Global South approach calls for three-part diplomacy

The author is a professor of international studies at Korea University and head of the Ilmin International Relations Institute. To understand today's international politics, the framework of "three worlds" proposed by John Ikenberry, a professor of international relations at Princeton University, offers a useful starting point. The Global West refers to traditional Western countries. The Global East points to a new bloc centered on China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The Global South encompasses developing countries that seek to avoid full alignment with either side. For Korea, which has already entered the Western camp, diplomacy is no longer a binary question of which side to choose, but a matter of how to manage these three spaces at once in a coordinated way. Among them, the weight of the Global South is steadily growing. Countries such as India, Indonesia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and South Africa are no longer peripheral players. Many rank among the world's largest economies or hold leverage through energy, resources, population and expanding domestic markets. From global energy flows and sanctions on Russia to supply chain restructuring and trade realignments, meaningful international agreements are increasingly difficult without their participation. The era when great powers alone set direction and others simply followed has effectively come to an end. Yet the Global South is also difficult to grasp. From a distance, it appears as a single, unified mass, but up close its shape becomes blurred and fragmented. It is less a clearly bounded geographical entity than a concept formed by shifting political circumstances. Mistaking it for a coherent bloc risks distorting Korea's diplomatic calculations from the outset and may lead to unrealistic expectations. It is equally risky to equate the rise of the Global South with automatic alignment or shared values. The region is governed by pragmatic national interests. Assuming that it can be treated as a unified camp, or that appeals to solidarity alone will bring countries to one side, weakens strategic clarity. Even within groupings such as BRICS, internal rivalries are evident. India and China compete for influence, while tensions persist among Middle Eastern states. In practice, the Global South resembles a vast negotiating arena in which countries gather to expand their strategic options. Korea has already experienced this reality at considerable cost. The recent bid to host a World Expo provided a clear example. Despite unprecedented diplomatic outreach and appeals for cooperation, many countries ultimately made decisions based on shifting national interests. Changes in position should not be seen as inconsistency but as part of a survival strategy. Rather than criticizing such behavior, Korea needs to assess what it overlooked and consider how to convert the networks formed during that process into lasting diplomatic assets. Diplomacy is not a one-time event but an accumulation of relationships and credibility over time. Going forward, Korea requires a more refined approach that adapts to each group differently. First, toward the Global West, diplomacy must be anchored in trust. This is not optional but foundational. The Korea-U.S. alliance, along with cooperation with Europe and Japan, constitutes a long-term strategic base that extends beyond immediate interests. As global uncertainty increases, trust becomes an even more valuable asset. A firm foundation of trust also strengthens Korea's bargaining position in other diplomatic arenas. Second, toward the Global East, a form of "invisible diplomacy" is needed. Countries such as China, Russia and Iran remain unavoidable counterparts despite strained relations. Instead of overt gestures or public signaling, Korea should prioritize careful risk management and the quiet pursuit of practical interests. In an environment shaped by sanctions, security tensions and geopolitical rivalry, overly visible engagement risks creating ...