs on oil and liquefied natural gas. The AI age has arrived, but semiconductor fabrication plants and data centers consume extraordinary quantities of energy. AI is, at its core, a massive energy consumer. The data centers, chip factories, cloud server farms, and hyperscale AI computing systems that power the new economy require energy on a scale that strains the imagination. That is precisely why America's big tech companies are racing to secure nuclear power, LNG, and renewable energy sources. The AI age is less an era "after oil" than an era of energy power restructuring. The Strait of Hormuz will therefore remain a critical variable in the global economy for the foreseeable future. For China in particular, Hormuz is a lifeline. China is the world's largest manufacturing economy and one of its largest crude oil importers. Its factories, logistics networks, cities, and industrial zones run on Middle Eastern energy flows. A prolonged disruption to Hormuz would deliver a potentially crippling blow to the Chinese economy. Washington understands this clearly. The American strategy in the region therefore extends beyond pressuring Iran. It also functions as a means of exerting leverage over China's energy supply chain — linking the Middle East crisis directly to the broader U.S.–China contest for global primacy. China, in turn, has deepened its strategic ties with Iran, as has Russia. Meanwhile, the United States seeks to build a new regional order centered on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel. The Middle East is becoming the intersection of a new cold war. If the original Cold War was a clash between liberalism and communism, the present contest is far more complex. AI supremacy and semiconductor supply chains, control over energy and maritime logistics, the dollar system and digital finance, religion and civilization — all of these are simultaneously in play. The dollar question is particularly important. The United States has used dollar dominance to exert control over the global economy. The SWIFT payment system and the international financial architecture are, in practice, American-centered structures. Sanctions against Iran were ultimately a financial blockade executed through that dollar system. Yet China, Russia, and certain Middle Eastern states have been quietly expanding their use of alternative arrangements — renminbi-denominated payments, gold transactions, and energy trades settled in local currencies. None of this yet threatens dollar hegemony. But Washington senses the risk. The reason is that one of the foundational pillars of dollar primacy has always been the petrodollar system — the convention by which Middle Eastern oil is priced and settled in dollars. If the Middle East order shifts from American dominance toward a multipolar framework, the dollar system itself will face long-term structural pressure. Beyond the Abraham Accords: The Case for a 'Noah Covenant' The conflicts now tearing through the Middle East are not simply clashes of national interest. They carry within them the collision of Jewish and Islamic civilizations, the rivalry between Shia and Sunni power blocs, and the confrontation between an American-led order and a multipolar alternative. The Trump era's Abraham Accords opened a new current in the region — the emergence of a pragmatic framework for coexistence centered on Israel, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. But Iran remains outside that framework. That absence matters enormously. The path forward must go beyond the Abraham Accords toward something that might be called a "Noah Covenant." Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ultimately share a common root. Among the descendants of Noah in the biblical tradition, the line of Shem — the Semitic lineage — connects to the spiritual origins of the Jewish, Arab, and Persian worlds. The region's genuine peace can only begin from the honest recognition that "the other side cannot be completely eliminated." Coexistence is not defeat. It is survival. Three Axes Moving Global Financial Markets Global financial markets are currently moving along three great axes. The first is the AI revolution. The second is the U.S.–China rivalry for supremacy. The third is Middle East risk. Until now, global equity markets have been driven by the AI rally. American AI semiconductor companies and big tech firms remain the dominant force. But the Middle East variable represents the single greatest risk capable of destabilizing that trajectory at any moment. If Washington and Tehran achieve a limited agreement and Hormuz stability is preserved, global markets will likely resume their AI-led advance. But if negotiations collapse entirely and the Hormuz crisis escalates in earnest, international oil prices could spike sharply and global inflation could re-emerge. The U.S. Federal Reserve would be unable to cut interest rates freely. The world economy would face the prospect of stagflation. Chinese manufacturing and European industry would absorb severe damage — and South Korea would not be spared. What This Means for South Korea South Korea is geographically distant from the Middle East, but it sits in no safe zone. The Korean economy is export-driven and heavily dependent on energy imports. Instability in the Strait of Hormuz translates directly into higher costs for Korean industry. Companies such as Samsung Electronics and SK hynix ultimately grow atop a foundation of global financial and energy stability. A surge in international oil prices and geopolitical turbulence would weigh on the entire Korean equity market. South Korea must therefore pursue three objectives simultaneously: diversification of its energy supply chain, reinforcement of its competitive industrial capabilities in AI and semiconductors, and a strategy of calibrated diplomatic balance in the Middle East. The world today does not move on military force alone. This is an era in which energy and AI, finance and supply chains, civilization and geopolitics all move together. The Strait of Hormuz is not simply a body of water. It is a microcosm of the entire 21st-century world order. And at this moment, humanity is testing that order on the surface of that sea. What is needed is not a balance of war, but an architecture of coexistence. Not the terror of nuclear weapons, but a system of trust and verifiable management. Not the transactional pragmatism of the Abraham Accords alone, but the civilizational imagination to move toward a Noah Covenant. That may be the only path through which the Middle East — and the world — survives what comes next. May 28, 2026 12:48 -
AJP DEEP INSIGHT: Middle East still needs 'Noah Covenant' for lasting peace SEOUL, May 24 (AJP) - In May 2026, the Middle East once again reminded the world how fragile the arteries of global civilization truly are. The United States and Iran moved perilously close to direct confrontation. Financial markets trembled. Oil traders watched every movement in the Persian Gulf with mounting anxiety. Governments across Asia and Europe feared that a single miscalculation could ignite a regional war capable of sending shock waves through the entire global economy. At the center of that anxiety stood the Strait of Hormuz — a narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world's seaborne oil supply passes each day. It is not merely a maritime corridor. It is one of the central arteries of the modern industrial world. For countries such as South Korea, Japan, and China, the stability of Hormuz is inseparable from economic survival itself. Oil, liquefied natural gas, shipping routes, insurance premiums, inflation, exchange rates, and industrial production are all tied, directly or indirectly, to the security of this narrow passage. That is why the recent reports of a potential U.S.–Iran memorandum of understanding have drawn such intense global attention. According to multiple reports, Washington and Tehran are nearing a provisional agreement built around three pillars: reopening the Strait of Hormuz, extending the current ceasefire for 60 days, and launching broader negotiations over Iran's nuclear program and the future security architecture of the region. If implemented, the agreement would represent a significant short-term de-escalation. Iran would reportedly remove naval mines and guarantee freedom of navigation through Hormuz, while the United States would ease certain maritime restrictions and permit limited Iranian oil exports. Both sides would then use the 60-day window to pursue negotiations over uranium enrichment, sanctions relief, and the handling of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium. The immediate significance of such an arrangement is obvious. The world economy desperately needs stability. Yet beneath the surface, this is not peace. It is merely the temporary suspension of catastrophe. The structural conflict remains unresolved. The distrust between Washington and Tehran remains profound. The confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah remains volatile. The centuries-old rivalry between Sunni and Shiite power blocs continues to shape the strategic map of the Middle East. Oil, religion, security, nationalism, and great-power rivalry remain tightly intertwined. The proposed agreement is therefore less a peace treaty than an emergency brake pulled at the edge of a cliff. A Ceasefire Is Not the Same as Peace The core reality facing negotiators is simple: neither side truly trusts the other. The United States insists on what officials describe as "relief for performance" — meaning sanctions relief will come only after Iran demonstrates verifiable and irreversible nuclear concessions. Iran, meanwhile, remains deeply skeptical of American guarantees. From Tehran's perspective, the memory of Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action under President Donald Trump remains a defining trauma. To Iranian hardliners, any premature surrender of strategic leverage risks appearing not as diplomacy, but as capitulation. That is particularly true regarding Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity — material approaching weapons-grade levels. For Washington, the removal or neutralization of that stockpile is essential. For Tehran, surrendering it outright could be politically explosive. This is why the proposed 60-day negotiation framework may buy time, but cannot realistically resolve the deeper nuclear dispute. The history of the original JCPOA itself illustrates the point. The path from preliminary understandings to the final 2015 accord took years of painstaking negotiations, inspections, verification protocols, technical disputes, and political brinkmanship. Today, the circumstances are even more difficult. Iran's nuclear infrastructure is more advanced. Regional distrust is deeper. Domestic political pressures in both Washington and Tehran are more intense. Verification challenges are greater, especially after recent military strikes on Iranian nuclear-related facilities. In reality, the most plausible outcome may not be a final peace settlement, but rather an extended state of managed instability — a prolonged interim arrangement in which both sides avoid outright war while postponing definitive resolution. That may not sound inspiring. Yet in the Middle East, preventing catastrophe is often itself a strategic achievement. Why Iran Cannot Be Understood as Merely Another Adversary One of the enduring errors in Western strategic thinking has been the tendency to view Iran solely through the lens of contemporary geopolitics while underestimating the weight of Persian civilization itself. Iran is not merely a modern nation-state. It is the heir to one of the world's oldest continuous civilizations. Long before the rise of modern Europe or the United States, the Persian Empire shaped the political and cultural order of vast regions stretching from Mesopotamia to Central Asia. That historical memory still matters deeply within Iran's strategic culture. Even under sanctions and economic hardship, Iran retains a powerful sense of civilizational continuity and geopolitical endurance. Unlike conventional military powers, Tehran has mastered asymmetric strategy. Rather than relying solely on direct confrontation, it leverages proxy networks, maritime pressure points, ideological alliances, cyber operations, drones, and long-term attritional tactics. This is why overwhelming military superiority alone cannot easily produce lasting stability in the region. The United States may possess unmatched military capabilities. Israel may dominate technologically. But neither can permanently impose order upon the Middle East through force alone. The region is simply too historically layered, too fragmented, and too emotionally charged. And America itself carries the scars of prolonged Middle Eastern wars. Iraq and Afghanistan left deep fatigue inside the American political system. Even among U.S. strategists, there is growing recognition that endless escalation risks draining American power rather than strengthening it. That reality explains why the Trump administration, despite maintaining military pressure, also appears increasingly open to a diplomatic off-ramp. Beyond the Abraham Accords: The Need for a 'Noah Covenant' The Middle East today stands at a civilizational crossroads. The Abraham Accords represented an important geopolitical breakthrough. They demonstrated that pragmatic normalization between Israel and several Arab states was possible. But the region now requires something deeper than transactional diplomacy. It requires a broader moral and civilizational framework capable of recognizing shared historical roots. