Why Did Korea, Japan, and Australia Skip the NATO Summit? Unpacking the Real Story Behind the Absences

Korea's Absence from the NATO Summit: More Than Meets the Eye
Did you know that not only Korea but also Japan and Australia decided not to send their leaders to the 2025 NATO summit? The narrative that Korea was 'left out' or isolated has been widely discussed in Korean media and political circles, especially after President Lee Jae-myung announced he would not attend the summit in The Hague. The decision, officially attributed to urgent domestic issues and the escalating Middle East crisis following a U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, sparked heated debate about Korea’s diplomatic direction and its relationships with Western allies. The government clarified that National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac would attend in Lee’s place, emphasizing that Korea remains engaged with NATO as an Indo-Pacific partner, but the absence of the president himself became a lightning rod for both criticism and defense at home.
Japan and Australia: Why Their Leaders Also Stayed Home

It wasn’t just Korea making headlines for skipping the summit. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and Australian Prime Minister also canceled their attendance, with Japan sending its foreign minister and Australia its deputy prime minister instead. According to Japanese and international news outlets, the main reasons were the cancellation of the planned IP4-NATO meeting and the lack of a confirmed summit with U.S. President Donald Trump. The shifting geopolitical landscape—especially the renewed Middle East tensions—played a significant role in these decisions. This collective absence of Indo-Pacific leaders, except for New Zealand, challenges the claim that Korea was uniquely isolated. Rather, it reflects a broader trend of flexible diplomacy in response to rapidly changing global security concerns.
Political Reactions in Korea: Criticism, Defense, and Community Buzz
The Korean political scene exploded with reactions. The conservative People Power Party (PPP) accused President Lee of weakening Korea’s alliance with the West and appeasing China and Russia. They argued that skipping the summit could make Korea appear as the 'weak link' among U.S. allies. On the other hand, the ruling Democratic Party defended the decision, citing the need to prioritize domestic stability and manage the fallout from the Middle East crisis. Online communities like DC Inside, FM Korea, and Nate were abuzz with both support and criticism. Some users mocked the opposition’s 'only Korea is missing' narrative, pointing out that Japan and Australia made similar decisions. Others worried about Korea’s international image and questioned the government’s foreign policy consistency. A typical positive comment read, 'It’s smart to stay out when the world is on fire,' while a negative one lamented, 'We’re losing our seat at the table.'
Cultural Context: Why the NATO Summit Matters for Korea and the IP4
For international readers, it’s important to understand why the NATO summit is such a hot topic in Korea. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO has been actively engaging Indo-Pacific partners (Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand—collectively known as IP4) to counterbalance Russia and China’s growing influence. Korean presidents have attended the last three summits, signaling closer alignment with Western security frameworks. However, this alignment is controversial at home, where concerns over economic ties with China and the risks of being drawn into great-power conflicts are hotly debated. The 2025 summit was also seen as a potential venue for high-stakes meetings with leaders like Donald Trump, adding to the domestic political drama.
Media and Blog Insights: What Are Koreans Really Saying?
A review of recent news articles and popular Korean blogs reveals a nuanced spectrum of opinions. Some bloggers argue that President Lee’s absence was a pragmatic move, avoiding unnecessary diplomatic risks during a volatile period. Others lament what they see as a missed opportunity for Korea to assert itself on the global stage. Naver and Tistory blogs often highlight the business and security dimensions of such summits, noting that these meetings are about more than just photo ops—they’re venues for behind-the-scenes deals and alliance building. The blogosphere also reflects skepticism toward both government narratives and opposition attacks, with many users calling for a more balanced, less reactionary approach to foreign policy.
What This Means for Korea’s Future Foreign Policy
Looking ahead, the 2025 NATO summit episode is likely to have lasting effects on Korea’s diplomatic posture. The government’s decision to send a top official instead of the president signals a more flexible, case-by-case approach to alliance management. It also highlights the growing complexity of navigating between U.S.-led security frameworks and the realities of Korea’s economic and geopolitical environment. For young global readers, this story is a window into the challenges faced by middle-power countries in a turbulent world. It also shows how domestic politics, international crises, and online community sentiment all interact to shape a nation’s foreign policy choices.
Discover More

Tragedy After Restraining Order: Korean Man Kills Wife a Week After Ban Lifted, Sparks Outrage
A man in his 60s killed his wife just one week after a court restraining order expired, despite a prior history of violence. The case has ignited intense debate in Korea about the effectiveness of legal protections for domestic violence victims.

Korean Politics in Crisis: People Power Party Accuses Democratic Party of 'One-Party Dictatorship' Over Committee Chair Dispute
South Korea's major parties are locked in a fierce dispute over the allocation of key National Assembly committee chair positions, with the People Power Party accusing the Democratic Party of monopolizing power and undermining parliamentary democracy.