Shorenstein APARC
Stanford University
Encina Hall C319
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

650-725-6773
0
IreneKyoung_2023_Headshot

Irene Kyoung is currently a Research Associate for the Korea Program at APARC. Irene supports research projects regarding Korean politics and society, Nationalism and Racism in Asia, and the ongoing Talent Flows project. Previously, she worked as the Policy Associate at The Korea Society. Irene received a Master of Arts degree in Political Science with a concentration in International Relations from Columbia University and graduated with honors in Government and Legal Studies from Bowdoin College. Her hobbies include writing, playing the piano, and traveling. She is also fluent in Korean.

Research Associate, Korea Program
Authors
Gi-Wook Shin
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

This essay originally appeared in Korean on August 1 in Sindonga (New East Asia), Korea’s oldest monthly magazine (established 1931), as part of a monthly column, "Shin’s Reflections on Korea." Translated by Raymond Ha. A PDF version of this essay is also available to download.


In June, I was contacted by the staff of “60 Minutes” at CBS. They were interested in producing an in-depth analysis of how the Korean Wave, also known as K-culture or Hallyu, became a global phenomenon. While press coverage of K-pop and K-dramas is now commonplace, they added, there has not yet been a comprehensive and systematic treatment of the subject in the U.S. mainstream media. They had caught wind of the Stanford Korea Program’s May conference, which addressed North Korea issues and the Korean Wave, and they asked me for help in reaching out to experts and practitioners in Korea’s music, entertainment, and beauty industries, as well as to relevant government officials.

In planning the 20th anniversary event for the Korea Program at Stanford’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), we chose to focus on North Korea and the Korean Wave for good reason. These two topics are the main gateways through which students and the American public become interested in Korean Peninsula issues. Instead of hosting a conventional academic conference, we wanted to celebrate the occasion by inviting a diverse group of academics, students, policymakers, and artists to discuss timely issues that would attract the greatest public attention.

The conference drew much more interest than we could ever have hoped for. From the moment we opened online registration for attendees, there was a flood of students and outside participants who were eager to attend. On the day of the conference, Stanford’s communications team, as well as our own team at APARC, publicized the event on Twitter. The sheer excitement of students and fans who had come to see Suho, the leader of K-pop group Exo, created a unique atmosphere that no one would expect to witness at an academic conference.[1] (I should note that Suho came to discuss K-pop as a panelist, not to give a performance.) K-pop has seized the attention of the American public, and the interest in the Korean Wave from the staff at “60 Minutes” is only one indication of this trend.

Next year, it will have been 40 years since I arrived in Seattle to begin my graduate studies in the United States. It has been over 30 years since I began to research and teach about Korea-related issues as an assistant professor at the University of Iowa. Two decades have now passed since the creation of the Korea Program at Stanford. When I reflect upon my time in the United States, the enthusiasm and excitement toward Korea and Korean culture that I saw at the Korea Program’s 20th anniversary conference are truly remarkable. Forty years ago, South Korea was a developing country that had thrown off the shackles of poverty but remained under the control of a dictatorship. Thirty years ago, it was a fledgling democracy that had just established the Korea Foundation, under its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to promote international awareness and understanding of Korea. Twenty years ago, the world turned its eyes to North Korea as Pyongyang’s weapons of mass destruction posed a growing threat to international peace and security. Today, the deep interest in and fascination with Korean culture among both students and the general public is unprecedented.

 
Korea is now an economic powerhouse with the 10th largest economy in the world, but can it also become a cultural powerhouse with global influence?

Can Korea’s soft power, embodied by K-pop and K-dramas, take root as a lasting force? Korea is now an economic powerhouse with the 10th largest economy in the world, but can it also become a cultural powerhouse with global influence? We may look back on the Korean Wave as a passing trend, a flash in the pan. On the other hand, it could be an opportunity for South Korea to overcome the so-called Korea discount, in which the market “prices in” instability arising from the security threat posed by North Korea. The soft power of the Korean Wave could enable South Korea to transform this disadvantage into a “Korea premium” instead.

The View from America: from the Korean War to Anti-Americanism

Historically, the Korean War has been the single most important event in shaping American perceptions of South Korea.[2] “M*A*S*H,” a comedy drama that portrayed the day-to-day experiences of army surgeons and nursing officers in a mobile army surgical hospital located in Uijeongbu during the Korean War, was still on the air when I arrived in Seattle to begin my graduate studies in the 1980s.[3] This show ran for a total of 11 seasons from 1972 to 1983, and it is regarded as one of the best U.S. television dramas of all time. As a result, “M*A*S*H” had a powerful impact on how the American public perceived South Korea, which was seen as a poor, war-torn country that relied on American aid.

The economic growth that occurred during South Korea’s developmental authoritarian era also helped shape American perceptions of the country. People began to speak of the Miracle on the Han River, just as they had labeled Germany’s post-World War II recovery as the Miracle on the Rhine. Clothes and shoes manufactured in South Korea found their way into the U.S. market, followed by Hyundai’s Excel and black-and-white TVs from Samsung Electronics. Academics from various disciplines, including economics, sociology, political science, and anthropology, began to produce research on South Korea. Alice Amsden, a political economist who taught at MIT, predicted in Asia’s Next Giant (1989) that South Korea would become a major economic power in Asia.

However, the prevailing view in the United States was that South Korea would not overtake Japan as Asia’s economic leader. Instead, it was believed that it would seek to emulate Japan as one of several “flying geese.” Ezra Vogel, a leading scholar of East Asia who taught at Harvard for many years, rose to academic prominence with Japan as Number One (1979) and labeled South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore as the “four little dragons” in a later work. The historian Carter Eckert published Offspring of Empire (1991), which traces the origins of Korean capitalism to Japanese colonial rule.

Allegations of U.S. culpability in the massacre of civilians during the Gwangju Uprising of May 1980 gave rise to greater interest in South Korea’s politics, social movements, and its ethnic nationalist ideology. Specifically, the emergence of anti-Americanism in South Korea attracted attention from both intellectuals and the general public in the United States.[4]

Even though South Korea experienced a serious financial crisis in the late 1990s, it was recognized by the United States and the broader international community as a country that had successfully achieved both industrialization and democratization in the post-World War II era. It joined the OECD in 1996 and was a founding member of the G20. Once a recipient of foreign aid, it now provides official development assistance to developing countries. Hyundai has grown from producing the Pony to the Genesis. Samsung Electronics has moved on from manufacturing black-and-white TV sets to become one of the leading TV brands across the world and commands a sizable share of the global semiconductor market.

In terms of its political evolution, South Korea is regarded as a leading example of a country that successfully transitioned to democracy during the “Third Wave” of democratization, which began in the 1970s. It is extremely difficult to find examples of countries that underwent both political and economic development in a relatively short period of time since the end of World War II. South Korea’s transformation is an incredible achievement by any measure. Accordingly, U.S. perceptions of South Korea and its people have also gradually improved.

There is an opposing force at play, however. Whenever news about North Korea dominates the headlines in the United States, this reinforces negative views of Korea as a whole. For example, a total of around 5,000 articles about the Korean Peninsula appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal between 1992 and 2003. Among articles about South Korea, 41% focused on economic issues. For North Korea, 65% of articles addressed national security and 9% focused on human rights. Taken together, the leading topic of discussion among all articles about the Korean Peninsula was North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction (30%). Needless to say, articles about this subject took on a very negative tone. In this way, the emphasis and tone of U.S. media coverage created a highly unfavorable image of both North Korea and the Korean Peninsula.[5]

North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons and the Human Rights Issue

Since the first North Korean nuclear crisis erupted in 1993, there have been growing concerns in the United States about the security threat posed by North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction—specifically, its nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Before then, North Korea was simply regarded as the Hermit Kingdom, a poor country run by a dictatorship. It was now seen as a serious threat to the security of the Korean Peninsula and the United States, not just by those in the Beltway, but also among the American public. Lectures and seminars about Korean Peninsula issues often gravitated toward North Korea, not South Korea. U.S. interest in North Korea peaked during the Trump administration, when the leaders of the two countries met for the first time in Singapore in 2018.

Among younger Americans in particular, there is also a great deal of interest in North Korea’s human rights situation. Colleges and universities across the United States have hosted lectures and conferences that address this subject, inviting experts and North Korean escapees to come and speak to students. The North Korean human rights issue has also played a role in strengthening negative perceptions of Korea in the United States. While there has been markedly less interest in North Korea during the Biden administration, North Korea’s nuclear weapons and its human rights record remain key issues of interest for the American public.