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all trace part of their spiritual lineage back to Noah. The story of the Flood survives across all three traditions as a narrative of destruction followed by renewal — of humanity beginning again after catastrophe. That symbolism matters. The peoples of the Middle East — Arabs, Persians, Jews, Turks, and others — are not isolated civilizations destined eternally for conflict. They are intertwined heirs of overlapping histories, cultures, and spiritual traditions. What the region ultimately needs is not merely another ceasefire agreement, but what might be called a "Noah Covenant": a recognition that coexistence is not weakness, but survival. Such a covenant would rest upon several principles. First, mutual recognition of each side's right to exist and survive. Second, the acceptance of religious coexistence as a strategic necessity rather than a reluctant concession. Third, the transformation of energy resources from instruments of geopolitical coercion into foundations for shared prosperity. Fourth, the creation of a post-oil regional order capable of adapting to the emerging era of artificial intelligence, advanced technology, and economic diversification. This transformation has already begun in parts of the Gulf. Saudi Arabia pursues the ambitious NEOM project. United Arab Emirates seeks leadership in artificial intelligence and advanced logistics. Qatar continues to position itself as a global energy and transportation hub. Even Iran, despite its isolation, cannot remain permanently detached from these global shifts. The age when Middle Eastern power rested solely upon oil is gradually fading. A new era — shaped by technology, logistics, data, energy transition, and artificial intelligence — is emerging. The region must decide whether it will enter that future through cooperation or through perpetual war. What South Korea Must Learn From This Crisis For South Korea, the current crisis is not a distant geopolitical drama. It is an immediate national concern. Energy security must become a central strategic priority. Any disruption in Hormuz directly affects Korean industry, shipping, inflation, and household stability. At the same time, the crisis also underscores the strategic importance of Korean shipbuilding, defense manufacturing, energy logistics, and advanced industrial capabilities. Equally important is diplomacy. South Korea remains a treaty ally of the United States while maintaining vital economic relationships across the Middle East. That requires careful strategic balance, not ideological rigidity. But beyond economics and security lies another potential role. South Korea is one of the few nations in modern history to have experienced colonization, war, rapid industrialization, democratization, and technological transformation within a single century. It understands both tradition and modernity, both vulnerability and growth. In an era increasingly defined by the collision of technology, geopolitics, religion, and civilization, countries capable of building dialogue may become as important as countries capable of projecting power. The Middle East today stands between war and reinvention. The current U.S.–Iran ceasefire effort may prevent immediate disaster. But stopping gunfire alone does not create peace. True peace begins when civilizations cease viewing one another as enemies fated for annihilation and instead recognize that they remain part of the same human story. After the biblical Flood, humanity was forced to rebuild civilization from ruin. The modern Middle East may now face a similar historical moment. The essential question is no longer whether military force can destroy an adversary. It is whether humanity still possesses the wisdom to coexist after standing once again at the edge of catastrophe. That may ultimately be the defining geopolitical question of the AI age. May 24, 2026 17:49 -
Beijing Becomes a Hub of Global Diplomacy as Leaders Converge in May 2026 May 2026 in Beijing is not just about being the capital of China; it has transformed into a vast meeting room for global power dynamics and a strategic stage testing the direction of a new international order. In just a few days, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Beijing in succession. Leaders from major European nations, Middle Eastern countries, and Central Asian states are also strengthening their ties with China. The world is once again turning its attention to Beijing. This scene is more than a mere diplomatic event; it signals a shift in the global order that has persisted for centuries since the Industrial Revolution. Once, the center of the world was London, followed by New York and Washington, which became the hubs of finance, military, industry, and civilization. However, as we move toward the mid-21st century, the weight of the global economy and geopolitics is shifting back to Northeast Asia, the easternmost part of the Eurasian continent. At the center of this shift is China. It is now the worlds largest manufacturing country and exporter, as well as one of the largest importers of crude oil. Chinas influence is rapidly expanding across various sectors, including electric vehicles, batteries, rare earths, solar energy, drones, and AI infrastructure. The reason world leaders are flocking to Beijing is simple: it has become impossible to address supply chain, energy, market, and investment issues without considering China. A key moment in Beijings diplomacy this May was Putins visit shortly after Trumps trip. The fact that the leaders of the two major military powers, the U.S. and Russia, visited China in quick succession symbolically illustrates the current changes in the international order. Chinese President Xi Jinping is employing a complex diplomatic strategy, managing relations with the U.S. while competing, and closely aligning with Russia without becoming dependent. While engaging in a power struggle with the U.S. over tariffs, semiconductors, AI dominance, and Taiwan, he seeks to avoid a complete economic rupture. With Russia, he is expanding cooperation in energy, finance, and security to counter the U.S.-centric order. This is the emergence of what is being called the New Beijing System. The war in Ukraine has accelerated this trend. Russia, having lost a significant portion of its European market due to Western sanctions, is rapidly shifting toward dependence on China. Russian oil and gas are being directed to China in large quantities, and the share of transactions in yuan is increasing rapidly. Notably, the Power of Siberia gas pipeline project is not just an energy initiative; it symbolizes the formation of a new economic axis between Russia and China within the Eurasian continent. However, this shift also reveals Russias structural weaknesses. President Putin maintains the image of a strong leader, but the prolonged war in Ukraine is quickly depleting Russias national power. Population decline, weakened industrial competitiveness, and international financial sanctions and technological blockades are gradually undermining the development of Russias Far East. Regions like Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, and Sakhalin are becoming more closely aligned with the Northeast Asian economic sphere than with Europe. In contrast, Chinas influence continues to grow. Chinese capital, logistics, consumer markets, and manufacturing supply chains are permeating various parts of the Russian Far East. Even if nominally Russian territory, many areas are already functioning as part of the Northeast Asian supply chain. In effect, the Russian Far East is increasingly being absorbed into the periphery of the Northeast Asian economic sphere, rather than remaining a paper tiger Russia. The situation is similar in the Middle East. Countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are now looking to China as their largest customer. While the U.S. still exerts military influence over the Middle Eastern order, China is establishing new influence through its vast purchasing power. Particularly, amid tensions with the U.S., Iran is increasing its dependence on China for oil sales. Russia finds itself in a similar situation, having fewer markets for oil and gas, ultimately relying on China as a massive consumer market. This represents a significant change. In the past, the U.S. controlled the global energy order with the dollar and aircraft carriers. Now, China is shaping geopolitics through its purchasing power. As the worlds largest manufacturing country and consumer market, China has become a key player in the international order simply by being a major buyer of oil. This is where the strategic value of South Korea and Japan comes back into focus. The only countries capable of creating an economic and technological axis that can stand up to China in Northeast Asia are South Korea and Japan. Japan still possesses world-class technology in materials, components, and equipment, along with financial competitiveness. South Korea boasts strengths in semiconductors, batteries, AI servers, shipbuilding, cultural industries, and advanced manufacturing. If South Korea and Japan can strengthen strategic cooperation beyond historical conflicts, the situation could change. The U.S. strongly desires this, as it faces significant costs and burdens in countering China alone. If South Korea-Japan cooperation expands into supply chains, AI, aerospace, nuclear energy, defense, and bio-industries, there is ample potential for a new balance of power to emerge in Northeast Asia. The AI era presents new opportunities for South Korea and Japan. While China pushes ahead with scale and speed, South Korea and Japan can respond with ultra-precision technology, AI semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, and robotics. In a structure where the three Northeast Asian countries compete yet cooperate, the core stage of the worlds advanced industries is increasingly shifting to the Pacific coast. This is not a coincidence. Before the Industrial Revolution, the center of the global economy was essentially Asia. China and India accounted for a significant portion of global GDP, and the Silk Road and maritime trade centered on Asia. However, after the British Industrial Revolution, global hegemony shifted to Europe and the U.S. Now, that direction is changing again. China is the worlds largest manufacturing country. South Korea is the leading producer of high-quality semiconductor memory. Japan excels in precision manufacturing and robotics technology. Ultimately, the core axes of global industry, supply chains, AI, and semiconductors are converging back to the three Northeast Asian countries. History does not flow in a straight line; it circulates in cycles. The global hegemony that shifted to the West after the Industrial Revolution is now returning to the East. However, the reality is far from simple. The U.S. remains the worlds strongest military and financial power. China dominates manufacturing, supply chains, and consumer markets. Russia, though weakened, is still a military power with nuclear weapons and resources, while Europe maintains a massive technology and financial market despite stagnation. In this context, South Korea can no longer survive solely through middle power diplomacy. South Korea must now recognize itself as a strategic nation with strengths in semiconductors, AI, batteries, shipbuilding, nuclear energy, and cultural industries. At the same time, it should expand cooperation in supply chains, defense, energy, and cultural sectors with third strategic nations like India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey. India is poised to become the worlds most populous country, Brazil is rich in resources and food, and Turkey serves as a geopolitical gateway connecting Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are pushing for new industrial transitions in AI, smart cities, hydrogen economies, and nuclear energy. The world is now moving beyond a simple U.S.-China bipolar system to a multipolar system, with Northeast Asia at its center. Seoul, Tokyo, and Beijing are likely to become the key stages for the future of the global economy, supply chains, and technological hegemony. May 2026 in Beijing was heated by this massive flow. And now the world is watching another potential scene: the possibility of President Xi Jinping visiting North Korea. Following the war in Ukraine, the closeness between North Korea and Russia is rapidly advancing, with discussions of military cooperation, arms trading, and technology exchanges. However, China will not allow North Korea to become too close to Russia. For China, North Korea is not just a neighboring country; it is a strategic buffer zone adjacent to the U.S. alliance network and a key axis of Chinese influence in the Northeast Asian order. Therefore, a future visit by President Xi to North Korea is likely to hold more significance than a mere friendly visit. It signals that China will not relinquish its leadership over the Korean Peninsula issue and may be a strategic move to draw the North Korean issue back into a China-centered order. Ultimately, all the scenes unfolding in Beijing converge on one question. What kind of order will the 21st century Asian era open under? And in this era of significant civilizational transformation, what kind of nation will South Korea become?* This article has been translated by AI. May 23, 2026 21:16 -
