Seoul balances economic dependence on China with closer U.S. alignment
In the ancient city of Gyeongju, as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum concluded, Xi Jinping and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung met to navigate the layered tensions of a region caught between economic interdependence and geopolitical fracture. Their encounter followed a landmark trade truce between Beijing and Washington, which had briefly quieted the anxieties of global markets, and now turned attention to the harder, older question of peace on the Korean Peninsula. It is a meeting that reveals how much of modern diplomacy consists of two parties negotiating the behavior of a third who was never at the table.
- A Xi-Trump tariff truce reshaped the atmosphere of APEC, briefly easing the commercial tensions that had unsettled supply chains and markets across the Pacific.
- With Trump absent and represented only by his Treasury Secretary, Xi emerged as the summit's dominant voice — using the moment to champion open trade while the world watched for signs of a new regional order.
- South Korea's new president arrived carrying a delicate burden: a fresh economic deal with Washington on one hand, and a deeply trade-dependent relationship with Beijing on the other.
- Memories of Chinese economic retaliation over THAAD missile defenses and cultural disputes over kimchi have left South Korean public opinion toward China deeply soured, constraining what any leader can offer.
- Lee pressed Xi on North Korean denuclearization — the issue where China's cooperation is indispensable — but Pyongyang preemptively dismissed the effort as fantasy, reminding both leaders of the limits of their reach.
Xi Jinping traveled to Gyeongju to close out APEC with a bilateral meeting alongside South Korea's President Lee Jae-myung — his first visit to the country in more than a decade. The summit had already been defined by a significant development: earlier in the week, Xi and Donald Trump announced a reduction in tariff tensions that had disrupted global markets for months. With that truce as backdrop, Xi positioned himself as the forum's leading voice for open trade, filling a vacuum left by Trump's absence.
The Lee-Xi encounter carried weight beyond ceremony. South Korea's economy remains deeply tied to Chinese trade, even as Seoul recently concluded a major economic agreement with Washington. President Lee, in office only since June, sought to reassure Beijing that closer U.S. alignment would not erode practical cooperation — while also managing a domestic public whose view of China had been shaped by years of friction, from the THAAD missile-defense dispute and its economic fallout to cultural arguments over the origins of kimchi.
Beneath the economic diplomacy lay the harder question of North Korea. Seoul's presidential office confirmed Lee intended to raise denuclearization directly with Xi — a subject where China's role as Pyongyang's closest ally makes its cooperation essential. The Korean War, technically, has never ended. Any path toward stability on the peninsula runs through Beijing.
Yet hours before the two leaders met, North Korea declared Seoul's denuclearization ambitions a fantasy that would never be realized. The statement cast a long shadow over Gyeongju — a reminder that Xi and Lee could negotiate pragmatically with each other, but the regime to the north answered to its own calculus, indifferent to the careful architecture being constructed around it.
Xi Jinping arrived in Gyeongju on Saturday to meet with South Korean President Lee Jae-myung as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum drew to a close. The timing was deliberate: the Chinese leader was wrapping up his first visit to South Korea in over a decade, and the summit itself had been reshaped by a significant development earlier in the week. On Thursday, Xi and Donald Trump had announced a reduction in the tariff tensions that had roiled global markets and disrupted supply chains for months. Now, with that commercial truce in place, the focus shifted to the bilateral conversation between Beijing and Seoul.
The APEC gathering had been marked by a fundamental tension between nations advocating for open trade and those leaning toward protectionism. Trump himself was absent, having delegated U.S. representation to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, which left Xi as the dominant figure at the forum. He used that position to advocate for free commerce and an open regional economic environment—a stance that carried weight given the recent agreement with Washington. The summit brought together 21 Pacific-rim economies, a coalition founded in 1989 to deepen trade integration and regional growth, though the current moment tested that commitment as multilateralism faced pressure from competing national interests.
The Lee-Xi meeting carried particular weight because of what lay beneath it. South Korea's economy remained heavily dependent on trade with China, even as Seoul had just closed a multibillion-dollar economic agreement with Washington. Lee Jae-myung, who had assumed office in June, faced a delicate balancing act: he needed to reassure Beijing that closer alignment with the United States would not undermine pragmatic economic cooperation with China. According to analysts at Harvard's Center for Asian Studies, the South Korean president was seeking to establish more predictable bilateral relations and economic stability with his neighbor. The public dimension mattered too. Sentiment toward China in South Korea had soured considerably, shaped by memories of the 2016 THAAD missile-defense deployment, which had triggered Chinese economic retaliation, restrictions on South Korean companies, and bans on group travel. Cultural disputes—including Chinese claims about the origins of kimchi—had further poisoned the perception. As one Stanford expert noted, public opinion shapes foreign policy, and the mutual view between Seoul and Beijing remained decidedly unfavorable.
But the conversation between the two leaders was expected to center on something more consequential than trade flows or historical grievances: the question of North Korean denuclearization. Seoul's presidential office indicated that Lee planned to raise the issue directly with Xi, framing it as part of broader peace efforts on the peninsula. This was where China's role became indispensable. Beijing remained North Korea's closest ally, and technically, the Korean War had never ended—the two Koreas remained in a state of armistice. Any serious movement toward denuclearization would require Beijing's cooperation or at least its acquiescence.
Yet even as the two leaders prepared to meet, Pyongyang was already signaling its position. Hours before the Lee-Xi conversation, North Korea dismissed Seoul's denuclearization efforts as a fantasy that would never materialize, no matter how many times it was discussed. The statement underscored a hard reality: while Xi and Lee could negotiate economic arrangements and discuss diplomatic pathways, the regime in the north operated according to its own logic, and that logic showed no sign of shifting. The meeting in Gyeongju would proceed against that backdrop—a conversation about stability and pragmatism shadowed by the intransigence of a third party that neither leader could fully control.
Citas Notables
Public opinion shapes foreign policy, and the mutual view between Seoul and Beijing remains decidedly unfavorable— Stanford expert on Korea-China relations
North Korea called Seoul's denuclearization efforts a fantasy that would never materialize, no matter how many times it was discussed— Pyongyang statement
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does this meeting matter more than the others Xi had during the summit?
Because it's the first time Lee and Xi have sat down since Lee took office, and because South Korea is caught between two powers. The trade deal with America just happened, so Beijing needs reassurance that Seoul isn't choosing sides.
But South Korea's economy depends on China. Doesn't that give Seoul leverage?
It gives Seoul a reason to show up, but not necessarily leverage. Dependence cuts both ways—it means Seoul can't afford to alienate Beijing, which is exactly the position Lee is trying to navigate.
What about the denuclearization angle? Is that realistic?
Not based on what North Korea just said. They called it a fantasy. So Lee is raising it with Xi knowing that Xi can't deliver what Seoul wants, and Xi knows that too.
Then why bring it up at all?
Because you have to. It's the one issue that matters most to South Korea's security, and you can't have a serious conversation with Beijing without naming it. Even if nothing changes, the conversation itself signals that Seoul is engaged.
What's the real outcome of this meeting?
Probably a statement about economic cooperation and dialogue. Both sides will claim progress. But the underlying dynamic—Seoul balancing Washington and Beijing, North Korea refusing to budge—that stays the same.