Unfortunately, not all attention toward the Korean Peninsula is good attention. The security threat posed by North Korea has given rise to the so-called Korea discount, which is also known as the Korea risk: when foreign investors determine whether to invest in South Korea, they consider its geopolitical situation in addition to economic factors. If North Korea raises tensions in the region by conducting a nuclear test or launching ballistic missiles, the Korea discount worsens. Even though South Korea is not responsible for creating instability, it suffers the consequences.

 
The fascination with K-pop and K-dramas is no longer confined to specific demographics, such as young women or Asian Americans. Korean culture is a topic of daily conversation not only on college campuses, but also in restaurants, shops, and on the street.

K-culture as a Global Phenomenon

In recent years, however, a positive force powerful enough to overwhelm the negative effects of the Korea discount has captured the imagination of the American public: the Korean Wave. The fascination with K-pop and K-dramas is no longer confined to specific demographics, such as young women or Asian Americans. Korean culture is a topic of daily conversation not only on college campuses, but also in restaurants, shops, and on the street.

Before there was K-pop or K-dramas, Korean athletes attracted attention in the United States. Park Chan-Ho had an illustrious career in major league baseball, followed by Kim Byung-Hyun and Ryu Hyun-Jin. In women’s golf, Pak Se-Ri paved the way for Park Inbee and Ko Jin-Young. These athletes made positive contributions by expanding American interest in Korea beyond economic and security issues. While there are only a handful of Korean athletes in the MLB and they do not have a large impact on the league as a whole, Korean golfers dominate the rankings in the LPGA. Commentators have quipped that it should be renamed the KLPGA, and there are even grumblings that the prevalence of Korean players could adversely impact the league in terms of ad revenues and TV ratings.

Compared to sports, Korea’s pop music and dramas have seeped into a much wider cross-section of the American public. There are still certain limits in terms of appealing to U.S. mainstream media, but Korean culture is now recognized as a distinctive culture in its own right, not as an imitation of Chinese or Japanese culture. Psy’s “Gangnam Style” took the music scene by storm in 2012, and BTS has swept the Billboard charts on multiple occasions since then. Bong Joon-Ho won best director at the Oscars for “Parasite” in 2020, and Youn Yuh-Jung won best supporting actress for her role in “Minari” the following year. Netflix is flooded with a variety of Korean content, and BTS’s “Dynamite” and the drama “Crash Landing on You” are brought up in day-to-day conversation among many Americans.

As a result, there has been a surge of interest in Korea among students. K-pop–related student groups have popped up in college campuses across the United States. (Stanford is no exception. XTRM, a K-pop dance team that debuted in 2013, has around 30 members.) Amidst an overall decline in enrollments for foreign language classes, Korean has seen a dramatic increase. According to a 2019 report from the Modern Language Association of America, enrollment in Korean language classes at the undergraduate and graduate levels has increased by 95% between 2006 to 2016. This was the most notable growth during this period for foreign languages with an enrollment of at least 1,000.[6]

The Korean Wave arrived at America’s shores long after it had already swept across other regions. It first surged through Japan, China, and Southeast Asian countries in the late 1990s before spreading to Europe and Latin America. Korean films received accolades at the Cannes Film Festival before Bong Joon-Ho and Youn Yuh-Jung were recognized at the Oscars. At this year’s Cannes, Korean cinema was a force to be reckoned with. Park Chan-Wook won best director for “Decision to Leave,” and Song Kang-Ho won best actor for his performance in “Broker.” K-pop and K-dramas are also extremely popular in India, where few would have expected Korean culture to take root. There, interest in learning Korean is growing rapidly, and the Indian government has added Korean to the list of foreign languages that can be taught at secondary schools.[7] Now that Korean culture has planted a flag even in the United States, which exercises cultural hegemony across the world, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Hallyu has become a truly global phenomenon.

In light of the global ascendance of Korean culture, I began to discuss Hallyu as a key subject in my Korean studies classes two years ago. I also witnessed firsthand the considerable power and potential of Korean dramas and movies, many of which I watched on online streaming services during the pandemic. After Pak Se-Ri appeared on the scene, Korean golfers have continued to dominate the LPGA. It is exciting to imagine a future in which the Korean Wave becomes a lasting force that grows and evolves, thereby enhancing Korea’s soft power across the world.

From Asia to the World

I am not an expert in cultural studies, and I am certainly not a specialist in K-pop or K-dramas. Moreover, the success of K-pop and K-dramas cannot necessarily be explained by a single, overarching narrative. As a sociologist, however, my impressions of the global success of Korean culture are as follows.

K-culture resonates with a global audience. Following the 2007-09 Great Recession, people across the world contended with problems such as extreme inequality, refugee crises, and a hyper-competitive society. Korea’s artists skillfully dissected these issues.

The main reason behind the widespread popularity of Korean culture across the world is that it transcends the particularities of Korean society. It reflects the zeitgeist and addresses issues of universal concern in a sophisticated and attractive manner. In its early stages, Hallyu resonated with a primarily Asian audience, including those in Japan and China. In its present form, however, K-culture resonates with a global audience. Following the 2007–09 Great Recession, people across the world contended with problems such as extreme inequality, refugee crises, and a hyper-competitive society. Korea’s artists skillfully dissected these issues. “Parasite” provides a compelling portrait of inequality. The powerful narrative of “Squid Game” represents capitalism as a raw life-or-death contest. BTS has long struck a chord with discontented youth who are worn out by ever-increasing competition. In “Paradise,” a song on their third album “Love Yourself: Tear,” which topped the Billboard 200 Chart, BTS declares that “it’s okay to not have a dream.”

Popular culture is at its most powerful when it honestly confronts and examines contemporary issues in a way that is entertaining and elicits empathy. It captures the thoughts, emotions, and sentiments of those in the audience. It portrays a way of life and represents a set of values that feels authentic to them. British bands such as the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Queen, and Coldplay achieved enormous global popularity precisely because their songs spoke to the issues of the day and reflected the atmosphere of the times. The same holds true for French cinema, which dominated the global movie scene from the 1950s to the 1970s. French movies from this era closely examine the role of the individual and the family in a rapidly changing society. It could be too early to tell, but the expanding global reach of Korea’s movies, dramas, and music can perhaps be explained by their ability to encapsulate the zeitgeist of the 21st century.

Another reason behind the success of Hallyu is its effective use of online platforms. Korean movies and dramas were able to swiftly enter the global media market thanks to platforms such as Netflix and Apple TV. It is difficult to imagine “Squid Game” or “Crash Landing on You” becoming incredibly popular in a short span of time without OTT (over-the-top) media platforms. Such platforms are also dominant in the music industry, where CD albums have become largely obsolete. Consumers can purchase songs online or access streaming services. Korea was well-positioned to compete in this global market with its strong IT sector, and Korean artists soon leaped to the top of the Billboard charts. Furthermore, K-pop groups have created fandoms by communicating with fans through social media platforms such as V Live and Instagram Live. K-pop is now expanding its reach into the metaverse, in step with the current era of artificial intelligence.

The third and final reason for K-culture’s popularity is that it captured a niche market by producing unique works that do not neatly conform with the norms of Western liberal democratic societies or authoritarian societies. K-pop artists—idol groups in particular—have achieved success by deftly combining emotionally resonant songs with brilliant, perfectly synchronized choreography. These artists, who undergo rigorous training from a young age and put in countless hours of practice, are capable of stunning group performances. Combining this element with music seized the attention of fans across the globe. Such group performances are difficult to envision among artists in Western societies, and authoritarian countries such as China or North Korea may be capable of mass choreography, but only for political purposes.

In his keynote speech during the 20th anniversary event for Stanford’s Korea Program, Soo-Man Lee, a K-pop pioneer and the founder and chief producer of SM Entertainment, labeled the process of creating such works of art as “culture technology” (CT). According to Lee, SM Entertainment has developed CT, which is a management system that creates and propagates culture in four steps: casting (identifying talent), training, content producing, and marketing. Other entertainment companies in Korea essentially follow the same template. This ecosystem gives rise to a uniquely Korean style of music and art.

[S]ome the challenges facing the K-pop industry. These include prolonged and intensive group training, without regard for individual privacy or mental health; South Korea’s compulsory military service for males; and debates about the equitable distribution of K-pop’s revenues.