AI Digital Twins: Transforming Work and Leadership 21st-century industrial revolution is undeniably centered around artificial intelligence (AI). However, AI has now progressed beyond the role of a mere assistant to the stage of replicating human beings. A digital counterpart, which has learned human speech patterns, thoughts, experiences, judgments, and even leadership styles, has begun to operate in the digital realm. The recent report by The Wall Street Journal on the phenomenon of AI Digital Twins signals a significant shift that could redefine labor, management, and the very concept of human existence in the AI era. Just a few years ago, AI was limited to tasks like summarizing documents or drafting meeting notes. Now, executives at some global companies in the U.S. are training AI on their emails, speeches, interviews, lectures, podcasts, and management philosophies to create digital avatars that closely resemble themselves. These AI digital twins are not mere chatbots; they can answer questions from team members, provide leadership coaching, assist with performance evaluations, and even deliver speeches at international conferences. A notable example is Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, who operates an AI called Reid AI that has been trained on his writings and speeches from the past 22 years. This digital twin has conducted over 75 lectures and presentations since 2024, introducing itself in 74 languages, including French, Chinese, and Hindi, and engaging in real-time Q&A sessions with audiences at the Dubai International Conference. This scenario is not just a technological event; it signifies a fundamental change in the concept of human productivity. In the past, an individual’s labor and knowledge were confined by physical and temporal limitations. No matter how exceptional a CEO might be, they could not work more than 24 hours a day. However, in the era of AI digital twins, one persons experiences and knowledge can be infinitely replicated and operate simultaneously in numerous locations. This could represent one of the most significant changes in the concept of labor since the industrial revolution. Just as the steam engine expanded human muscle, AI digital twins extend human intellect and judgment. While personal computers revolutionized document processing and calculations, digital twins are entering a phase where they replicate human thought and decision-making itself. Bala Sathyanarayanan, Chief Human Resources Officer at U.S. industrial packaging company Greif, reports that his AI twin, BalaBot, has already interacted with over 3,300 employees. Workers consult the AI on sensitive issues like managing underperformers and career development. Some employees credit AI-recommended coaching strategies for their growth into leadership roles within the organization. This marks a highly symbolic change. In the past, a company’s core assets were factories and capital. Later, data and platforms became key assets. Now, the experiences and know-how within organizations—essentially, the humans themselves—are being transformed into digital assets. Ultimately, the competitive edge in the AI era may hinge on who has successfully digitized superior human knowledge assets. However, this raises complex ethical and philosophical questions. Who owns the digital twin? If an employee leaves the company, does their AI counterpart leave as well, or does the company retain ownership? Moreover, what happens if a company decides to lay off human employees and retain only the AI counterparts? In fact, intense debates are already underway within U.S. companies. Some employees express discomfort, stating, I don’t like that my emails and thought processes are all being fed into AI. There are also potential legal issues if AI conveys incorrect hiring guidelines or makes distorted decisions. The phenomenon of AI hallucination, where AI generates inaccurate information, remains unresolved. For instance, Reid AI provided a different answer to a question about favorite ice cream than the actual Reid Hoffman would have given. Ultimately, AI digital twins are likely to be used as tools for human enhancement rather than complete replacements. In other words, AI does not eliminate humans; it reallocates their time. Routine tasks and everyday interactions can be handled by AI, allowing humans to focus on more creative and strategic areas. AI digital twins could also be a crucial solution in aging societies. In countries like South Korea, where rapid low birth rates and aging populations are prevalent, the loss of experienced veteran workers upon retirement poses a significant challenge. However, AI twins can preserve decades of on-the-job experience as digital assets. The skills of manufacturing artisans, the reporting expertise of journalists, the clinical experiences of doctors, and the educational philosophies of teachers can be passed down to future generations in digital form. The potential for utilizing digital twins is particularly significant in the media and broadcasting sectors. If AI learns the writing style, logical structure, interviewing techniques, and reporting philosophies of veteran journalists, it could lead to groundbreaking changes in training junior reporters and improving article quality. If AI can replicate the speaking style and analytical approach of economic anchors and the logical frameworks of international affairs commentators, the media industry could enter an entirely new phase. Application Potential and Future Directions for Korean Companies Korean companies are already beginning to prepare for the era of AI digital twins. Samsung Electronics is enhancing personalized AI assistants through AI semiconductors and on-device AI technology, while SK Hynix is entering the next-generation AI infrastructure competition based on AI servers and HBM memory. Additionally, platform companies like Naver and Kakao are attempting to expand the corporate AI agent market based on Korean-language specialized super-large AI. In the future, we can expect the emergence of AI digital twin services that learn the expertise of corporate CEOs, executives, sales professionals, financial analysts, journalists, and legal experts, moving beyond simple AI chatbot capabilities. For instance, in manufacturing, AI could learn the know-how of skilled technicians to diagnose production line issues in real-time. In finance, AI could learn the consultation patterns of veteran private bankers to provide customized asset management services to clients. In healthcare, AI twins could accumulate the diagnostic experiences of renowned doctors to reduce disparities in medical services. The same applies to the media sector. AI trained on the analytical styles of international relations experts could analyze significant trends such as the U.S.-China power struggle, Middle Eastern geopolitics, and the AI industrial revolution in real-time, providing readers with deeper insights. Ultimately, future competitiveness will depend not on the quantity of articles produced but on how effectively human insights and experiences can be digitized. However, Korean companies must adhere to three essential principles. First, the human-centered principle: AI should be used as a means to enhance human capabilities, not replace them. Second, the data sovereignty principle: ownership and compensation structures for individual employees knowledge and experiences must be clearly defined. Third, the ethics and accountability principle: humans must bear ultimate responsibility for AIs decision-making errors. Digital twins are poised to become the norm. AI is now entering a stage where it creates a second self for humans, moving beyond being a mere search tool or automation device. When combined with agentic AI, which can make decisions, plan, and act independently, the pace of change will accelerate. As AI takes over repetitive tasks, humans will likely be liberated from many of these duties. As a result, humans will have more time for strategic thinking, creative activities, and living fulfilling lives. Physical fatigue will decrease, and mental stress may also be alleviated. AI digital twins could serve as tools for a civilizational shift, returning to humans the time for rest and reflection beyond mere productivity innovations. Ultimately, the key issue is not the technology itself but what kind of civilization humans will create through AI. The true winners in the AI era will not be the countries with the fastest machines but those that deeply understand the harmony between humans and technology.* This article has been translated by AI. May 23, 2026 21:01 -
ASIA DEEP INSIGHT: Global order axis to move again as Xi heads to Pyongyang Beijing in May 2026 was no ordinary capital city. It had become a vast reception chamber where the currents of global power intersected and collided — a strategic stage upon which the outlines of a new international order were being tested. Within days, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Beijing in succession. European leaders intensified contacts with China. Middle Eastern rulers and Central Asian heads of state also gravitated toward Beijing. The world, unmistakably, was turning eastward once again. This was not merely a sequence of diplomatic events. It was a historical signal — evidence that the world order forged over centuries since the Industrial Revolution is beginning to shift direction. For generations, London stood at the center of the world economy. Later, New York and Washington became the twin pillars of finance, military power, industry, and modern civilization itself. Yet as the mid-21st century approaches, the geopolitical and economic center of gravity is moving again — toward the Pacific Rim and the far eastern edge of Eurasia: Northeast Asia. At the center of that transformation stands China. China is now the world’s largest manufacturing nation, its largest exporter, and one of its biggest importers of crude oil. Its influence stretches across electric vehicles, batteries, rare earths, solar energy, drones, artificial intelligence infrastructure, and global supply chains. The reason world leaders continue to arrive in Beijing is ultimately simple: no major question involving energy, trade, manufacturing, logistics, or investment can now be addressed without China. The defining diplomatic image of May came immediately after Trump’s Beijing visit, when Putin arrived shortly thereafter. The spectacle of the leaders of the United States and Russia — the world’s two greatest military powers — traveling to Beijing in succession symbolized the transformation now underway in international politics. Chinese President Xi Jinping has constructed a layered and highly disciplined diplomatic strategy. With the United States, China competes fiercely while carefully managing the relationship to avoid outright rupture. With Russia, Beijing deepens strategic coordination without surrendering autonomy. China confronts Washington over tariffs, semiconductors, Taiwan, and artificial-intelligence supremacy, yet still seeks to preserve economic interdependence. At the same time, it expands energy, financial, and security cooperation with Moscow to counterbalance the U.S.-led order. What is emerging is, in effect, a “New Beijing System.” The war in Ukraine has accelerated this transformation. As Russia lost much of the European market under Western sanctions, it moved rapidly into China’s economic orbit. Russian oil and gas increasingly flow eastward. Settlement in yuan has expanded sharply. The “Power of Siberia” pipeline project is more than an energy venture; it is a geopolitical artery binding Russia and China into a new Eurasian economic axis. Yet beneath this partnership lies a quieter reality: Russia’s structural weakening. Putin still projects the image of a formidable strongman, but the prolonged war in Ukraine has steadily drained Russian national power. Population decline, industrial stagnation, sanctions, and technological isolation have undermined Moscow’s long-term capacity — particularly in the Russian Far East. Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, and Sakhalin increasingly appear less connected to Europe than to the economies of Northeast Asia. Chinese capital, logistics networks, manufacturing chains, and consumer markets have penetrated deeply into the region. Formally Russian territory, these areas are, economically speaking, becoming extensions of the broader Northeast Asian production system. In many respects, Russia’s Far East no longer resembles the frontier of a resurgent empire. It increasingly resembles the outer periphery of a China-centered economic sphere. The Middle East reveals a similar pattern. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates now regard China as an indispensable customer. The United States still dominates the region militarily, but China has begun exercising influence through purchasing power rather than aircraft carriers. Iran, isolated by sanctions and geopolitical confrontation, has become increasingly dependent on Chinese demand for its oil exports. Russia faces a comparable predicament. With access to Western markets shrinking, Moscow has little choice but to lean on China’s vast consumer economy. This marks a profound transformation in the nature of global power itself. For decades, the United States shaped the world’s energy order through the dollar and naval supremacy. China, by contrast, is shaping geopolitics through market gravity. As the world’s largest manufacturing power and one of its largest consumer economies, China exerts strategic influence simply by buying. And it is precisely at this moment that the strategic significance of South Korea and Japan rises once more. In Northeast Asia, only Korea and Japan possess the economic and technological weight capable of balancing China. Japan retains world-class strengths in materials, components, precision engineering, and finance. South Korea commands leadership in semiconductors, batteries, AI servers, shipbuilding, and cultural industries. Should Seoul and Tokyo move beyond historical antagonism and deepen strategic cooperation, a new equilibrium could emerge in Northeast Asia. Washington clearly hopes for such an outcome. The United States alone cannot indefinitely bear the economic and strategic burden of containing China. Expanded Korea-Japan cooperation across supply chains, artificial intelligence, aerospace, nuclear energy, defense industries, and biotechnology could create a powerful new axis in the Indo-Pacific. The AI era, in particular, presents fresh opportunities for both nations. While China advances through sheer scale and speed, Korea and Japan possess advantages in ultra-precision manufacturing, advanced semiconductors, robotics, and high-end industrial technology. The concentration of industrial and technological power in Northeast Asia is no coincidence. Before the Industrial Revolution, Asia stood at the center of the global economy. China and India accounted for enormous shares of world GDP. The Silk Road and maritime trade routes flowed through Asian civilization. Only after Britain’s industrial ascent did global dominance migrate westward toward Europe and eventually the United States. Now the historical tide is turning again. China is the world’s manufacturing giant. South Korea is the global leader in advanced memory semiconductors. Japan remains a superpower in precision manufacturing and robotics. The strategic heart of the global AI, semiconductor, and industrial supply chain system is increasingly converging in Northeast Asia. History does not move in straight lines. It moves in cycles. The center of world power that shifted westward after the Industrial Revolution is gradually returning eastward once again. Yet the emerging order is anything but simple. The United States remains the world’s dominant military and financial power. China commands manufacturing capacity, supply chains, and market scale. Russia, though weakened, still possesses nuclear weapons and immense natural resources. Europe, despite economic stagnation, retains formidable technological and financial depth. In this increasingly complex geopolitical environment, South Korea can no longer survive through the traditional diplomacy of a middle power alone. Korea must begin to view itself differently — as a strategic nation possessing critical leverage in semiconductors, AI, batteries, shipbuilding, nuclear power, and cultural influence. At the same time, Seoul must broaden its strategic partnerships with emerging powers such as India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Türkiye. India is poised to become the world’s largest population center and a major AI and technology power. Brazil remains a resource and agricultural giant. Türkiye occupies a vital geopolitical crossroads connecting Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are rapidly repositioning themselves through investments in AI, smart cities, hydrogen economies, and advanced infrastructure. The world is no longer moving toward a simple U.S.-China bipolar structure. It is evolving toward a multipolar order. And at the center of that transformation lies Northeast Asia. Seoul, Tokyo, and Beijing are emerging as the critical theaters of future economic, technological, and geopolitical competition. May 2026 in Beijing was heated not merely by diplomacy, but by the deeper currents of history itself. And now the world is watching another possible development: Xi Jinping’s potential visit to Pyongyang. As North Korea and Russia deepen military and strategic ties in the wake of the Ukraine war, Beijing is unlikely to tolerate Pyongyang drifting too far into Moscow’s orbit. For China, North Korea is not simply a neighboring state. It is a strategic buffer bordering the American alliance system and a central pillar of Beijing’s influence in Northeast Asia. A future visit by Xi to Pyongyang would therefore carry significance far beyond ceremonial diplomacy. It would signal that Beijing still intends to shape the Korean Peninsula’s strategic direction and draw North Korea back firmly within China’s geopolitical sphere. Ultimately, all the scenes unfolding in Beijing converge into a single historical question: What kind of order will define the Asian century of the 21st century? And amid this vast civilizational transition, what kind of nation will Korea choose to become? May 23, 2026 13:31 -
ASIA DEEP INSIGHT: Enriched uranium, shadow of Hormuz and Search for "Noah Accord" A 5,000-Year-Old Persian Civilization and a 250-Year-Old American Superpower Stand at the Edge of History The Middle East in May 2026 speaks outwardly of cease-fires and endgame negotiations. Yet beneath the language of diplomacy, the region still stands atop an enormous powder keg. President Donald Trump repeatedly declares that “the war will end very soon.” But beneath the negotiating table, the most dangerous fault lines are becoming sharper, not weaker. At the center of the confrontation lies a single issue: Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium. At the White House on May 21, Trump stated bluntly, “We will take it.” He reaffirmed Washington’s position that the United States must secure and ultimately destroy Iran’s estimated 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. This is no mere technical dispute over nuclear verification procedures. It is the symbolic heart of the war itself — and, politically, the visible victory Trump believes he must bring home. For Trump, this conflict has been framed as a war to halt Iran at the threshold of nuclear weapons capability. The image of American authorities physically removing Iran’s highly enriched uranium and destroying it would represent a historic spectacle of strategic triumph. In Trump’s eyes, it would surpass the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement reached under President Barack Obama and become the defining diplomatic achievement of his presidency. Yet that very demand has become Iran’s absolute red line. Iran’s leadership has reportedly hardened its position against any overseas transfer of enriched uranium. From Washington’s perspective, the issue concerns nuclear nonproliferation and regional security. From Tehran’s perspective, it concerns national dignity, regime survival, and civilizational pride. Inside Iran, moreover, a dangerous new psychology has begun to emerge after the war. “North Korea possessed nuclear weapons and was not attacked. Iran did not possess them — and was.” That perception is rapidly hardening attitudes inside the Revolutionary Guard and among Iran’s hard-line factions. Increasingly, the argument is not necessarily that Iran must immediately build a bomb, but that it must preserve the capacity to do so. Thus, the gap between Washington’s demand for total removal and Tehran’s insistence on domestic retention or dilution remains immense. Trump, meanwhile, is eager to conclude the conflict quickly. The reasons are not merely diplomatic. They are deeply economic and political. The American economy continues to struggle under the weight of inflation and elevated interest rates. Prolonged instability in the Middle East threatens oil prices, shipping costs, and ultimately gasoline prices for American consumers. That is why Trump repeatedly emphasizes that “gas prices will fall when the war ends.” Ahead of November’s midterm elections, inflation represents a potentially lethal political vulnerability. American voters often react more immediately to fuel prices and household costs than to geopolitical abstractions. Trump understands this instinctively. Yet the war has already evolved beyond a simple bilateral confrontation between the United States and Iran. The Strait of Hormuz now stands at the center of the crisis. Iran has begun openly signaling the possibility of imposing transit fees or other restrictions in Hormuz — the narrow maritime artery through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and LNG supplies pass each day. Should Tehran move from rhetoric to action, the consequences for the global economy could be immediate and severe. Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded with an unusually direct warning, declaring that any attempt by Iran to impose transit charges would render diplomatic agreement “impossible.” Washington is already considering bringing the matter before the United Nations Security Council. But Hormuz is not merely a shipping dispute. It is a question of world order itself. For thousands of years, the Persian Empire stood astride the trade and civilizational routes linking Mesopotamia, Central Asia, India, and the Mediterranean. Iran’s leadership remains deeply conscious of that geopolitical inheritance. The United States, by contrast, views freedom of navigation as a foundational principle of the postwar international system. Thus both sides confront the same waters while carrying entirely different historical memories. More troubling still is the growing strain upon America’s military resources. According to reports in The Washington Post, the United States has expended more than 200 THAAD interceptor missiles during the conflict — nearly half its stockpile. American naval forces in the eastern Mediterranean have also launched large numbers of SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors. The problem is increasingly clear: Production cannot keep pace with consumption. America’s missile defense architecture was originally designed primarily for deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, especially against China and North Korea. Yet the Middle East war is rapidly consuming those strategic reserves. Naturally, this has unsettled both South Korea and Japan. Discussions regarding the possible redeployment or depletion of THAAD systems have already begun to raise concerns across Northeast Asia. Ironically, Trump’s “America First” doctrine is now confronting its own contradiction. The United States is expending enormous strategic assets to defend Israel, while growing voices inside America question why U.S. military stockpiles should be depleted in Middle Eastern conflicts. Even American think tanks have begun warning that the Middle East is undermining Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy. This helps explain Trump’s oscillation between escalation and conciliation. His rhetoric swings almost daily between threats and diplomacy because the strategic contradictions are becoming increasingly difficult to manage. Another major variable is Russia. President Vladimir Putin has revived the idea of transferring Iran’s enriched uranium to Russia — echoing arrangements proposed during the 2015 nuclear negotiations. On the surface, it appears to be a mediation effort. In reality, it is also a geopolitical maneuver. Putin understands that involvement in resolving the Iran crisis could provide Moscow with leverage in broader negotiations with Washington, particularly over Ukraine and sanctions policy. Trump’s dismissive response — effectively telling Putin to focus on Ukraine instead — reflected precisely that suspicion. The Middle East today is therefore no longer a regional war alone. It is a condensed battlefield of 21st-century geopolitics, where the interests of the United States, Iran, Israel, Russia, Europe, and China intersect simultaneously. Negotiations continue outwardly. Yet the negotiations remain extraordinarily fragile. Trump needs a victory. Iran cannot afford the image of surrender. Israel seeks the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear potential. Russia hopes to expand its diplomatic influence through mediation. And the global economy trembles at every shift in the winds of Hormuz. The war may pause temporarily. But the geopolitics of the Middle East are far from