-  South Korea's democratic trajectory has been marked by a persistent challenge that undermines its strategic position on the global stage: the absence of policy continuity across successive administrations.

-  As the Lee Jae-myung administration takes office, there exists a critical opportunity to break this destructive cycle and establish policy frameworks that can transcend partisan politics.

-  South Korea's ability to maintain its hard-won position as a prosperous democracy and key regional power depends on developing strategic coherence across successive administrations.

South Korea's democratic trajectory has been marked by a persistent challenge that undermines its strategic position on the global stage: the absence of policy continuity across successive administrations. This structural weakness stems from the deeply entrenched nature of political party rivalries, where ideological divisions create fundamental disagreements on critical national security and foreign policy issues. The opposing political camps have consistently diverged on approaches to North Korea engagement, the management of the US-ROK alliance, bilateral relations with Japan, and in recent decades, the strategic calculus regarding economic dependency on China. These divisions have prevented the emergence of a sustainable, bipartisan consensus on long-term national strategy, leaving South Korea vulnerable to policy whiplash with each change in government.

From Kim Young-sam's presidency to Yoon Suk-yeol's administration, the past 30 years demonstrates a troubling pattern of widening divergence rather than convergence on these fundamental issues. While the US-ROK alliance has remained the most consistent element of South Korean foreign policy, even this cornerstone relationship has experienced fluctuations in how political expectations are managed and how best to coordinate responses to North Korean provocations. The pendulum has swung dramatically between administrations that prioritize engagement with North Korea and those that emphasize deterrence and containment of military threats. This inconsistency has imposed significant costs on South Korea's strategic position, both in terms of maintaining stability on the Korean Peninsula and in preserving trust among major stakeholders, including the US.

The lack of policy continuity has been particularly damaging in South Korea's approach to North Korea. From Kim Young-sam's mixed approaches to the dramatic swings between the Sunshine Policy under Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun, followed by the hardline stance of Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye, and then Moon Jae-in's renewed engagement efforts, South Korea has failed to develop a coherent, sustainable framework for dealing with its northern neighbor. This policy volatility has not only confused international partners but has also provided North Korea with opportunities to exploit these inconsistencies for its own strategic advantage.

As the Lee Jae-myung administration takes office, there exists a critical opportunity to break this destructive cycle and establish policy frameworks that can transcend partisan politics. Several key policy structures developed in recent years deserve continuation and institutionalization, regardless of political changes. The Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG) with the United States represents one such mechanism that should be preserved and strengthened. While the specific focus of discussions may evolve—perhaps shifting from potential nuclear sharing arrangements to enhancing transparency regarding US extended nuclear deterrence structures—the fundamental significance of NCG lies in its ability to elevate South Korea's position and leverage within the alliance relationship. This institutional advantage, which other allies like Japan do not possess, provides Seoul with unique strategic value that should be maintained and expanded.

Equally important is the preservation and deepening of the US-Japan-Korea trilateral consultation mechanism, often referred to as the Camp David Principle following the historic 2023 summit. This trilateral structure addresses a long-standing weakness in the US alliance system in the Asia-Pacific region. The absence of quasi-allied cooperation between Korea and Japan has been consistently identified as the most vulnerable link in America's hub-and-spoke alliance network in Asia. Historical animosities and territorial disputes have prevented Seoul and Tokyo from developing the kind of strategic partnership that would significantly enhance regional stability and deterrence capabilities.

The fluctuations in Korea-Japan relations have repeatedly jeopardized broader US policy objectives in Asia, while Korea's antagonistic approach toward Japan has often been exploited for domestic political gain rather than pursued as a path toward genuine resolution of outstanding issues. An institutionalized trilateral framework of coordination and cooperation, facilitated by the United States, can help ensure that momentum toward improved relations is not derailed by political changes in any of the three allied nations. This mechanism should be designed to survive electoral cycles and provide continuity in strategic coordination regardless of which political parties hold power.

Perhaps most critically, the Lee administration must develop a nuanced and sustainable approach to North Korea that recognizes the complex duality of the relationship. While North Korea undeniably poses significant security threats to South Korea, it simultaneously remains an essential counterpart for dialogue and conflict resolution. Complete alienation of North Korea would paradoxically increase rather than decrease South Korea’s security risks, as the absence of communication channels only heightens the probability of inadvertent escalation due to misunderstandings and unchecked tensions.