BTS Takes a Break: The Challenges Facing Hallyu

Despite its successes, it is unclear if K-pop and K-dramas will be able to achieve lasting global popularity. BTS’s recent announcement of a break from group activities illustrates some of the challenges facing the K-pop industry. These include prolonged and intensive group training, without regard for individual privacy or mental health; South Korea’s compulsory military service for males; and debates about the equitable distribution of K-pop’s massive revenues. In an article about BTS’s break, Nikkei Asia pointed to the prevailing culture of the K-pop industry as the reason why BTS members openly admitted to suffering from burnout. During the announcement, BTS leader RM did not hold back in saying that “the problem with K-pop and the whole idol system is that they don’t give you time to mature [as a person].”[8] There continue to be doubts and debates about whether the CT system pioneered by SM Entertainment, which has been the driving force behind K-pop’s growth, is a sustainable model. Furthermore, it is vital to foster the next generation of industry leaders. Miky Lee of CJ ENM played a pivotal role in the globalization of Korean dramas, and Soo-Man Lee (SM Entertainment), Yang Hyun-Suk (formerly YG Entertainment), Park Jin-Young (JYP Entertainment), and Bang Si-Hyuk (HYBE) represent the first generation of K-pop pioneers. In the decades to come, there will need to be new leaders who can take their place and carry K-culture into the future.

For Hallyu to remain a core element of Korea’s soft power, it is also important for the government to refrain from undue interference in the cultural sector. It can be tempting for officials to invite K-culture stars to government events or feature them in overseas public diplomacy initiatives. For example, the Moon Jae-In administration included the idol group Red Velvet in a delegation of musicians who performed at a concert in Pyongyang in April 2018. The Yoon Suk-Yeol administration also drew criticism for proposing the idea of featuring BTS at its inauguration ceremony this May. Many of Red Velvet’s global fans did not take kindly to seeing their favorite artists take pictures with a dictator. Similarly, ARMY (BTS’s fandom) did not welcome the idea of BTS performing at the inauguration of a president who is widely regarded as an “anti-feminist.” The government must stay away from such political controversies and quietly support Korea’s artists behind the scenes, enabling K-culture to find its place on the global stage. Consider, for instance, how Beijing set up Confucius Institutes in an effort to promote its soft power, only to fan the flames of anti-China sentiment. The current Yoon administration would also do well to recall how its predecessor prematurely sang the praises of “K-disease control” during the pandemic, which some in the international community saw as nothing more than tooting one’s own horn.

At the same time, Korea’s global stars would do well to raise their own voices on global issues. Their growing influence on the world stage entails a greater sense of responsibility. During my class discussions with Stanford students, who are captivated by K-pop, I often hear comments about this issue. One student found it strange that K-pop artists do not speak out against racism, given K-pop’s global stature. Another asked, “Do Korea’s artists know that pro-democracy protestors in Asian countries like Myanmar are singing K-pop songs?” Some also ask the question that motivated this essay: “Is K-pop sustainable?”

One might counter that these students are viewing K-pop through a distinctly American lens. Nonetheless, their comments and questions are deeply relevant to the future of the Korean Wave. K-pop artists must be able to raise their voice not only on global issues like climate change, but also on issues that are at once universal and distinctly Korean, such as North Korean human rights. In this vein, BTS’s visit to the White House in May to speak out against anti-Asian hate crimes was a welcome turn of events. To engage in such advocacy, artists must be well-informed on global issues so that they are able to formulate their own opinions and speak for themselves. As mentioned above, however, it will be important to strictly avoid undue political entanglements on such occasions going forward.

Finally, there is a need to host forums where artists and industry leaders can exchange views with academics and professionals in relevant fields. For the Korean Wave to become a lasting force that enhances Korea’s soft power, there must be opportunities for artists, industry leaders, and academics to put their heads together and hold extensive discussions about the problems facing K-culture and what direction it should take in the future. It will not be enough to only hold fan meetings. If K-pop fizzles out, there will no longer be enough fans left to attend such events. At the 20th anniversary conference for Stanford’s Korea Program, Suho of Exo and Angela Killoren, the CEO of CJ ENM America, directly engaged with professors and students. Even though this was a small first step, it proved to be a highly informative and productive discussion.

Moreover, it is important for those in academia to discuss how best to capture and rigorously analyze subjects of popular interest. Adequate support should be furnished to students who wish to research the Korean Wave, both in terms of research materials and financial resources. Professorships or postdoctoral fellowships dedicated to the Korean Wave could also be considered. The Korea Foundation or the Academy of Korean Studies could play a meaningful role in this regard.[9]

The Korean Wave, which has unique characteristics and continues to evolve in intriguing directions, could become a first mover on the global cultural scene. As K-pop, K-dramas, and Korean movies become more prominent, Korea’s soft power is rapidly growing as well.

Can Korea Become a Cultural Superpower?

Korea is a major economic and military power in its own right, but it is in a challenging geopolitical neighborhood. It will be difficult for Korea to surpass China or Japan in terms of hard power. China has replaced Japan as Asia’s leading economic power, and Korea continues to suffer from the disadvantage of the Korea discount. Although Korea was immensely successful in being a “fast follower” in its trajectory of economic development, it now faces significant obstacles in its attempts to become a “first mover.” Samsung’s smartphones, for example, have not been able to leapfrog the iPhone.

The story could be different in the realm of culture, however. The Korean Wave, which has unique characteristics and continues to evolve in intriguing directions, could become a first mover on the global cultural scene. As K-pop, K-dramas, and Korean movies become more prominent, Korea’s soft power is rapidly growing as well. There is nothing better than the power of culture in improving a country’s image in the eyes of the world. For example, Sweden is commonly associated with ABBA and the welfare state. The Netherlands is regarded as a land of canals, and the country of Rembrandt and Van Gogh. Hallyu has now given Korea a golden opportunity to change the Korea discount into a Korea premium.

In his autobiography, Kim Gu, a leader of Korea’s independence movement under Japanese colonial rule, wrote about his hopes for Korea:[10]

“I want our country to become the most beautiful country in the world, not the most rich or powerful country in the world. As we have suffered the pain of invasion, I do not want our country to invade others. We only need to be prosperous enough to sustain the livelihoods of our people, and our military only needs to be strong enough to defend against foreign invasions. The only thing I want our country to possess without bounds is the noble strength of culture. The power of culture brings happiness to our lives, and also to the lives of others.”

The Korean Wave has opened the door for Korea to become a cultural superpower, just as Kim Gu yearned for almost a century ago. I eagerly await the day his dream becomes true.

 


[1] Suho is the leader and lead vocalist of Exo, a boy group that debuted under SM Entertainment in 2012. Exo has sold millions of albums and embarked on multiple tours across the world. Suho has established himself as an acclaimed solo artist and has acted in several movies, dramas, and musicals.
 

[2] According to a May 2021 estimate by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, nearly 1.8 million Americans served in the Korean War. See “America’s Wars,” https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf.
 

[3] Uijeongbu, which lies immediately north of Seoul, hosted eight U.S. military bases for many decades following the 1953 armistice because of its strategic importance in defending the South Korean capital. The military units at these bases have since been relocated south to Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, and most of the land has been returned to the city of Uijeongbu. See Sarah Kim, “U.S. returns land in Yongsan and other bases to Korea,” Korea JoongAng Daily, February 27, 2022. https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2022/02/27/national/defense/US-Forces-Korea-USFK-Yongsan-Garrison/20220227155134728.html.
 

[4] I have analyzed the subject of anti-Americanism in South Korea in my own work as well. For example, see Gi-Wook Shin, “South Korean Anti-Americanism: A Comparative Perspective,” Asian Survey 36, no. 8 (1996): 787–803.
 

[5] For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see Gi-Wook Shin, One Alliance, Two Lenses: U.S.-Korea Relations in a New Era (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010).
 

[6] Dennis Looney and Natalia Lusin, “Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Summer 2016 and Fall 2016: Final Report,” Modern Language Association, June 2019. https://www.mla.org/content/download/110154/2406932/2016-Enrollments-Final-Report.pdf.
 

[7] Preeti Rawat, “Korean adopted in India as elective for 2nd foreign language,” Korea.net, August 12, 2020. https://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/HonoraryReporters/view?articleId=188619.
 

[8] Kotaro Hosokawa, “BTS Hiatus Reveals Soft Underbelly of K-pop Industry,” Nikkei Asia, June 16, 2022. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Media-Entertainment/BTS-hiatus-reveals-soft-underbelly-of-K-pop-industry.
 

[9] As noted above, the Korea Foundation (https://en.kf.or.kr/) was established under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1991 to “promote proper awareness and understanding of Korea, and to enhance goodwill and friendship throughout the international community through a diverse array of international exchange activities.” The Academy of Korean Studies (http://intl.aks.ac.kr/english/), founded in 1978, is a public institution under the Ministry of Education that aims “to promote Korean studies and culture.”
 