over. And here the world confronts a deeper truth. This conflict is not merely a dispute over uranium enrichment. It is a collision between two historical consciousnesses — and between two civilizations. On one side stands the United States, a 250-year-old superpower that shaped the modern global order through military strength, financial dominance, technological innovation, and the architecture of globalization itself. On the other stands Iran, heir to a Persian civilization stretching back more than 5,000 years. Modern Iran is not simply another Middle Eastern state. Behind it stand the memories of Cyrus the Great, Darius, and the Achaemenid Empire — a civilization that once connected Mesopotamia, Central Asia, India, and the Mediterranean into one vast imperial network. The West often views Iran merely as a “problem state.” But within the Iranian historical imagination, they are not a minor power. They see themselves as descendants of an ancient civilization. That difference in historical consciousness shapes everything. Washington approaches the nuclear issue as a matter of international security and nonproliferation. Tehran approaches it as a matter of national survival and civilizational dignity. For that very reason, brute force alone cannot resolve this crisis. What is needed instead is a new civilizational imagination. Perhaps what the Middle East now requires is something resembling a “Noah Accord.” The region has already witnessed one historic breakthrough in the form of the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab states. Those agreements drew symbolic power from the shared Abrahamic heritage of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But perhaps the next step requires an even broader vision. Before Abraham came Noah — the ancestral figure of humanity itself in the traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike. Noah represents survival, reconciliation, and the rebirth of civilization after catastrophe. The Middle East today needs more than another technical nuclear agreement. It needs a renewed framework for coexistence. Neither America nor Iran can fully destroy the other’s historical identity. The United States may pressure the Iranian regime, but it cannot erase Persian civilization. Iran, meanwhile, cannot overturn the American-led international order through direct confrontation. Eventually, both sides will have to compromise. And that compromise must become more than a transactional bargain. It must allow both civilizations to preserve dignity while stepping back from catastrophe. East Asia has long carried philosophical traditions emphasizing coexistence rather than annihilation. Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism all contain variations of the idea that absolute victory achieved through destruction rarely endures. Korea, in particular, understands this deeply. For centuries, Korea survived between great powers — China, Japan, Russia, and later the United States. Korean historical consciousness therefore places enormous value not only on balances of power, but on balances of relationship. That perspective may hold an important lesson for Washington and Tehran alike. The United States must leave space for Iran’s dignity. Iran, in turn, must move beyond a posture of total rejection toward the international system. Creative compromise remains possible. Highly enriched uranium could be placed under multinational management involving neutral states, Russia, or the International Atomic Energy Agency rather than becoming a direct symbol of Iranian surrender to Washington. Ultimately, the central question is not who wins. It is whether humanity can step back from the edge of another prolonged civilizational conflict. Because the global economy is already approaching dangerous limits. Hormuz is one of the central arteries of the world economy. If it is destabilized, oil prices, shipping, insurance, financial markets, and supply chains will all experience shockwaves. For South Korea, the implications are especially serious. South Korea depends heavily upon imported energy from the Middle East. The industrial foundations of companies such as Samsung and SKhynix, as well as the manufacturing systems of Hyundai Motor, ultimately rely upon stable flows of oil and LNG. A prolonged Hormuz crisis could simultaneously weaken the Korean won, intensify inflationary pressures, and destabilize maritime logistics. The security implications may be even greater. America’s depletion of missile defense inventories during the war has already exposed the limitations of U.S. strategic capacity. Washington cannot indefinitely sustain simultaneous pressures in the Middle East, Ukraine, the Taiwan Strait, and the Korean Peninsula without difficult trade-offs. For Seoul, this reality demands increasingly sophisticated strategic thinking. The U.S.–Korea alliance remains indispensable. But South Korea must also preserve diplomatic flexibility with the Middle East, China, and even Russia where necessary. Energy security, supply-chain resilience, semiconductors, AI infrastructure, and strategic autonomy are no longer merely economic concerns. They are becoming matters of national survival. The world speaks constantly of the AI revolution. Yet humanity finds itself once again confronting its oldest questions. How can civilizations coexist? How far should great powers exercise force? Can humanity move beyond cycles of war? A 5,000-year-old Persian civilization and a 250-year-old American superpower now stand before those questions together. And the world waits for their answer. May 22, 2026 09:36 -
Trump's Red Line: Iran's Enriched Uranium and the Shadow of Hormuz 2026 May has seen the Middle East publicly discussing ceasefires and peace negotiations, yet it remains precariously positioned atop a massive powder keg. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that the war will soon end. However, beneath the negotiation table, the most dangerous flashpoints are becoming increasingly evident. At the center of this tension is a single issue: Irans enriched uranium. On May 21, Trump asserted at the White House, We will secure it. He reaffirmed the U.S. intention to acquire and dispose of 440 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium held by Iran. This is not merely a technical issue in nuclear negotiations; it symbolizes the entire conflict and represents a visible victory that Trump needs for domestic political reasons. Trump has characterized this war as one aimed at stopping Iran from reaching the brink of nuclear weapons capability. For Trump, the act of securing enriched uranium and transporting it back to the U.S. or a third country could serve as a historic achievement, surpassing the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) established under former President Barack Obama in 2015. However, this point also represents an absolute red line for Iran. The Iranian leadership has reportedly solidified its stance against the export of enriched uranium. While this is a matter of eliminating potential nuclear weapon capabilities from the U.S. perspective, for Iran, it is a question of national pride and regime survival. Moreover, a dangerous collective psychology is forming within Iran as a result of this war. The sentiment that North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons, has not been attacked, while Iran, which does not, has been is gaining traction. This perception is likely to harden the Iranian regimes stance. Analysts suggest that a strategic mindset emphasizing the need to maintain the potential to develop nuclear weapons is taking root within Irans military and Revolutionary Guard. Thus, a significant gap remains between the U.S. demand for complete removal and Irans desire for domestic preservation and dilution. Trump is eager to expedite a resolution to the negotiations, driven not only by diplomatic concerns but also by domestic political and economic pressures. The U.S. economy continues to grapple with high inflation and interest rates. The prolonged conflict in the Middle East is exacerbating international oil prices and logistics costs, directly impacting American consumers through rising gasoline prices. Trumps repeated assertion that gas prices will drop once the war ends reflects this reality. With the midterm elections approaching in November, inflation poses a critical threat. American voters are more sensitive to immediate issues like gas prices and living costs than to democracy or geopolitics. Trump is acutely aware of this political landscape. However, the conflict has already escalated beyond a simple U.S.-Iran confrontation. The situation in the Strait of Hormuz exemplifies this escalation. Iran has effectively begun to leverage the Hormuz toll card. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital artery for global energy, with approximately 20 million barrels of oil and LNG passing through daily. Should Iran impose tolls or military pressure in this region, the global economy would face immediate repercussions. In response, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly warned that if such actions materialize, diplomatic agreements will be impossible. The U.S. is already considering responses at the United Nations Security Council level. The Hormuz issue transcends mere maritime navigation rights. It is intrinsically linked to global hegemony. The Persian Empire has historically been at the center of civilization and trade through the Strait of Hormuz and the Silk Road for thousands of years. The Iranian leadership remains acutely aware of this geopolitical legacy. Conversely, the U.S. views freedom of navigation in international waters as an absolute principle. Ultimately, both sides are clashing over the same body of water with vastly different historical memories and strategic concepts. An even more pressing issue is the rapid escalation of U.S. military fatigue, which is occurring faster than anticipated. According to reports from The Washington Post, the U.S. has utilized over 200 THAAD interceptors during this conflict, nearing half of its total stockpile. Naval vessels in the Eastern Mediterranean have also deployed significant numbers of SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors. The problem lies in the production rate not keeping pace with consumption. The U.S. missile defense system was originally designed as a key component of its Indo-Pacific strategy to deter both China and North Korea. However, the ongoing conflict in the Middle East is rapidly depleting these reserves. Consequently, South Korea and Japan are also left on edge. In fact, discussions about the potential redeployment of THAAD in South Korea have begun to shake the security structure in Northeast Asia. Interestingly, Trumps America First policy appears to be caught in a paradox at this juncture. The U.S. is exhausting significant strategic assets and intercept systems to defend Israel. However, dissatisfaction is growing domestically over why U.S. weapon stockpiles are being depleted in the Middle East. Even American think tanks are beginning to express concerns that the Middle East is encroaching on the Indo-Pacific strategy. This is precisely why Trump continues to oscillate between war and negotiation. The mix of hardline rhetoric and conciliatory messages is a daily occurrence. Another intriguing variable is Russia. President Vladimir Putin has already reintroduced the Russia export card, suggesting a plan to send enriched uranium to Russia for compromise, similar to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. On the surface, this appears to be a mediation proposal. However, it conceals a completely different calculation. Putin aims to secure leverage in negotiations with Trump by intervening in the resolution of the Iran conflict. This strategy seeks to create negotiation space with the U.S. regarding the Ukraine war and sanctions against Russia. Trumps irritation at Putins suggestion to focus on the Ukraine issue stems from this dynamic. Ultimately, the current situation in the Middle East is not merely a regional war. It is a microcosm of 21st-century complex geopolitics involving the U.S., Iran, Israel, Russia, Europe, and China. While negotiations appear to be underway, they remain precarious. Trump needs a victory, Iran must avoid the image of capitulation, Israel aims to eliminate Irans nuclear potential entirely, and Russia seeks to expand its influence through mediation. The global economy is also sensitive to even the slightest shifts in the winds of the Strait of Hormuz. While the war may pause temporarily, the geopolitics of the Middle East are far from resolved. This situation raises profound questions for the world. This conflict is not merely about nuclear negotiations; it represents a direct clash between two histories and two civilizations. On one side is the United States, a superpower with a 250-year history. On the other is Iran, inheritor of a 5,000-year-old Persian civilization. The U.S. has shaped the modern world order. From the dollar and military power to technology and finance, much of todays global system operates around the U.S. In just 250 years since its independence in 1776, the U.S. has become the most powerful nation in human history. Conversely, Iran is not merely a Middle Eastern country. Its roots trace back to the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great. The Achaemenid dynasty managed a vast multi-ethnic empire as early as the 6th century BC, creating a network of civilizations connecting Mesopotamia, Central Asia, India, and the Mediterranean. While the Western world often views Iran as a rogue state, Iranians do not see themselves as a small nation. They consider themselves the heirs of civilization. This fundamental difference in perception shapes how the U.S. and Iran interpret each other. The U.S. views the Iranian nuclear issue as a matter of international security and non-proliferation, while Iran perceives it as a question of national regime and civilizational pride. This is precisely why what is needed now is not merely a logic of power. Instead, a new imagination at the level of human civilization is required. This could embody the spirit of the Noah Accord. The Middle East has already undergone a significant transformation with the Abraham Accords, established between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain. This agreement, which recognizes Abraham as a common ancestor for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, has become a symbol of civilizational reconciliation beyond a mere diplomatic document. Now, a greater imagination is necessary. Noah is a common ancestor of humanity predating Abraham. In the traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Noah symbolizes human survival and reconciliation. What the Middle East needs now is not just nuclear negotiations. It is about establishing an order where humanity can survive together. Neither the U.S. nor Iran can fully subjugate the other. The U.S. can shake the Iranian regime with military power, but it cannot erase the pride of Persian civilization. Conversely, Iran cannot completely dismantle the U.S.