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 Korea's nuclear issue has resurfaced as a key agenda item, speculation about Xi's 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 Korea's 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 Korea's 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 Korea's 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 Korea's 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 Korea's 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 US's 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 Jinping's 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.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.