[10] Born in 1876, Kim Gu is one of the most influential figures in Korea’s modern history. He served as the president of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea (Korea’s government-in-exile). Following Korea’s liberation in 1945 and subsequent division along the 38th parallel, he sought to achieve reunification. He was assassinated in 1949 amidst the political turmoil that engulfed the Korean Peninsula between 1945 and the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. His pen name was Baekbeom, and his autobiography is thus entitled Baekbeom Ilji (Baekbeom’s diaries).

DOWNLOAD A PDF VERSION OF THIS ESSAY

Read More

South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol speaks on the government supplementary budget at the National Assembly on May 16, 2022 in Seoul.
Commentary

Beyond Representation: How Diversity Can Unleash Korea’s Innovation

A social and corporate culture that values and enforces conformity surely cannot be a wellspring of creativity and innovation. Korean society must find a new source of vitality. Enhancing diversity to stimulate innovation and change could be the answer.
Beyond Representation: How Diversity Can Unleash Korea’s Innovation
Collage of Soo-Man Lee, SUHO, and Ban Ki-moon speaking at a podium
News

North Korea’s Geopolitics, South Korea’s Pop Culture Wave Take Center Stage at Korea Program’s 20th Anniversary Conference

The Korea Program at Stanford’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center marked its 20-year anniversary with a two-day conference that gathered eminent leaders from academia, government, and the K-pop industry, including former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and global star SUHO, leader of K-pop group EXO.
North Korea’s Geopolitics, South Korea’s Pop Culture Wave Take Center Stage at Korea Program’s 20th Anniversary Conference
Dafna Zur with K-pop group aespa.
News

K-pop’s “Next Level”: Notes from the Field

Prof. Dafna Zur shares impressions from her visit with Soo-Man Lee, founder and chief producer of SM Entertainment, and the rare opportunity to tour the Seoul-based company and see the K-pop megastars-in-training. The preliminary results of this fieldwork, part of a documentary on K-pop, will be aired during the Korea Program's 20th Anniversary conference.
K-pop’s “Next Level”: Notes from the Field
All News button
1
Subtitle

The Korean Wave, which has unique characteristics and continues to evolve in intriguing directions, could become a first mover on the global cultural scene.

Authors
Gi-Wook Shin
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

This essay originally appeared in Korean on June 16 in Sindonga (New East Asia), Korea’s oldest monthly magazine (established 1931), as the third in a monthly column, "Shin’s Reflections on Korea." Translated by Raymond Ha. A PDF version of this essay is also available to download.


“What is it that Korean entertainment has brought? It’s the greatest example of providing something to the market that doesn’t exist, and it’s what I call ‘female gaze’ entertainment.”

On May 19, the Korea Program at Stanford University hosted a conference to celebrate its 20th anniversary. During a panel discussion on the “Korean Wave” (Hallyu), Angela Killoren, the CEO of CJ ENM America, asserted that Korean content garnered global popularity because it satisfied the interests of female consumers. “Hollywood . . . is very male gaze driven,” she noted, while Korean music and dramas “rekindle a sense of romance” and tend to be told from a female perspective. Women are marginalized in patriarchal cultures, and young women in particular have responded enthusiastically to content that resonates with them.

The next day, South Korea’s newly elected President Yoon Suk-Yeol held his first summit meeting with President Joe Biden in Seoul. At the joint press conference following the summit, a reporter with the Washington Post asked President Yoon about the lack of women among his Cabinet nominees. This was a piercing question for President Yoon, who is already seen as an “anti-feminist” by foreign observers.[1] His discomfort at the question was palpable. Of 19 Cabinet nominees, including the prime minister, he had nominated only three women. Among his vice ministers and vice-ministerial appointees, only two out of 41 were women.

Why Diversity Matters

There was widespread public criticism about the overrepresentation of a specific group of individuals among Yoon’s appointees: men in their 50s and 60s who had graduated from Seoul National University.[2] In response, the administration stated that it had selected the most qualified and experienced individual for each position. The Democratic Party of Korea, the leading opposition party, criticized Yoon’s Cabinet appointments for being imbalanced in terms of policy preferences, alma maters, and regional backgrounds. The opposition Justice Party similarly rebuked the skew toward men from Gyeongsang Province in their 60s.[3]

The “female gaze” that propelled the Korean Wave was not the outcome of a strict meritocracy, and it did not arise from efforts to achieve balanced representation. It resulted from looking beyond the horizon of male-centered viewpoints to value female perspectives.
Gi-Wook Shin

Interestingly enough, both sides interpret this as a question of representation. Those who emphasize meritocracy argue that allocating seats to account for the representation of minorities makes it difficult to achieve results. On the other side, those who criticize the lack of diversity support a balanced composition in terms of gender and regional background, among other considerations. Such focus on “balance” and “representation” limits the discussion. Let us return to Killoren’s explanation for the astonishing global success of the Korean Wave. The “female gaze” that propelled the Korean Wave was not the outcome of a strict meritocracy, and it did not arise from efforts to achieve balanced representation. It resulted from looking beyond the horizon of male-centered viewpoints to value female perspectives.

A diverse group of individuals brings a diversity of opinions to the table. The true strength of diversity, however, is that it encourages people to think outside the box. When people encounter and evaluate different viewpoints and alternatives, this fosters creative, original thinking that drives innovation. Organizations and institutions can thus enhance their overall performance by building a diverse workforce.

South Korea is a patriarchal, “super-networked” society that emphasizes ethnic homogeneity and purity. High value is placed on common alma maters, shared regional backgrounds, and family ties. There is a dire need to enhance appreciation for the value of diversity.
Gi-Wook Shin

Ensuring the equitable representation of minorities and protecting their rights is, of course, a fundamental democratic value and a vital policy objective. Nevertheless, it is now time to approach the issue of diversity not only in terms of balanced representation, but also as a question of effectiveness and innovation. It is especially important to ensure diversity within entities like the Cabinet, which requires a high level of intellectual capacity and judgment.

South Korea is a patriarchal, “super-networked” society that emphasizes ethnic homogeneity and purity. High value is placed on common alma maters, shared regional backgrounds, and family ties. There is a dire need to enhance appreciation for the value of diversity. The era of industrialization called for a homogeneous workforce capable of producing uniform, standardized products. In this context, diversity could hamper efficiency. The new era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, built on creativity and innovation, will increasingly require a rather heterogeneous workforce. Diversity should be recognized as an essential virtue that underlies innovation and success. The future belongs to societies and organizations that understand the true value of diversity.

From Representation to Innovation

In the United States, diversity is one of the most important considerations not only in companies’ hiring decisions, but also when colleges and universities hire professors or admit students. Pursuing diversity was once regarded as a means of empowering minority groups by ensuring that they had access and representation. However, it is now commonly understood that an organization’s capabilities and achievements cannot be maximized without diversity. There are many ways to achieve diversity. A range of factors is considered, including race and ethnicity, age, gender, personal background, and past experiences. It is believed that an organization can overcome groupthink and dismantle a rigid internal culture only if it is composed of diverse individuals. Put differently, innovation and success depend on diversity. Schools, companies, and government entities all have a department that is responsible for improving diversity, and there are many organizations that now have a chief diversity officer (CDO) in addition to a CEO and CFO.

This is a relatively recent phenomenon in American history. As a nation of immigrants, the United States initially pursued assimilation. It only recognized English as the official language. This began to change in the 1960s with the civil rights movement and the emergence of feminism. There were calls to protect and empower minorities and vulnerable groups, and these efforts were also institutionalized. Affirmative action is perhaps the most prominent legacy of this era.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, introducing affirmative action for federal contractors. Affirmative action sought to proactively counter discrimination by providing preferential treatment to minorities that were disadvantaged on the basis of “race, creed, color or national origin.”[4] There was an initial emphasis on addressing racial discrimination, but this later expanded to countering discrimination on the basis of sex or disability. In essence, this is similar to practices that are well known in Korea: creating quotas for individuals of particular backgrounds and giving extra points in hiring evaluations or admissions decisions. These practices were most commonly used by companies and universities.

Affirmative action has always been controversial in the United States, with opponents calling for its repeal. Some argue that it fails to solve the problem by creating reverse discrimination, while others claim that it generates new forms of discrimination. The former is raised primarily among white men, while the latter is voiced by Asian Americans. It was charged that high school students who worked hard to achieve high scores were disadvantaged in university admissions because schools applied racial quotas. Although the Supreme Court ruled the use of racial quotas in university admissions to be unconstitutional in the Bakke decision (1978), critics allege that prominent universities still maintain tacit quotas for African and Hispanic American applicants. This fall, the Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in a case brought mainly by Asian American individuals against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina for the use of “race-conscious” admissions programs.[5]

California, where I have lived for many years, is among the most progressive states in the United States. In 1996, however, it became the first state to vote against affirmative action in a statewide referendum when it passed Proposition 209. I was an assistant professor at UCLA at the time, and I vividly remember many heated discussions and debates about this topic among professors, students, local residents, and civil society organizations.