-centric world order. Ultimately, both sides will have to compromise at some point. This compromise must not merely be a transaction but a peace that acknowledges each others dignity, history, and civilizational pride. In the East, there has long been a philosophy of coexistence. The belief is that a victory that completely defeats the opponent does not last long. Within the traditions of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, East Asia has sought harmony amidst conflict. South Korea also shares such historical experiences. It has had to survive among powerful nations like China, Japan, the U.S., and Russia. Thus, Koreans value not only the balance of power but also the balance of relationships. This mindset is now needed in the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. must allow Iran to maintain at least a semblance of dignity. Iran, in turn, must move away from outright rejection of the U.S. international order. For instance, instead of directly exporting enriched uranium to the U.S., a compromise could involve transitioning to an internationally managed system or a joint management approach involving Russia, neutral countries, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Ultimately, the key is not about winning or losing. It is about whether humanity can take a step back from the brink of war. This is especially critical as the global economy is nearing a breaking point. The Strait of Hormuz is the lifeblood of global energy. If it is disrupted, international oil prices will soar, and the entire logistics, shipping, insurance, and financial markets will be shaken. This is particularly fatal for countries like South Korea. South Korea has a very high dependency on energy imports. Oil and LNG from the Middle East are lifelines for its industries. The semiconductor factories of Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, as well as Hyundai Motors production lines, ultimately rely on stable energy supplies. If the Hormuz crisis deepens, the won may weaken, and inflationary pressures could rise simultaneously. As an export-driven economy, South Korea would also be directly impacted by global maritime logistics instability. The larger issue is security. The U.S. has significantly depleted its THAAD interceptor stockpile during this conflict. Some reports indicate that nearly half of the stockpile has been used for Middle Eastern defense. This could have implications for security in Northeast Asia. U.S. strategic assets are not infinite. The limitations of managing conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine, the Taiwan Strait, and the Korean Peninsula simultaneously have become evident in this war. Ultimately, South Korea must consider a more complex strategy moving forward. The U.S.-South Korea alliance remains crucial. However, South Korea must also maintain a certain level of diplomatic space with the Middle East, China, and Russia. Energy security, supply chain stability, and the reliability of the semiconductor and AI industries are now matters of national survival strategy, not just economic issues. The world is now discussing the era of the AI revolution. Yet paradoxically, humanity stands once again before the oldest questions. How will civilizations coexist? How far will great powers go in using force? And can humanity transcend war? The 5,000-year-old Persian civilization and the 250-year-old United States now face these questions. The world awaits their answers.* This article has been translated by AI. May 22, 2026 07:45 -
Mick Mulvaney Discusses Protectionism as Key U.S. Policy at AMCHAM Event SEOUL, May 21 (AJP) - Mick Mulvaney, the former acting White House Chief of Staff, stated that many of the changes occurring in Washington today are not limited to President Trump but represent structural trends that will shape the U.S. political and economic order in the long term. He also noted that protectionism and a domestic-focused economic policy are likely to remain central to U.S. policy regardless of which party is in power. The American Chamber of Commerce in Korea (AMCHAM) hosted a special luncheon on May 21 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Yongsan, Seoul, featuring Mulvaney as a guest speaker. The event, titled The Return of America First: Global Business and Geopolitics in the Trump 2.0 Era, included a one-on-one discussion between AMCHAM Chairman and CEO James Kim and Mulvaney, attended by over 120 members and representatives from major domestic and international companies. Participants discussed the policy direction of a potential second Trump administration, changes in U.S. trade and industrial policy, tariff policies, reshoring strategies, geopolitical risks concerning the Middle East and North Korea, and the restructuring of global supply chains focused on economic security. They also explored ways to enhance U.S.-Korea cooperation in strategic industries such as semiconductors, shipbuilding, energy, artificial intelligence (AI), and advanced manufacturing. Mulvaney served in various roles during the Trump administration, including acting White House Chief of Staff, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). He elaborated on the decision-making processes and leadership style of the Trump administration, as well as the impact of the America First policy on U.S. domestic politics, foreign policy, and the global economic order. He remarked that there is a growing fatigue regarding long-term foreign interventions in American society, and inflationary pressures are expected to persist for some time. He added that government intervention in strategic industries and the private market is likely to increase, emphasizing that these trends represent structural changes that will affect U.S. economic, industrial, and trade policies for years to come. Having reported daily to President Trump and met with him nearly 20 times a day, he described Trump as someone who “trusts no one.” He explained that Trump perceives allies as taking advantage of the United States. When asked by James Kim about Trump’s leadership style, Mulvaney referenced the TV show The Apprentice, stating, “That’s President Trump.” Mulvaney also noted that Trump enjoyed watching intelligent people debate and preferred negotiating with those he liked. He identified two key criteria that Trump considers when evaluating foreign countries: defense spending relative to GDP and trade balances with the U.S. He stated, “By this standard, South Korea is not a bad country.” He further mentioned that Trump understands the geopolitics concerning South Korea, Japan, and Australia. James Kim remarked, “Mulvaney is one of the few individuals who has experienced the Trump administration up close in Washington. It is meaningful to have this timely and candid discussion here in Seoul.” Kim added that the conversation provided important insights into the changes in the America First policy, U.S. policy direction, and the implications of these changes for Korea, the U.S.-Korea alliance, and the global business community. * This article has been translated by AI. May 21, 2026 16:43 -
AMCHAM invites former White House acting chief of staff Mulvaney SEOUL, May 21 (AJP) - The American Chamber of Commerce in Korea hosted a special luncheon seminar at Grand Hyatt Seoul on Wednesday, inviting former White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney to discuss the future direction of U.S. policy under a possible second Donald Trump administration. The event, titled “The Return of America First: What Trump 2.0 Means for Business and Geopolitics,” focused on shifting U.S. policy priorities, global trade realignment and the broader implications for international business and South Korea-U.S. economic relations. During the luncheon session, Mulvaney shared insights into policymaking processes inside the Trump administration and discussed strategic priorities expected to shape the evolving geopolitical and economic landscape. The discussion also explored potential impacts of “America First” policies on global supply chains, trade and investment, and the changing regulatory environment affecting multinational businesses. May 21, 2026 14:33 -
Xi Jinping's Possible Visit to North Korea Signals Shifts in Geopolitical Landscape The possibility of Chinese President Xi Jinping visiting North Korea has stirred the diplomatic landscape surrounding the Korean Peninsula. Although no official announcement has been made, recent visits by Chinese security and protocol teams to Pyongyang, along with high-level exchanges between North Korea and China, suggest a strong likelihood. Particularly, in the wake of a US-China summit where North Koreas nuclear issue has resurfaced as a key agenda item, speculation about Xis visit carries implications beyond mere diplomatic events. The challenge lies in the fact that the issues surrounding the Korean Peninsula are no longer confined to security and diplomacy. The potential for closer ties among North Korea, China, and Russia, coupled with US-China strategic competition, has turned these dynamics into economic security variables that impact exchange rates, supply chains, investment, and industrial strategies. The geopolitics of the Korean Peninsula has become a core risk for the South Korean economy and an integral part of its survival strategy. The South Korean economy is structurally dependent on a complex web of relationships. Security relies on the US alliance, trade and industry remain deeply connected to China, and energy and raw materials depend on the Middle East and global maritime logistics. In the past, this structure could be maintained without significant conflict during the era of globalization. However, the current landscape is different. As US-China strategic competition expands across technology, finance, military, and supply chains, South Koreas security and economic interests have begun to clash. Strengthening cooperation among South Korea, the US, and Japan is perceived by China as an expansion of a US-led containment system against it. The US has already begun restructuring supply chains and implementing technology controls targeting China in sectors such as semiconductors, batteries, and advanced technologies. South Korea is not exempt from export regulations on semiconductor equipment and restrictions on advanced technology investments. In this context, South Koreas approach of strengthening security cooperation with the US and Japan while hoping for China to play a constructive role in resolving the North Korean nuclear issue is inherently fraught with structural tensions. International politics often lean more towards interests than ideals. China also approaches the North Korean nuclear issue not merely from a denuclearization perspective but as a strategic matter of countering the US and maintaining influence in Northeast Asia. However, the path available to South Korea is not simply a binary choice between pro-US or pro-China. Realistically, the core of South Koreas security must remain the US alliance, as military, technological, and financial systems are deeply intertwined with the US-led global order. Yet, a complete transition to a non-China economic structure is also impractical. China remains one of South Koreas largest trading partners and