[Future Wave] The 2026 International Order Through Techno-Politics: From the Age of Strategy to the Age of Operation

The language used to describe the international order of the 21st century is undoubtedly changing. In the past, geopolitics-where a nation's geographic location determined the balance of power-was the key variable defining the world order. However, these traditional factors can no longer explain the core of the international system. Today, strategic technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), semiconductors, and quantum technology determine a nation's industrial competitiveness, security, and alliances. We call this new shift in order "Techno-politics."

This transformation is not merely a change in the industrial environment. Technology now defines security, limits diplomatic options, and acts as a political force that creates boundaries of trust and exclusion between nations. Technology standards reflect diplomatic stances, and supply chains redraw security maps. Even the movement of talent and research collaboration are influenced by political contexts. In today's international order, technology is not a neutral tool; it has become a signal indicating which order a nation belongs to.

In 2026, the world faces structurally limited choices. At the core of this structure lies the US-China hegemonic rivalry. This is not a short-term contest for advantage, but a long-term struggle over the sustainability of each system. The United States is strengthening a networked order centered on alliances, rules, and standards, while China is building a structure that absorbs external shocks through technological self-reliance and stability based on domestic demand.

In this process, technology has become fully politicized. Choosing a technology is now a political decision, and technological cooperation is an extension of diplomatic positions. The international order of 2026 is solidifying into a structure where choices surrounding technology simultaneously define a nation's identity and strategic position.

This order is especially harsh for middle-power countries like South Korea. Security relies on the United States, the economy is deeply intertwined with China, and Korea's core industries are at the forefront of technological competition. Under conditions where none of these can be sacrificed, "balanced diplomacy" is no longer a practical solution. In such circumstances, trying to apply the same logic across all domains may only amplify the costs.

A realistic response is functional differentiation, applying different logics to each domain. Security should be managed through alliances, risks in technology should be controlled through selective focus, markets should absorb shocks through diversification, and norms should be approached with flexible participation to secure space. This is a strategic choice aimed at minimizing survival costs within the given structure.

The global order is also becoming multilayered, not simply multipolar. Security is becoming bipolarized, technology is forming blocs, and the economy is only partially interconnected. Norms are fragmented by sector, and cooperation is selective. In this order, the core of diplomacy shifts from declarations or values to the ability to manage conflicting demands.

In this context, 2026 symbolizes the end of the "age of grand strategy." Proclaiming grand visions or slogans will not change the international order. Instead, a nation's fate will be determined by how precisely it operates within the conditions already set. More important than the direction of policy is the precision of execution and the ability to manage costs that society can bear.

The message of the 2026 international order is clear: the future is not difficult because it is uncertain, but because so much of it is already determined. What is now required of nations is not prediction, but management. In 2026, success will depend not on who can foresee the future more accurately, but on who can ride the existing waves more steadily.

Suh Yongseok, Professor at KAIST Graduate School of Future Strategy