The controversy surrounding affirmative action in California has persisted. Proposition 16, which sought to repeal Proposition 209, was defeated by a wide margin in November 2020. Even in the United States, there is a fraught conversation about pursuing diversity as a means of achieving equitable minority representation. On the other hand, there is a growing recognition that diversity is essential for organizations to innovate and succeed.

Diversity = Innovation

When I write a course syllabus, I include two components in addition to lecture topics, assignments, and grading policies. First, I pledge to observe the Honor Code, which has a long tradition at Stanford. Under the Honor Code, faculty members do not proctor exams. Second, I vow to “respect diversity.” As a professor, I pledge “my intent that students from all diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and situations be well served by this course,” and I affirm that “the diversity that students bring to this class be viewed as a resource, strength and benefit.” I emphasize diversity as an essential element that enhances students’ learning experience. Accordingly, I “present materials and activities that are respectful of diversity,” which includes “gender, sexuality, disability, age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, race, religion, political affiliation, culture, and so on.” Faculty members are encouraged to include such language on diversity in their syllabi, although it is not a requirement. Nevertheless, this practice is becoming increasingly widespread among faculty members.

Major U.S. companies such as Google and Microsoft have appointed chief diversity officers (CDOs) and strive to attract employees of diverse races, socioeconomic backgrounds, and gender identities. Diversity tends to be based on inherent components (e.g., sex and race), but it can also be expanded through acquired components, such as studying abroad and gaining other life experiences. These companies seek various ways to improve diversity. They believe that diversity enhances productivity and allows the company to better respond to changes in the external environment. Melonie Parker, Google’s CDO, describes her mission as making “Google more reflective of the world around us.”[6] There is a firm conviction that creativity and innovation arise when individuals with diverse backgrounds and experiences exchange new ideas and perspectives.

In diverse teams, individuals are able to consider and evaluate alternatives and novel points of view. If an organization consists only of people with similar educational backgrounds who think in similar ways, it is unlikely that innovative or unique ideas will ever emerge.
Gi-Wook Shin

“Diversity = Innovation” is not just an article of faith. In the United States, researchers have accumulated a considerable amount of empirical evidence in support of this maxim across a variety of disciplines. Scott E. Page, a professor of complex systems at the University of Michigan, describes in great detail in The Difference (2007) how diversity leads to innovation. According to Page, having a diverse team enables cognitive diversity, which is critical to problem solving. When faced with difficult tasks, cognitive diversity allows the team to perform more capably than the sum of its parts.

In “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter,” Katherine Phillips, the late professor of business management at Columbia University, stresses that diversity makes teams more effective at completing tasks. In diverse teams, individuals are able to consider and evaluate alternatives and novel points of view.[7] If an organization consists only of people with similar educational backgrounds who think in similar ways, it is unlikely that innovative or unique ideas will ever emerge.

At Stanford’s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, or “the d.school,” which is well known in Korea, diversity is understood as “radical collaboration.” Individuals with different perspectives and experiences collaborate in the classroom and when completing assignments. For instance, a computer science major will work together with a student majoring in the humanities. A prominent example of this way of thought is on display at Stanford’s Institute of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, where one co-director has a background in computer science, and the other in philosophy.

According to a 2007 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, 91% of companies responded that “enhancing the ability of people from different backgrounds to work effectively together” was an “extremely important” outcome of effective diversity management.[8] Catalyst, widely known for its research on the role of women in the workplace, also reported that companies with more women in high-level management positions tend to have transparent management practices and become more profitable through the pursuit of creative business strategies. A 2018 analysis of 1,700 companies by the Boston Consulting Group found that companies with “above-average diversity on their management teams. . . reported innovation revenue that was 19 percentage points higher than that of companies with below-average leadership diversity.”[9]

It is none other than Silicon Valley, the global leader in technological innovation, that best illustrates the relationship between diversity and innovation.

Some in Korea may respond that the United States is unique in its status as a nation of immigrants. Israel offers an illustrative counterexample. Although it has a strong national identity like Korea, it has relied on a diverse talent pool to build a “creative economy.”

Technology as “a Manifestation of a Culture”

“An iPhone is not a product. It’s a manifestation of a culture.”[10] This statement about the iPhone also perfectly encapsulates the ethos of Silicon Valley as a whole. In April 2015, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan visited Stanford and hosted a discussion on technological innovation with the CEOs of major U.S. tech companies, including Apple, Google, Yahoo, Twitter, and Microsoft. I was also there and I noticed something fascinating about the discussion. While Prime Minister Abe focused on the technological aspects of innovation, the leaders of Silicon Valley all emphasized its cultural aspects. Without exception, they began from the premise that innovation was rooted in culture, not technology. At the core of that culture is cultural diversity.

It has already been over 20 years since I joined Stanford and became a resident of the Bay Area. Having grown up in Korea, where I was taught to be proud of the homogeneity and unity of the Korean people, what struck me most about living here is a way of thinking that places great value on cultural diversity. Simply put, Silicon Valley was not built only by white men. Talented individuals of diverse backgrounds came together, competing and cooperating in their endeavors as they created today’s technological landscape. Immigrants laid the foundations for many of the companies that were launched in Silicon Valley, including Intel, Yahoo, Tesla, Google, and Twitter. The cultural diversity that permeates this region can be felt not only through these companies, but also in its schools, shops, and restaurants.

When people of diverse backgrounds and experiences come together, they create original ideas and put forth new perspectives. In turn, this catalyzes technological innovation. This ethos is deeply ingrained in Silicon Valley’s business culture. One often hears that “Silicon Valley is 90% culture and 10% technology.” This is in exactly the same vein as the above quote about the iPhone as “a manifestation of a culture.”

Some in Korea may respond that the United States is unique in its status as a nation of immigrants. Israel offers an illustrative counterexample. Although it has a strong national identity like Korea, it has relied on a diverse talent pool to build a “creative economy.” It created an ecosystem to support entrepreneurship in the technology sector, thereby overcoming tremendous economic difficulties to become a “startup nation” that has attracted global attention. In this process, 850,000 immigrants who arrived after the collapse of the Soviet Union played an important role. Over 40% of these immigrants were professors, scientists, and engineers with ample research experience. Israel proactively incorporated these individuals into its economy and society. It is common to hear multiple languages spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv. The startup nation did not arise out of coincidence.

To be a “first mover” and not just a “fast follower,” having a heterogeneous workforce could prove to be consequential. Korea is the exact opposite. A social and corporate culture that values and enforces conformity surely cannot be a wellspring of creativity and innovation.
Gi-Wook Shin

In the era of industrialization, it was vital to have a workforce capable of making standardized products. Diversity could reduce efficiency. Ernest Gellner, a prominent scholar of nationalism, traced the origins of modern nationalism to the economic needs of industrialization. The mass production of standardized goods necessitated a homogeneous workforce, and the most effective way of creating such a workforce was to cultivate citizens who shared a common national identity. From this perspective, South Korea and Japan were able to achieve rapid economic development through industrialization because they were able to easily form a homogeneous workforce. A strong sense of ethnic homogeneity played a critical role in this process.

In the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, however, a country cannot become a leader if it has a homogeneous workforce. To be a “first mover” and not just a “fast follower,” having a heterogeneous workforce could prove to be consequential. Korea is the exact opposite. Everyone seeks to receive the same education and build the same résumé in a race to the same finish line. A social and corporate culture that values and enforces conformity surely cannot be a wellspring of creativity and innovation. Given such a culture, companies, organizations, and institutions will inevitably settle for drifting along, simply going through the motions. Korean society must find a new source of vitality. Enhancing diversity to stimulate innovation and change could be the answer.

Beyond Homogeneity and Assimilation

The most conspicuous examples in Korea of a lack of diversity, and the harmful consequences resulting from it, are the culture of Korean academia and the country’s policy toward immigrants.

According to a 2014 analysis, 84.1% of faculty at Seoul National University (SNU) consist of the school’s own alumni. The figures for Yonsei University and Korea University are 73.9% and 58.6%, respectively.[11] A report on hiring practices for full-time faculty members at SNU between 2012 and 2019 reveals that of 93 departments, 28 departments consist entirely of faculty who are SNU alumni. For another 40 departments, the proportion of SNU alumni exceeds 80%. Many Koreans assume that I received my PhD from Stanford, and they are genuinely surprised when I tell them otherwise. This applies to faculty at Stanford as a whole. There are only a handful of professors who have received their degrees on “The Farm.” When I applied for faculty positions, I followed prevailing norms in the United States by excluding the university that I had graduated from.