plays a crucial role in the supply chains of essential minerals and materials for the semiconductor, battery, and electric vehicle industries. Dependency on China is particularly high in areas such as rare earth elements, graphite, and certain battery materials. Even the US has recently shifted its terminology from decoupling to de-risking, indicating a recognition that complete separation from China is not feasible. Thus, South Koreas strategy should focus on selective reduction of dependency rather than outright decoupling from China. In key strategic industries, it should aim to mitigate supply chain risks and diversify sources for raw materials and components, without abandoning the Chinese market altogether. A complex strategy is needed that strengthens cooperation with the US in security and advanced technology while maintaining practical cooperation with China in economic and industrial aspects. The challenge is that individual companies find it difficult to manage these geopolitical risks on their own. Recently, there have been calls for businesses to diversify supply chains and strengthen risk response systems, but the structural conflicts triggered by North Korea-China-Russia cooperation and US-China strategic competition exceed what can be resolved through corporate crisis management manuals. The USs semiconductor regulations against China are a prime example that cannot be addressed solely through market logic. In the event of a crisis in the Middle East that disrupts the Strait of Hormuz, individual companies cannot prevent soaring energy prices. Controlling the supply of essential minerals is also beyond the capacity of any single company. Ultimately, a national-level economic security system is necessary. Strengthening an economic security control tower that integrates diplomatic, industrial, financial, and security policies, expanding strategic reserves of essential minerals, and establishing supply chain alliances and protective systems for advanced industries must be comprehensively developed. Economic security is no longer just a concern for a specific ministry; it has become a core task of national governance. Companies must also change their mindset. CEOs should now view geopolitics not as an external variable but as a core management factor. In fact, global companies are enhancing their risk analysis organizations and geopolitical response capabilities by country. Production bases and investment strategies are also shifting to consider not only market size but also political and diplomatic risks. The speculation about Xi Jinpings visit to North Korea is not merely a North Korea-China diplomatic event. It signals that the world order is once again becoming block-oriented. The era of efficiency-centered globalization that drove the global economy after the Cold War is waning, and a new era is emerging where secure supply chains, reliable alliances, and protection of strategic industries are becoming increasingly important, even at a higher cost. South Korea stands at the center of this change. What is needed now is not an abstract slogan of strategic balance. It is about how skillfully to design a realistic dual strategy that places security within a US-centered order while maintaining practical cooperation with China in economic matters. At the same time, a long-term strategy to enhance supply chain independence in key industries and gradually reduce dependency on specific countries must be pursued. Both the state and businesses can no longer afford to ignore geopolitics. The issues surrounding the Korean Peninsula are now not just diplomatic news but also matters of industry, finance, and corporate survival. A sober recognition of reality and the establishment of strategic priorities are the only ways to reduce uncertainty in the South Korean economy.* This article has been translated by AI. May 21, 2026 10:27 -
ASIA DEEP INSIGHT: Pacific forgets ghosts as Japan embraces arms trade By welcoming Japanese military exports, Manila helps Tokyo dismantle an eighty-year pacifist legacy in the name of regional deterrence. When Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. recently addressed the press to welcome Japan’s decision to loosen its post-war ban on lethal weapon exports, his phrasing was carefully calibrated for the current geopolitical moment. Japan and the Philippines, he noted, have faced "the same difficulties." He was referring, of course, to the encroaching shadow of Chinese maritime militias in the South China Sea. It is a unifying, urgent threat. But to accept his premise requires an extraordinary act of historical amnesia, effectively erasing the memory of a time when the greatest existential threat to Manila was the Imperial Japanese Army. Marcos is not acting irrationally. The daily, suffocating squeeze from Chinese coast guard vessels around contested shoals requires immediate, hard assets. Radar systems, patrol vessels, and coastal defense missiles are the currency of survival in the South China Sea today. Marcos is desperate for a patron capable of providing that maritime deterrence, and he is entirely willing to grant Tokyo moral amnesty to secure it. Washington is cheering from the sidelines, eager to outsource the heavy lifting of Pacific security to capable deputies. But look past the diplomatic handshakes and the shared anxieties over Beijing, and a profound institutional shift comes into focus. Japan is not merely adjusting its export controls to help a beleaguered neighbor. It is executing a structural dismantling of the pacifist identity that anchored East Asian geopolitics for eight decades, transforming itself from a restrained economic heavyweight into an active merchant of lethal force. The true driver of this pivot is less about democratic solidarity and more about industrial survival. For years, Japan’s defense contractors have been quietly starving. Constrained by a constitution that strictly limited the domestic military to self-defense, conglomerates like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries were trapped in a catastrophic business model. Building bespoke, high-tech weaponry for a single, non-combatant buyer is financially ruinous. A shrinking, aging population translates to a dwindling tax base and flat procurement budgets. Major corporations were threatening to abandon the defense sector entirely. By opening the export spigot to overseas buyers, the Japanese cabinet is executing a massive corporate bailout. Exporting lethal hardware lowers per-unit costs, scales production, and artificially sustains a manufacturing base that Tokyo believes it desperately needs. Yet, in doing so, Japan has crossed a psychological Rubicon. It has linked the financial health of its defense-industrial complex to the proliferation of global friction. Once a nation’s shipyards and aerospace factories require foreign conflicts to balance their ledgers, the state’s diplomatic posture inevitably hardens. Viewed from across the water in Seoul, this awakening provokes a quiet, historical unease. South Korea has spent the last decade building its own formidable defense export machine, moving tanks and self-propelled artillery across the globe to secure diplomatic leverage and economic growth. Now, Japan steps into the same arena, wielding immense technological supremacy, deep pockets, and an aggressive new mandate. When Japan begins mass-producing lethal weaponry for foreign battlefields, it signals to the rest of the peninsula—and to Beijing—that the era of restrained diplomacy is functionally dead. East Asia is actively replacing the fragile promise of economic integration with a cold, unforgiving race for hard military deterrence. The domestic blowback within Japan reveals a profound national cognitive dissonance. When the cabinet pushed the export revision through, it bypassed parliamentary pre-approval, sparking protests outside the Diet building. Polling consistently indicates that nearly 60 percent of the Japanese public opposes the export of lethal weapons. The citizenry recognizes what the state refuses to admit outright: becoming merchants of death strips Japan of the unique moral authority it wielded as a nation that knew the apocalyptic horrors of war and consciously chose a different path. This is what modern militarism looks like. It does not announce itself with imperial ambitions or territorial conquests. It creeps in through the quiet normalization of the military-industrial complex. The current, palpable panic regarding China provides the perfect, unassailable excuse for Tokyo to shed its historical guilt and dismantle the structural brakes that kept its defense contractors in check. The administration in Tokyo insists it is merely building a network of allied partners to prevent the outbreak of conflict, relying on the familiar, sterile belief that flooding a theater with more weapons will somehow manufacture peace. But deterrence is a fragile psychology. Manila is cheering for the very machine that once brought the Pacific to ruin, simply because this time, the weapons are pointed in the other direction. Tokyo has traded the quiet dignity of its pacifist shield for the raw, lucrative leverage of the sword, leaving a heavily armed region to wonder who will eventually bleed from its edge. May 19, 2026 14:04 -
Asia Deep Insight: North Korea mention between Trump and Xi, what next? SEOUL, May 16 (AJP) -The spring of 2026 may well be remembered as a turning point in the strategic history of Northeast Asia. In Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping sat face to face once again, navigating the uneasy frontier between rivalry and coexistence. Beneath the ceremonial grandeur and diplomatic choreography lay a reality far more consequential: the North Korean question had returned to the center of global geopolitics. After the summit, President Trump publicly confirmed that he and Xi had discussed North Korea. The remark was brief, almost casual in tone, yet within diplomatic circles it carried enormous weight. It signaled that the Korean Peninsula — long overshadowed by the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as mounting tensions surrounding Taiwan — had once again become one of the defining strategic issues of the 21st century. For decades, North Korea has represented one of the world’s most dangerous geopolitical fault lines. To the United States, it has been a nuclear challenge. To China, it has been a question of regime stability and strategic buffer zones. To South Korea, it has remained an existential matter of war and peace. Japan has viewed it through the lens of regional security anxiety, while Russia has regarded it as part of its broader Far Eastern calculus. Against this backdrop, the recent visit by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to Pyongyang carried extraordinary symbolic significance. It marked the first visit by a Chinese foreign minister to North Korea in six years and seven months. In diplomacy, timing is often more important than words, and Beijing’s decision to send its top diplomat back to Pyongyang was itself a carefully crafted message. Since the COVID-19 pandemic and the outbreak of the Ukraine war, relations between China and North Korea had shown visible strains beneath the surface. Pyongyang moved increasingly closer to Moscow, while Beijing appeared, at least outwardly, to maintain a degree of strategic distance. The war in Ukraine accelerated that transformation. Relations between President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un deepened rapidly, evolving into what many analysts now describe as a quasi-military alliance. Western intelligence agencies have repeatedly suggested that North Korea supplied artillery shells and military equipment to Russia, while Moscow, in turn, provided Pyongyang with energy assistance, food support, and potentially sensitive military technologies. For North Korea, Russia became a critical geopolitical lifeline amid intensifying international sanctions. For Russia, isolated by the West and burdened by a prolonged war, North Korea emerged as a useful military supplier and strategic partner. Their interests converged naturally. Yet from Beijing’s perspective, an excessively Russia-oriented North Korea was hardly an ideal outcome. North Korea has historically existed within China’s strategic orbit. Beijing has no desire to see instability or sudden collapse on the Korean Peninsula, nor does it wish to lose influence over a neighboring state central to China’s security architecture. Wang Yi’s visit, therefore, was widely interpreted as an effort to restore strategic equilibrium and reaffirm Beijing’s relevance in Pyongyang. Equally intriguing is the still-unfinished relationship between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un. President Trump continues to emphasize that he maintains “a very good relationship” with Kim. The summits in Singapore and Hanoi, followed by the dramatic encounter at Panmunjom, produced scenes unprecedented in modern diplomacy. For a moment, it appeared as though decades of hostility might yield to an entirely new chapter. Yet the collapse of the Hanoi summit plunged U.S.