"I don't need international law."
This statement by U.S. President Donald Trump may well go down as a watershed moment in international political history. In an interview with The New York Times earlier this year, Trump declared, "The only things that can stop me are my morality and my thoughts," making clear his belief that his will takes precedence over international norms. It was the moment when the collapse of the "rules-based order" that the world had vaguely sensed became unmistakably clear.
Looking back, this statement served both as a post-hoc explanation for events that had just occurred and as a forewarning of greater calamities to come. Four days before the interview was released, U.S. forces infiltrated Venezuela and captured then-sitting President Nicolás Maduro. Approximately two months later, U.S. and Israeli forces jointly struck Iran, igniting flames across the Middle East. International law became effectively meaningless. In wars violating the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force, shells fell on civilian and medical facilities. Trump's threat against Iran that "an entire civilization will disappear" became embroiled in war crimes controversy.
Events unimaginable just ten years ago are unfolding across the globe. With Trump revealing ambitions to forcibly annex Greenland, a Danish autonomous territory, and discussing the redeployment of U.S. troops in Europe, NATO, which has been maintained for approximately 80 years, stands on the brink of collapse. Europe is witnessing its most devastating war since World War II, now in its fifth year. A blockade of the Strait of Hormuz was long considered a "black swan" event—unlikely to occur but catastrophic if it did—even amid numerous past Middle East conflicts. But when U.S. airstrikes killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the black swan took flight. As French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau said at the end of World War I, "It is far easier to make war than to make peace." Regardless of how Iran ceasefire negotiations conclude, returning Middle East order to its pre-war state appears unlikely.
As major powers upending the rules-based international order escalate their unilateralism, war has become the "new normal." It is difficult to predict where nations seeking to expand borders and project power amid weakened international norms will strike next. Nor can we know where sparks from conflict might land in the tangled web of international relations. Trump has publicly announced, "Cuba is next." The worst-case scenario of a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan can no longer be dismissed as implausible. Ray Dalio, the renowned global investor, diagnosed that the Iran war is "part of a potential world war with China, Russia, Iran on one side and the United States and countries hosting U.S. military bases on the other," adding, "We are already in the early stages of World War III." Odd Arne Westad, a Yale history professor, argues that today's world is "quite similar" to the period before World War I broke out in 1914.
I do not intend to promote extreme pessimism. I believe that not all of these warnings and concerns will become reality. However, it is also true that as more countries opt for easily mobilized military force rather than painstaking diplomatic solutions, the grounds for guaranteeing peace have weakened.
In this uncertain and precarious "age of conflict," risk management is paramount for survival with limited diplomatic and security resources. First and foremost, strengthening communication with the United States to block Trump-originated "alliance risks" is the most urgent priority. Preemptive communication must be enhanced to prevent security variables such as the redeployment of U.S. Forces Korea from arising. Diversifying diplomacy across all fronts is essential to strengthen negotiating power and avoid being marginalized in international cooperation. Equally important as strengthening ties with allies and friendly nations is not making enemies. We must avoid being dragged into unnecessary diplomatic conflicts or disputes.
Recently, President Lee Jae-myung sparked controversy by comparing past killings of Palestinian civilians by the Israel Defense Forces to the "Jewish Holocaust" on X (formerly Twitter). Israel issued a strong condemnation of this statement, which came on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day. No one would oppose the intent of emphasizing "universal human rights." However, in an international environment where rules, conventions, tolerance, and patience have disappeared, unrefined diplomatic statements by national leaders can cause misunderstandings and conflicts, triggering unexpected repercussions. The entire world is walking on thin ice. This is a time that demands diplomatic prudence more than ever.