Any engagement strategy must be carefully calibrated to avoid compromising South Korea's national security and defense readiness while also refraining from imposing unilateral demands that the DPRK leadership would categorically reject. The foundation of a sustainable North Korea policy should rest on clearly defined "basic positions" that remain constant across administrations, while allowing for variations in tactical approaches and implementation strategies that can adapt to different leadership styles and evolving security priorities. This “basic” North Korea policy framework would provide the predictability that international partners seek while maintaining the flexibility necessary to respond to changing circumstances.

The challenge of managing relations with China presents perhaps the most complex policy puzzle facing the Lee administration. This relationship requires unprecedented coordination between public and private sectors due to the intricate web of trade dependencies and security considerations involved in dealing with China while maintaining alliance commitments to the United States. South Korea's extensive industrial dependency on Chinese inputs (such as rare earth elements) and markets cannot be ignored, yet neither can the security implications of deepening economic ties with a strategic competitor of its primary ally.

The export control restrictions, supply chain security measures, and strategic decoupling policies initiated during the first Trump administration have introduced complex challenges that demand sophisticated navigation. The Lee administration must craft nuanced economic policies that address this economy-security nexus, prioritizing South Korea's national interests while avoiding actions that could provoke retaliation from either Washington or Beijing. This delicate balancing act requires unprecedented strategic planning and coordination across government agencies and with private sector partners, spanning from major chaebols to small and medium enterprises. To maximize opportunities while minimizing risks, South Korea should consider diversifying its economic and security partnerships beyond traditional allies.

South Korea's experience during the first Trump presidency has demonstrated the value of its deepening partnership with Southeast Asia through the New Southern Policy (NSP). The NSP facilitated structured bilateral engagement with Southeast Asian countries while simultaneously strengthening regional integration through multilateral institutions. South Korea's decades-long investment and trade relationships with the region, dating back to the 1970s, provided crucial economic alternatives when Chinese retaliation targeted Korean businesses like Lotte following the 2016 THAAD deployment decision and during the 2017-2019 US-China trade conflict.

The global pandemic from 2020 to 2022 further highlighted Southeast Asia's strategic importance when collective ASEAN markets surpassed China as South Korea's top trading partner due to pandemic-disrupted trade patterns and border restrictions. South Korea not only successfully convened emergency response meetings with ASEAN counterparts but also expanded the policy framework into NSP-Plus, incorporating health security, biomedical research collaboration, and bilateral training programs. Given the growing need to strengthen semiconductor supply chain resilience and develop high-quality talent in chip and AI industries, the new ROK administration should establish a comprehensive policy framework that positions Southeast Asia and ASEAN as part of the pillars of its foreign policy priorities. The region's strategic importance will continue to expand, with countries like Malaysia and Vietnam emerging as global leaders in backend semiconductor manufacturing, while others serve as critical transshipment hubs for South Korea's energy needs or provide critical minerals required for advanced technology industries such as defense industry and electronic vehicles.

The broader implications of the Lee administration's approach extend far beyond the policy areas mentioned above. The tone and mechanisms established during this presidency will determine whether South Korea can finally break free from the destructive cycle of policy extremes that has characterized transitions between administrations of different political orientations. Success in this endeavor would create new dynamics that enable both the South Korean people and their government to adopt more balanced and sustainable approaches to policymaking.

Achieving this transformation will require the Lee administration to resist the temptation to completely reverse the policies of its predecessors simply for political differentiation. Instead, it must demonstrate the political courage to maintain effective policies while honestly acknowledging their origins, even when those policies were initiated by political opponents. This approach would signal a new maturity in South Korean democracy and could serve as a model for other nations struggling with similar challenges of policy continuity in democratic systems.

The stakes could not be higher. South Korea's ability to maintain its hard-won position as a prosperous democracy and key regional power depends on developing strategic coherence across successive administrations. The Lee administration has the opportunity to establish precedents that could fundamentally alter South Korean political culture, creating expectations for policy continuity that future administrations would find difficult to ignore. Success in this endeavor would not only strengthen South Korea's international standing but would also effectively demonstrating that political competition need not come at the expense of national strategic interests under a principled democracy.