-North Korea relations back into paralysis. Kim Jong Un’s distrust of Washington deepened, while Trump, consumed by domestic political pressures and the escalating confrontation with China, was forced to shift his strategic priorities. Even so, Trump appears unwilling to abandon the possibility of a historic breakthrough. He still seems to believe that resolving the North Korean nuclear issue — or at least fundamentally reducing the threat — could become the defining diplomatic achievement of his presidency. The reason is not difficult to understand. No American president has ever fully resolved the North Korean nuclear crisis. A meaningful agreement involving nuclear freezes, phased denuclearization, or a formal peace mechanism on the Korean Peninsula would rank among the most consequential diplomatic accomplishments since the end of the Cold War. The challenge, however, lies in the transformed reality of North Korea itself. Pyongyang is no longer merely developing nuclear weapons; it is constructing an integrated nuclear state. Its arsenal now includes tactical nuclear systems, solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The sophistication and diversity of these capabilities reflect a strategic doctrine far beyond earlier phases of nuclear brinkmanship. North Korea increasingly treats nuclear weapons not as bargaining chips, but as the ultimate guarantee of regime survival. Kim Jong Un has elevated nuclear power to a constitutional and ideological pillar of the state, while restructuring the country’s defense industry into one of the regime’s central economic engines. Russia’s growing military cooperation with Pyongyang has further accelerated this transformation. Speculation regarding technology transfers — including satellite and missile technologies — has intensified among security analysts. North Korea seeks to build an asymmetric deterrence structure capable of withstanding overwhelming American military pressure. In this environment, South Korea’s role becomes more crucial than ever. President Lee Jae Myung has recently emphasized the necessity of rebuilding a gradual roadmap for inter-Korean peace. His approach prioritizes economic cooperation, military de-escalation, and humanitarian engagement as parallel tracks toward restoring dialogue. Unlike purely ideological frameworks of the past, Lee’s perspective appears grounded in practical national interest. Heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula directly threaten South Korea’s economy, financial markets, and long-term investment stability. Peace, in this sense, is not simply a moral aspiration; it is an economic imperative. Yet the geopolitical environment surrounding the peninsula grows more complex by the day. The United States is strengthening trilateral security cooperation with South Korea and Japan as part of its broader strategy to counter China. Japan, meanwhile, continues expanding its defense capabilities and long-range strike systems. On the other side, North Korea, Russia, and to a certain extent China are drawing closer strategically, giving rise to what some analysts increasingly describe as a new Cold War configuration in Northeast Asia. Some observers even argue that the region is moving toward a de facto alignment resembling “U.S.-Japan-South Korea versus North Korea-China-Russia.” In such discussions, comparisons to NATO naturally emerge. But Northeast Asia is not Europe. Its history, economies, civilizations, and national identities are far more deeply intertwined. China and the United States remain fierce strategic rivals, yet they are simultaneously bound together by enormous economic interdependence. South Korea relies on the United States for security while depending heavily on China economically. The Korean Peninsula itself is not merely a military issue, but a convergence point of history, ideology, nationalism, economics, and civilization. Ancient wisdom offers an enduring perspective on these dilemmas. In the Tao Te Ching (道德經), there is a profound passage: “A great nation should place itself low, like the waters beneath all streams.” True strength, Laozi suggests, lies not in domination but in restraint and humility. It is a lesson that resonates powerfully in an era of nuclear rivalry and geopolitical competition. The Analects (論語) of Confucius offer another timeless insight: “The noble man seeks harmony without uniformity; the petty man seeks uniformity without harmony.” Civilizations need not become identical in order to coexist peacefully. Diversity and coexistence are not contradictions; they are the foundation of durable order. The Buddhist Dhammapada (法句經) speaks even more directly to the modern world: “Hatred is never ended by hatred, but by compassion alone.” Thousands of years after those words were first written, humanity still struggles to learn their meaning. The path to peace on the Korean Peninsula will not be easy. Yet paradoxically, the greater tensions become, the more necessary dialogue itself becomes. Nuclear weapons, military alliances, and strategic deterrence alone cannot provide a permanent future for Northeast Asia. Perhaps that is the deeper meaning behind Trump and Xi’s discussion of North Korea in Beijing. Great powers often rediscover the necessity of negotiation precisely when confrontation appears most dangerous. Spring never arrives in a single day. It emerges slowly, almost imperceptibly, after a long and unforgiving winter. Today, Northeast Asia stands beneath heavy geopolitical clouds. Yet even amid rivalry, sanctions, missile tests, and military alliances, the possibility of dialogue still survives. And perhaps that fragile possibility — the refusal to abandon coexistence — remains the true beginning of diplomacy itself. May 16, 2026 10:51 -
ASIA INSIGHT: Why Xi Jinping's table moves world Leaders What is the oldest surviving language of international politics? It is not the language of armies. Nor is it the language of money. More often than we admit, it is a bowl of noodles, a slice of roast duck, a cup of tea. China has understood this for centuries. As Confucius taught in The Analects, “In the practice of ritual, harmony is the most precious.” Long before diplomacy became communiqués, sanctions and summit statements, Chinese civilization learned to read the other side across the table. During U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest visit to Beijing, China once again displayed the subtle art of what may be called culinary diplomacy. At the final working luncheon hosted by President Xi Jinping, the signature dish was not an extravagant imperial delicacy. It was gongbao jiding — Kung Pao chicken, the famous Sichuan dish of diced chicken, chili peppers and peanuts. On the surface, it is a familiar popular dish. But in Chinese diplomacy, food is never merely food. It is a code, a gesture, a message. Kung Pao chicken is among the Chinese dishes most deeply rooted in American society. It recalls the long history of Chinese migrants who crossed the Pacific in the 19th century, working on railroads, in mines and on farms, carrying with them the flavors of home. Over time, its spicy yet approachable taste became part of America’s Chinese culinary imagination. China placed that dish once again before Trump. There was also a play on language. Trump’s Chinese name is often rendered as Chuanpu. Sichuan cuisine is known as chuancai. The resonance was unmistakable. The heat of Sichuan cooking and the blunt force of Trump’s political style were joined in a single diplomatic wink. It was diplomacy with humor; symbolism with seasoning. The state banquet held the previous evening at the Great Hall of the People was even more carefully designed. It was not a simple parade of Chinese classics. It preserved the dignity of Chinese cuisine while taking account of Trump’s palate, Western preferences and the habits of American hospitality. The menu included Peking duck, one of the great emblems of Beijing. Roasted whole until the skin is crisp and the meat tender, Peking duck is not only a dish. It is a declaration of capital, court and civilization. Alongside it came Cantonese lobster soup, crispy beef, low-temperature salmon with mustard sauce, Chinese pan-fried dumplings, conch-shaped pastries and, finally, tiramisu. The composition was eloquent. Peking duck represented tradition and imperial memory. Cantonese seafood suggested openness and cosmopolitan refinement. Salmon with mustard sauce offered a Western note. Tiramisu gently extended the table toward Europe. Nothing was forced. East and West were not made to collide; they were arranged to converse. In that banquet lay a miniature portrait of the U.S.-China relationship itself: rivalry, yes; but also interdependence, recognition and the impossibility of total separation. Even the music carried meaning. American and Chinese songs were reportedly mixed in equal measure. Most strikingly, “YMCA,” a song often used at Trump’s campaign rallies, was played. Beijing had studied not only the American president’s office, but also his temperament, theater and personal symbolism. The Art of War teaches that the highest form of victory is to win without fighting. Chinese diplomacy, at its most refined, sometimes designs a banquet table more precisely than a missile system. Nor was this culinary diplomacy reserved for Trump alone. When South Korean President Lee Jae-myung visited China earlier this year, Xi presented him with Beijing-style zhajiangmian. This was not the sweet, dark, Korean-style jajangmyeon familiar to Korean diners, but the saltier, earthier northern Chinese original. Xi reportedly encouraged Lee to taste the difference between the Chinese and Korean versions. That was no casual remark. Jajangmyeon itself is a shared memory between Korea and China. It originated with Chinese migrants from Shandong and later evolved into a distinctly Korean comfort food. China knows this history. By placing the dish on the table, Xi was not merely offering noodles. He was offering a reminder that even amid rivalry and unease, the two countries share a civilizational memory. For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the table changes again. Chinese banquets for Russian leaders tend to lean toward the hearty, the northern and the continental: richer meats, stronger flavors, lamb, duck, seafood prepared with weight and warmth, sometimes paired with Chinese baijiu and the Russian affection for vodka. This, too, is not accidental. It conveys the symbolism of two great continental powers. The menu becomes a geography of Eurasia. It says: we are not maritime strangers; we are neighbors of the landmass. When French President Emmanuel Macron comes to Beijing, the tone shifts once more. France treats cuisine as a pillar of national identity, and China responds accordingly. The table becomes more delicate, more aesthetic, more alert to wine, tea, seafood, dessert and the rituals of cultivated taste. China’s message to France is clear: China is not merely a factory of the world. It is also a civilization. With German chancellors, the mood is different again. German political culture prizes order, restraint, reliability and function. Chinese hospitality in such settings often favors balance over spectacle: clean fish dishes, mushrooms, vegetables, restrained courses and structured pacing. It is a table of trust, stability and industrial seriousness. Thus, in Chinese diplomacy, a meal is never just a meal. It is history, psychology, strategy and civilization arranged in courses. China has long been a civilization of crossroads. Along the Silk Road passed merchants, monks, soldiers, envoys and ideas. At those crossings, China learned that to feed a guest is also to study him; to honor his taste is to measure his mind. The Tao Te Ching says, “A great nation is like the lowland toward which all streams flow.” A truly great power must know how to receive, absorb and accommodate. At its best, China tries to enact that philosophy at the dining table. None of this means that geopolitics has become gentle. The U.S.-China rivalry remains severe. Semiconductors, artificial intelligence, Taiwan, the South China Sea, tariffs and strategic mistrust continue to weigh heavily on the relationship. The world is not softened by duck skin, noodles or tea. And yet, it matters that even adversaries still make room for respect at the table. Trump eats Peking duck. Xi prepares a dish familiar to American Chinese culture. Lee tastes Beijing-style zhajiangmian. Putin is welcomed with the flavors of the northern continent. Macron is met through refinement and wine-like delicacy. German leaders are greeted with order, balance and restraint. In the end, international politics is conducted by human beings. And human beings remember meals. Perhaps the world order does not change only in summit halls, treaty rooms or military command centers. Perhaps it also changes quietly in the banquet rooms behind them — between a plate of Kung Pao chicken and a bowl of zhajiangmian, between Peking duck and a cup of tea, where nations still search, however cautiously, for a language more graceful than conflict. [This column was written by AJP Special News Team -- Park Sae-jin, Kwak Joseph, Kim Dong-young, Kim Hye-jun, Han Jun-gu, and Bae In-seon reporting from Beijing] May 16, 2026 09:50