In this sense, the United States is the complete opposite of Korea. There is strong opposition to so-called academic inbreeding, and schools strictly limit the hiring of alumni. Unless there are special reasons to do so, alumni are typically not appointed as faculty members. If they are considered as candidates, alumni are subject to a more rigorous review during the hiring process. In most universities, the proportion of alumni among faculty does not exceed 20%. It is uncommon to see professors return to their alma mater. Those who do typically return after many years, having gained broad recognition in their field while teaching and researching at other schools. The kind of homogeneity and academic inbreeding that is common in Korea is unthinkable in the United States.

It is widely accepted in the United States that the harms of academic inbreeding far outweigh any potential benefits. There is even a study that finds that alumni have 15% lower research output than other faculty and are 40% less effective at communicating with their colleagues at other institutions.[12] There is now a critical discussion in Korea about the hiring of alumni as faculty, but it is unclear how much has changed in practice. It should be noted that many Korean academics obtain their PhD overseas before returning to their alma mater. Nevertheless, it is questionable just how much creative intellectual activity can take place in a department filled with fellow alumni. A friend who is not an alum of the school at which he teaches once told me that “if I attend, it’s a faculty meeting, and if I don’t, it’s an alumni gathering.”

Another example is the government’s policy of assimilation, which is carried out under the banner of “multiculturalism.” Starting in the 2000s, a significant number of migrant workers and female “marriage migrants” began to arrive from China, Southeast Asia, and South Asia as South Korea was faced with a plummeting birth rate, an aging population, and a shrinking labor force.[13] In response, the Roh Moo-Hyun administration (2003–08) adopted “multiculturalism” as a major policy initiative. It is remarkable that a country such as South Korea, which built its national identity on ethnic homogeneity, accepted the idea of multiculturalism. Unfortunately, however, the policy has been implemented in a way that departs from the true meaning of multiculturalism. Most government programs and policies are geared toward the assimilation of foreigners into Korean culture.

There are few, if any, efforts to improve the understanding of foreign cultures among Koreans. For instance, there are programs to teach the Korean language and Korean history to a marriage migrant from Vietnam. There are even classes that teach her how to make kimchi. On the contrary, insufficient attention is given to enabling her Korean husband and in-laws to understand and respect Vietnam’s history and culture.

Furthermore, Korea’s policy of multiculturalism predominantly focuses on marriage migrants and low-skilled migrant workers. There is a prevailing tendency to address migrants as a socially vulnerable group that needs to be protected. Migrants who receive “protection” and “benefits” from the government become part of an invisible hierarchy that places them below Korean citizens. This has become ingrained to an extent such that “multiculturalism” has become synonymous with “helping the poor” in the minds of many Koreans. Because such policies give rise to an implicit hierarchy between natives and migrants, they are often not well received by the migrant population. These policies can also instigate anti-migrant sentiment among the Korean public, which creates a conflict between Koreans and those belonging to multicultural families.

In a 2018 analysis, the Software Policy and Research Institute projected that Korea would face a deficit of 31,833 workers by 2022 in core sectors of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, including artificial intelligence, big data, cloud computing, and virtual/augmented reality.[14] This is why major Korean conglomerates, including Samsung Electronics and Hyundai Motors, are making a concerted effort to attract foreign talent. From the perspective of foreign workers, however, Korea is not necessarily an appealing destination, given a socioeconomic environment that is still not receptive to diversity. INSEAD ranked Korea 27th out of 134 countries in its 2021 Global Talent Competitiveness Index. In terms of “tolerance of immigrants,” Korea ranked 65th.[15] This is deeply disappointing for a country that now has the 10th largest economy in the world.

Without changes to the socioeconomic environment that immigrants face, it will be nearly impossible for Korea to attract foreign talent. The Ministry of Justice recently announced that it will create a new government agency to oversee immigration issues.[16] However, these institutional measures will not bear fruit until there are efforts to improve public awareness about the importance of ethnic and cultural diversity and how this diversity can spur innovation.

For Korea to take a leap forward, it must demolish the walls of its exclusionary super-networks [...] Diversity should be understood not just as a means to achieve balanced representation, but even more so as an essential ingredient of innovation and success.
Gi-Wook Shin

Demolishing Korea’s “Super-Network”

As I noted in Superficial Korea (2017), Korea is a “super-networked” society. According to one analysis, there are at most 3.6 degrees of separation among Koreans. In a country of over 50 million people, it is possible to connect any two individuals by crossing three or four mutual acquaintances. This is precisely what it means to be super-networked. It is no surprise that Koreans rely so heavily on shared regional backgrounds, alumni connections, and family ties. The denser the connections, the more exclusive and insular each of these groups becomes. Put differently, the barrier to entry becomes insurmountable. As the bonds in the in-group become ever stronger based on shared experiences, hostility toward the out-group intensifies. It is difficult to expect these groups to change. A form of exclusive, group-based behavior has thus emerged in an extremely competitive, super-networked society.

For Korea to take a leap forward, it must demolish the walls of its exclusionary super-networks. In its place, Korea must build a new home that opens its doors to talented individuals with diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences. This requires Korea to look at diversity in a new way. Diversity should be understood not just as a means to achieve balanced representation, but even more so as an essential ingredient of innovation and success.

During the election campaign, President Yoon Suk-Yeol’s pledge to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family became a political football. Ongoing discussions about the role of this ministry should now move beyond the previous question of how to protect women. By enhancing gender diversity, the government could help transform Korean society by unleashing creativity and innovation. Debates and discussions about specific policies should focus on how to achieve this larger goal.

The Moon Jae-In administration failed to innovate because it relied on a super-network of former pro-democracy activists. President Yoon’s Cabinet appointments, which draw heavily from lawyers and former prosecutors, are raising concerns that this administration could repeat its predecessor’s mistakes by relying on a super-network of prosecutors. The Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Unification; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport; and Ministry of the Interior and Safety are all led by lawyers who studied in the same university (Seoul National University) and department (Law) as the president. Moreover, the prime minister, presidential chief of staff, and minister of economy and finance (who also serves as the deputy prime minister for the economy) are all civil servants who built their careers in the Ministry of Finance.[17]

In response to criticisms about the lack of diversity among high-level appointments, the Presidential Office insisted that it chose the most qualified and experienced individuals. It may be that these individuals are indeed able to work effectively as a team and draw on their skills to quickly achieve significant results in government policy. However, will this be enough for Korea to innovate and forge a path to success in the rapidly changing environment of the Fourth Industrial Revolution? It would be wise to remember that embracing the female gaze enabled the success of the Korean Wave.

 


[1] For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Gi-Wook Shin, “In Troubled Waters: South Korea’s Democracy in Crisis,” Shorenstein APARC, May 3, 2022. https://aparc.fsi.stanford.edu/news/troubled-waters-south-korea%E2%80%99s-democracy-crisis.
 

[2] A public research university established in 1946, Seoul National University is widely regarded as the most prestigious university in South Korea.
 

[3] Regional divides are a major fault line in South Korean politics. The rivalry between the Gyeongsang and Jeolla provinces is particularly salient.
 

[5] Adam Liptak and Anemona Hartocollis, “Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Affirmative Action at Harvard and U.N.C.,” New York Times, January 24, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/politics/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html.
 

[6] See “Melonie Parker, Chief Diversity Officer,” https://www.blog.google/perspectives/melonie-parker/.
 

[7] Katherine W. Phillips, “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter,” Scientific American, October 1, 2014. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/.
 

[8] Society for Human Resource Management, 2007 State of Workplace Diversity Management, February 2008. https://www.shrm.org/about-shrm/news-about-shrm/documents/the%20state%20of%20diversity%20managment%20surevey%20report.pdf.
 

[9] Rocío Lorenzo et al., “How Diverse Leadership Teams Boost Innovation,” Boston Consulting Group, January 23, 2018, https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2018/how-diverse-leadership-teams-boost-innovation.
 

[10] Jay Greene, “Steve Jobs and the business of design,” CNET, October 6, 2011, https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/steve-jobs-and-the-business-of-design/.
 

[11] Seoul National University, Korea University, and Yonsei University are commonly regarded as the three most prestigious universities in Korea. They are often referred to as the “SKY” universities, an acronym based on the first letter of each school.
 

[12] Hugo Horta, Francisco M. Veloso, and Rócio Grediaga, “Navel Gazing: Academic Inbreeding and Scientific Productivity,” Management Science, 56, no. 3 (March 2010): 414-29.
 

[13] These “marriage migrant” women typically went to rural areas of South Korea, which saw a gender imbalance as many women moved to cities to find employment.
 

