Korean neutrality

The real question then is not whether neutrality is desirable. The real question is whether under the international system, it is permissible.

If you hang around academics in Seoul long enough, sooner or later the idea of Korea becoming a neutral state will materialize. It’s like an academic emergency escape hatch—the kind of eye-catching project that emerges when the grants dry up, the fellowship applications finished, and the next sabbatical still three years away.

It’s usually first discussed sometime after the third round of late-night drinking: “I’ve got a new project. It’s about U.S. troops leaving, unification, and becoming a neutral state”—delivered each time with the wide-eyed sincerity of someone convinced they’re the first person to ever say it.

Personally, I love the idea. Unfortunately, it’s the kind of brain fart that sounds cool because it ignores basic reality—neutrality is not simply declared. It’s permitted. Let me explain.

During the Cold War, neutrality survived because the international system allowed space for it. The bipolar order created buffers, gray zones, and carefully managed ambiguities. States such as Finland, Austria, and Sweden existed between blocs not because they were militarily invulnerable, but because both Washington and Moscow tolerated—and at times even preferred—a degree of strategic ambiguity.

The emerging international order is less tolerant of states sitting comfortably between rival camps. Without going back to Thucydides and questions of neutrality, let’s just say that for a long time, when power shifts, the desire of great powers to allow neutrality decreases.

We’ve seen the willingness of great powers to allow neutrality decline over the last decade. Economic interdependence has been increasingly weaponized. Technology systems have fragmented. Supply chains are now becoming strategic assets. Security guarantees are being tied to ideological expectations. States are now pressured to choose sides not only militarily, but economically, technologically, diplomatically, and even culturally.

This is what makes Sweden and Finland’s entry into NATO historically significant. These were not merely policy shifts. They were the erosion of deeply institutionalized neutrality identities that had survived for generations.

If even Sweden and Finland concluded that strategic ambiguity was no longer sustainable, smaller and more vulnerable middle powers must pay attention.

So what about Korea becoming a neutral state? The reverse movement—from alliance dependence toward neutrality or armed autonomy—is far rarer and much harder.

It only becomes possible under specific structural conditions: when alliance guarantees begin to look unreliable; when a dominant patron appears overstretched or distracted; when geography offers strategic depth; when great powers tolerate buffer zones; and when a state possesses sufficient military capacity to make neutrality credible rather than symbolic. Arguably, the Korea case is heading in this direction. This is probably why we’re talking about it again.

Quiet discussions surrounding “armed neutrality,” “strategic autonomy,” and even “Finlandization” are quietly re-emerging.

Strangely enough, these debates are routinely dismissed as naïve, defeatist, or morally suspect. This misunderstands the issue entirely. Neutrality is not fundamentally a moral position. It’s not a moral choice. It’s about interests. It’s about pursuing national interests within the emerging international order.

The real question then is not whether neutrality is desirable. The real question is whether under the international system, it is permissible.

An international system permits neutrality when the major powers see restraint as less costly than confrontation. Neutrality becomes viable when great powers are secure enough to tolerate buffer states rather than absorb them into rigid alliance structures. This occurs when rival powers fear escalation, accept spheres of influence informally, or recognize that forcing alignment may destabilize strategically important regions.

Neutral states survive when they are perceived not as prizes to be seized, but as stabilizing cushions that reduce friction between competing blocs. In this sense, neutrality is not simply a decision made by small states. It is a condition granted—however reluctantly—by the wider balance of power.

For Korea, this would require a profound transformation in the regional balance of power. The Korean Peninsula has historically been viewed not as a buffer to be left alone, but as strategic terrain to be controlled.

A neutral Korea would only become viable if both Washington and Beijing concluded that forcing Seoul fully into their respective camps was more dangerous than tolerating strategic ambiguity.

To achieve this, it would likely require several conditions simultaneously: a reduced probability of major war over Taiwan; mutual recognition by the United States and China that the peninsula should not become a frontline military platform; a South Korea capable of sustaining credible independent defense capabilities; and a regional order in which both great powers preferred stability over competitive encirclement. Most importantly, neutrality would require external acceptance.

South Korea cannot simply declare itself neutral if the surrounding powers continue to view it as a pivotal strategic asset in the balance of power. Like Cold War Finland or Austria, Korean neutrality can only exist if the major powers collectively permit the space for it to exist.

Oh, and then there’s that last little question that pops the bubble at the beginning of the fourth round: “What about North Korea?” That’s when you move on to talking about the World Cup.

—

If you liked reading this, please support me with a coffee - Buy Me a Coffee!