Hankuk University of Foreign Languages International Area Studies Center Faculty Member Prof. Dr. Giwoong Jung wrote for AA Analysis what the summit held between Türkiye and South Korea at the level of state leaders means for bilateral relations.
The summit held between President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung on November 3 gave a clearer direction to Turkey-South Korea relations around the axis of joint production, technological cooperation and shared opportunities. The friendly relations between the two countries dating back to the Korean War continue to be an indispensable value. Koreans never forgot Türkiye's assistance in the Korean War; This memory provides a strong basis for solidarity. The recently rising "Korean wave" and Korean tourists visiting Türkiye have further strengthened the ties between the two countries on the basis of mutual understanding. However, the strongest contribution that can be made to this brotherhood is a partnership that will bring common prosperity in the future.
Partnership relationship that expands options
Following South Korean President Lee Jae Myung's visits to Ankara in November 2025 and July 2026, the South Korea summit offers the duo an opportunity to advance their partnership in many areas. Both countries need reliable partners because geopolitical competition challenges access to technology and supply chains. These two countries, which chose to move forward with the option of strategic independence when faced with the dilemma of abandoning alliances and being stuck between the rules, feel that there is a lack of legitimacy in the current international system. While Türkiye argues that the world is bigger than five, South Korea demands that there be more elected, representative and accountable members in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Closer cooperation could expand both sides' options without requiring them to abandon existing alliances or adopt the same foreign policy.
At the summit, industrial goals were combined with practical institutional steps. In the four agreements signed; science, technology and innovation; natural resources and mining; energy; Nuclear project financing was discussed. The leaders also reaffirmed their desire to develop a more balanced trade relationship while supporting broader defense cooperation. Although these results are important, whether they lead to permanent change will depend on the steps taken in practice.
The most important opportunity for cooperation between countries is presented in the field of defense. While President Erdoğan introduced the Fırtına Howitzer and ALTAY Tank as successful precedent projects, Lee stated that joint production, technological cooperation and entry into third country markets are the next steps to be followed. This agenda goes beyond simply increasing mutual purchases.
The principle of reciprocity in cooperation
Economic cooperation requires the same principle of reciprocity. Updating the free trade agreement, as discussed in Seoul, should encourage investment and supplier integration rather than focusing only on core trade objectives. Korean manufacturers can qualify more Turkish suppliers and joint products can be developed for regional markets. Electric vehicle components and battery recycling offer practical opportunities to increase Türkiye's added value while strengthening Korea's supply chain resilience.
The science and technology agreement should support competitive joint research grants and university-industry laboratories. Industrial artificial intelligence, robotics and power electronics can be considered realistic startup areas. Funding engineers and smaller innovative firms would give the relationship a more solid foundation than occasional deals between large companies.
Security cooperation requires the development of mutual understanding, not the adoption of the same policies. Seoul faces the nuclear and missile threat from North Korea. Ankara, on the other hand, has to manage the insecurity around the Black Sea and the Middle East. Russia-North Korea military cooperation demonstrates the connection between different security environments. While Türkiye's reaffirmation of support for Seoul's North Korea policy provides a basis for closer consultations, Korea could also benefit from Ankara's regional knowledge. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, ensuring maritime security and reducing diplomatic tensions offer the opportunity to find common ground without automatically requiring alignment in every dispute.
Pursuing this agenda requires country leaders to meet more frequently. However, although mutual visits are valuable, progress does not have to depend on organizing a new state visit. Leaders can commit to annual consultative meetings, where appropriate, using platforms such as the G20 or the UN General Assembly, and support this process with regular ministerial reviews. A brief conversation that clears up a financial or legal hurdle can be much more helpful than an extensive new memorandum.
The Korea-Central Asia Summit, held in Seoul for the first time in September, offers a complementary C5+1 path to diversifying supply chains. Seoul may discuss inviting Türkiye to a separate briefing event with Kazakhstan, which will host the next summit, and other partners in Central Asia. Transport links, critical mineral processing and industrial cooperation may be discussed at the meeting of relevant leaders. While the current C5+1 format is maintained, Central Asian governments can play an active role in determining the common agenda instead of merely providing an environment for diplomatic activities between South Korea and Türkiye. These arrangements could support commercially viable projects along the Central Corridor spanning the Caspian Sea, combining infrastructure with customs coordination and resilient supply chains. Here, instead of increasing the institutional burden, steps should be taken to support bilateral cooperation.
At a time when diplomatic relations are approaching their 70th anniversary in 2027, the task ahead of us is very clear: Transforming the commitments made in Seoul into concrete projects, determining delivery dates and keeping these projects constantly on the political agenda. More frequent meetings will not serve a purpose on their own; The real value of these meetings lies in making cooperation more reliable, mutual and result-oriented and transforming the bond of brotherhood into common prosperity.