[14] Lee Dong-Hyun, Huh Jeong, and Kim Jeong-Min, “Labor Market Forecast of Promising SW Areas,” SPRi, April 23, 2018, https://www.spri.kr/posts/view/22049?code=issue_reports.
 

[15] The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2021: Talent Competitiveness in Times of COVID (Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD, 2021), https://www.insead.edu/sites/default/files/assets/dept/fr/gtci/GTCI-2021-Report.pdf.
 

[16] See, for example, Lee Sung-Eun, “Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon has big immigration ideas,” Korea JoongAng Daily, May 30, 2022, https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2022/05/30/national/socialAffairs/korea-immigration-justice-ministry/20220530172957101.html.
 

[17] This is the former title for the Ministry of Economy and Finance. In Korea, this group of civil servants is referred to as the “mofia,” combining the English acronym (MOF) with “mafia.”

Download a PDF version of this essay

Read More

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addresses the South Korean parliament via video link.
Commentary

In the Wake of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine, Korea Should Join Its Peers in Defending the Liberal International Order

It is difficult to anticipate how the geopolitical storm set off by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may develop. What is certain is that the international order will not be the same, and this change will have significant repercussions for South Korea.
In the Wake of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine, Korea Should Join Its Peers in Defending the Liberal International Order
Collage of Soo-Man Lee, SUHO, and Ban Ki-moon speaking at a podium
News

North Korea’s Geopolitics, South Korea’s Pop Culture Wave Take Center Stage at Korea Program’s 20th Anniversary Conference

The Korea Program at Stanford’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center marked its 20-year anniversary with a two-day conference that gathered eminent leaders from academia, government, and the K-pop industry, including former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and global star SUHO, leader of K-pop group EXO.
North Korea’s Geopolitics, South Korea’s Pop Culture Wave Take Center Stage at Korea Program’s 20th Anniversary Conference
The Gwangju Uprising
Commentary

Gi-Wook Shin on Gwangju and South Korea’s Democracy

“The tragic outcome was a brutal wakeup call to Korean democratic movements.”
Gi-Wook Shin on Gwangju and South Korea’s Democracy
All News button
1
Subtitle

A social and corporate culture that values and enforces conformity surely cannot be a wellspring of creativity and innovation. Korean society must find a new source of vitality. Enhancing diversity to stimulate innovation and change could be the answer.

Date Label
Authors
Melissa Morgan
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

On June 12, students, friends, faculty, and family gathered for a much anticipated in-person graduation ceremony for the 2022 graduating class of the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy (MIP) at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI).

Two years ago, the 2020 graduating class participated in a fully digital, online graduation ceremony in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and requisite healthcare precautions. While students of the 2021 graduating class were able to gather briefly in-person outside of Encina Hall last year, the majority of their commencement activities also took place online. This year, with high vaccination rates and decreasing COVID cases, both the 2020 and 2022 classes of the Master’s in International Policy were able to attend in-person commencement ceremonies at Stanford.

The Class of 2022 cohort is comprised of 21 students strong from nine different countries, including Chile, Estonia, Germany, Israel, Korea, Kosovo, Myanmar, Peru, and the United States. Outside Encina Hall, the graduates were welcomed by MIP Director Francis Fukuyama, who cheered the graduates for their hard work and applauded the many friends and family members gathered to support them.

Following an impromptu video shoot of the audience and brief introduction, Dr. Fukuyama turned the time over to FSI Director Michael McFaul, who delivered the keynote remarks to the graduating class.

Dr. McFaul reflected on the unique journey the 2022 class, from beginning with Zoom classes and remote learning to finally reconvening in-person for projects like the Policy Change Studio capstones and events like former president Barack Obama’s visit to FSI in April 2022.

“You all look better in three dimensions compared to two dimensions,” McFaul assured everyone. He went on to share four lessons he hopes will resonate with the newest FSI alumni:

1. Do Something, Don’t Be Something

The first lesson Dr. McFaul imparted to the graduates was to frame their goals and careers in terms of actions, not titles.

“Don’t think of your career as a place to be,” he said. “Think of your career as an action verb. Figure out what you want to do, then fit the jobs, the companies, and future degrees around those action verbs, not the other way around.” He stressed that any particular job title matters much less than a commitment to a mission, a set of values, or clear, concrete policy things you want to do.

2. Embrace both Uncertainty and Rejection

Speaking from his personal experience, Dr. McFaul shared how his first career plan following his DPhil degree from Oxford ended as a complete bust. As a fresh, young academic, he applied to 22 jobs, and was rejected from all of them. But while his immediate plans may have stalled, the rejections gave him a front row seat to the 1990-91 protests in Moscow, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the burgeoning calls for democratic change in Russia, all which altered the course of his academic, professional, and political life.

“From uncertainty can come opportunity, and from setbacks can come second — and dare I say, better  — chances,” he reminded the graduates.

Don’t think of your career as a place to be. Think of your career as an action verb. Figure out what you want to do, then fit the jobs, the companies, and future degrees around those action verbs.
Michael McFaul
FSI Director

3. Continue to Invest in Connections

McFaul’s third piece of advice was a cautionary story of what not to do. “After my time at Stanford and Oxford, I didn’t invest time in maintaining friendships, and I regret that,” he candidly told the audience.

He stressed that these connections are not only for the purpose of networking and professional development, though those kinds of connections can lead to instrumental things. But more importantly, McFaul advised the students to develop and nurture relationships with fantastic, interesting people for the sake of allowing those connections to enrich and deepen the well-being and richness of their lives.

4. Keep in Touch with Stanford

Looking across the crowd, Dr. McFaul said, “Most of you are second years. Some of you are fifth years. I am a forty-first year student here at Stanford. I really love learning, and there’s no better place to learn than Stanford.”

He urged the graduates to remain active and invested in the community they have been a part of the last two years. “You have access to some of the most talented professors in the world. Use it! Don’t forget about it,” counseled McFaul.

On to the Future


Building on Dr. McFaul’s remarks, Soomin Jun, the student speaker at the diploma ceremony, asked her fellow classmates to look to the future with a determination to stand up for values and rights, and to not lose the compassion and empathy that have bonded them together as a cohort.

“Let’s not forget to humble ourselves and do good for those next to us and in our communities,” she said. Jun continued, “Let’s not forget that we are far more capable of achieving anything beyond anyone’s imagination. Voice up and stand up for your values and ideas.”

This is a terrific MIP class. This is the first class that entered the program since I’ve been the director. I know them well and I know them personally, and they are a truly special group of people.
Francis Fukuyama
MIP Director

As the 2022 class moves on from their time as MIP students at FSI, five will be staying at Stanford to pursue further studies in political science, environment and resources, public policy, and journalism. Others will remain in the greater Bay Area working on technology policy, energy policy, digital privacy, and statistical programming. Others are heading from the West Coast to the East to work in government, international development, and policy analysis, while four of the class members will be continuing their military careers in Texas, Washington State, Kentucky, and Kosovo.

Wherever they’re bound, the Master’s of International Policy Class of 2022 will not soon be forgotten.

“This class is special to me,” Michael McFaul said. “We here at FSI and MIP have tried to lean into you, and you have repeatedly shown that you are a special class and special group of people together at a special time, and we all feel bonded with you.”

Read More

Students and faculty from the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy gather outside of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Encina Hall, Stanford University.
Blogs

A Look Back at Two Years as a Master's of International Policy Student

As the 2022 cohort of Master’s in International Policy students prepares to graduate, four classmates — Sylvie Ashford, David Sprauge, Shirin Kashani, and Mikk Raud — reflect on their experiences being part of the FSI community.
A Look Back at Two Years as a Master's of International Policy Student
Students from the 2022 cohort of the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy have been working all over the world with policy partners as part of their capstone projects.
Blogs

Off the Farm and Into the Field: Master's Students Practice Hands-on Policymaking

The 2022 cohort of the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy has been busy this quarter getting out of the classroom and into hands-on policymaking with partner organizations in Tunisia, Estonia, India and beyond.
Off the Farm and Into the Field: Master's Students Practice Hands-on Policymaking
All News button
1
Subtitle

After two years of online ceremonies due to the pandemic, the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy program celebrated with a fully in-person graduation ceremony for the 2022 graduating class.

-

Image
NKDB Korean translated version of North Korean Conundrum

 

The North Korean Conundrum: Balancing Human Rights and Nuclear Security 
북한의 난제: 인권과 핵안보의 균형
한국어 번역판 발간 행사 북토크

In association with the Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB), a book talk on the Korean translated version of The North Korean Conundrum: Balancing Human Rights and Nuclear Security is held in Seoul, Korea. 

For more information about the book, please visit the publication webpage.

<Consecutive Korean-English interpretation is provided at the book talk event>

Presenters:

Gi-Wook Shin, Director of Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University

Robert R. King, former Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues

Joon Oh, former South Korean Ambassador to the UN

Minjung Kim, Associate Executive Director, Save North Korea

Discussants:

Yeosang Yoon, Chief Director, Database Center for North Korean Human Rights

Haley Gordon, Research Associate, Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University

Sookyoung Kim, Assistant Professor, Hanshin University

In-Person event in Korea
June 8, 2PM-5PM, Korea Time
Schubert Hall, Hotel President, Seoul

Seminars
-
Image
3D mockup cover of APARC's volume 'South Korea's Democracy in Crisis'

South Korea's Democracy in Crisis: The Threats of Illiberalism, Populism, and Polarization 
위기의 한국 민주주의: 비자유주의, 포퓰리즘, 양극화의 위협

In this book launch event held in Korea, the participants will examine and discuss the threats to democracy in Korea. For more information about the book, please visit the publication webpage.

<The book launch event will be in Korean>

14:00-14:05 Introduction by Ho-Ki Kim, Professor of Sociology, Yonsei University

Moderated by Dukjin Chang, Professor of Sociology, Seoul National University

14:05-15:20 Presentations

Democracy in Crisis: Populism in Post-Truth Era
Gi-Wook Shin, Director of Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University
Ho-Ki Kim, Professor of Sociology, Yonsei University

Two divergences in South Korea’s Economy and Disparities in Democracy
Jun-Ho Jeong, Professor of Economics, Kangwon University
Il-Young Lee, Professor of Economics, Hanshin University

Judicialization of Politics and Politicization of  the Judiciary in Korea : Challenges in Maintaining the Balance of Power
Seongwook Heo, Professor of Law, Seoul National University

15:20-15:40 Break

15:40-16:55 Panel Discussion

Won-Taek Kang, Professor of Political Science, Seoul National University
Seeun Jeong, Professor of Economics, Chungnam National University
Chulwoo Lee, Professor of Law, Yonsei University

16:55-17:00 Closing Remarks by Gi-Wook Shin, Director of Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University

This event is made possible by generous support from the Korea Foundation and other friends of the Korea Program.

In-Person event in Korea
June 14, 2PM-5PM, Korea Time
Press Center, Seoul

Seminars
Authors
Gi-Wook Shin
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

This essay originally appeared in Korean on May 20 in Sindonga (New East Asia), Korea’s oldest monthly magazine (established 1931), as the second in a monthly column, "Shin’s Reflections on Korea." Translated by Raymond Ha. A PDF version of this essay is also available to download.


Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has set off a geopolitical storm that portends seismic shifts in the international order. This conflict, which has been compared to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Ukraine in 1941, is becoming the largest and most devastating war in Europe since the end of World War II. There are fears that this could mark the beginning of a new Cold War, or even escalate into World War III. Ukraine’s fierce resistance, supported by the United States and the European Union, has thwarted Russia’s hopes for a decisive victory. It is difficult to anticipate exactly how this conflict will transform the international order. However, it is almost certain that the war will mark a major turning point, just as the Cold War started in 1945 and the era of globalization began with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Voices from Ukraine

While the international community is seized by a deep sense of urgency, the mood in Seoul is one of apathy, bordering on nonchalance. Before the presidential election on March 9, Lee Jae-Myung, the candidate of the then ruling Democratic Party of Korea, used the conflict to take a swipe at his opponent Yoon Suk-Yeol’s lack of experience.[1] Lee said that “a political novice became president and openly called for NATO membership, which provoked Russia and resulted in a military conflict.” The People Power Party, the leading opposition party, responded in kind by criticizing the Moon Jae-In administration’s opposition to South Korea becoming a nuclear power, claiming that Ukraine had been attacked because it lacked nuclear weapons.

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivered a virtual address to South Korea’s legislature at an auditorium in the National Assembly’s library on April 11, only one-fifth of the 300 lawmakers were present. This stands in stark contrast to Zelensky’s addresses to lawmakers in the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and also the European Parliament, where there were no empty seats in sight and Zelensky was given a standing ovation. Foreign media outlets wryly noted that South Koreans, who experienced war only 70 years ago, now seemed to be much more interested in the falling price of Russian king crabs than in the horrors of the conflict in Ukraine.

As these events unfolded, I had the opportunity to speak with a former high-level government official from Ukraine with a doctorate in physics, who is at Stanford for one year as a visiting scholar. She said that “Russia’s invasion is nothing new. For Ukrainians, this is something that has happened for hundreds of years in our country’s history.” In 2014, Russia seized Ukrainian territory when it forcibly annexed Crimea. Korea is no stranger to such events. Surrounded by great powers, it suffered countless invasions throughout its history. When I asked about the expected outcome of the current conflict, this visiting scholar emphatically said that “we will win in the end,” and also called upon democratic countries—including South Korea—to join forces in defending the international order, protecting international norms, and resolutely condemning the atrocities committed by the Russian military.

For many Koreans, the sheer gravity of Russia’s invasion is not immediately tangible. Seoul is far from Kyiv, and Korea is not as exposed to the national security and economic implications of the crisis as Europe. There is sympathy in some quarters to Moscow’s claims that Russia had no other choice in the face of NATO’s eastward expansion, and some even float conspiracy theories about how this is all part of a U.S. strategy to increase its influence over Europe.

If the international order undergoes a fundamental realignment as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there will be significant ramifications for South Korea. The current crisis brings to mind Japan’s defeat and the subsequent division of the Korean Peninsula in 1945, as well as the chaos unleashed by the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Fortunately, South Korea has so far turned geopolitical crises into opportunities, using them as a springboard to become a developed country. There is, however, a formidable challenge looming on the horizon.

Through its own painful history, Korea knows what it means for the right to self-determination—recognized by the international community—to be trampled upon by a great power.
Gi-Wook Shin

To successfully chart a safe course for South Korea in its foreign relations, the Yoon Suk-Yeol government must be highly attuned to the twists and turns of today’s geopolitical undercurrents. A new international order defined by an ideological struggle between democracy and authoritarianism will leave no room for strategic ambiguity, Seoul’s hitherto strategy for balancing its relationships with the U.S. and China. Slogans such as “the United States for security and China for the economy” will be rendered obsolete. Policy visions of South Korea as a mediator for North Korea or Seoul being in the “driver’s seat” on the peninsula could become a fantasy. It is vital to consider South Korea’s economic interests with China and account for the unique characteristics of inter-Korean relations. However, South Korea should pursue a foreign policy rooted in international norms and based on values such as human rights, democracy, and sovereignty.

Russia’s War Crimes

As a responsible member of the international community, South Korea cannot remain a bystander to Russia’s imperialistic behavior. Through its own painful history, Korea knows what it means for the right to self-determination—recognized by the international community—to be trampled upon by a great power. In particular, South Korea must raise its voice in unequivocally condemning the widespread war crimes that are being committed in Ukraine.

War crimes refer to criminal acts that take place during armed conflict. This includes deliberate attacks against civilians or civilian structures such as homes and hospitals, rape and enforced prostitution, and the use of poisonous weapons, all of which constitute serious violations of human dignity. The horrific atrocities committed by the Russian military across Ukraine since its invasion on February 24 are profoundly disturbing. It has committed mass murder against civilians in Bucha, Borodyanka, Motyzhyn, and other locations; it has shelled humanitarian corridors intended to provide safe passage for refugees; and it has launched airstrikes against maternity hospitals and schools, taking the lives of Ukrainian children. The world has been taken aback by the unthinkable brutality of Russia’s military forces.

On April 7, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said “more and more credible reports of rape, killings, torture are emerging” every day.[2] He implied that the true scale of Russia’s atrocities may be much larger than currently understood.

This is certainly not the first time that the world has seen war crimes. After World War II, there were war crimes in Vietnam, Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, Syria, and Myanmar. However, the brutality inflicted by Russian forces in Ukraine is incomparable in its severity and intensity. Unlike war crimes committed during a civil war, Russia has committed crimes against the citizens of another sovereign state. In an April interview with The Times, former White House advisor Fiona Hill noted that Putin “has switched from trying to capture the country to ‘annihilation.’[3] President Biden has also labeled the Russian military’s actions as “genocide.”

It is not yet possible to determine whether Russia truly has genocidal aims against the Ukrainian people, but there are growing calls in the international community to bring Putin to justice for war crimes. The most direct way to achieve this would be for him to stand trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC). In March, the ICC announced that it had begun its investigation into alleged war crimes committed by the Russian military. However, Russia formally withdrew from the ICC in 2016. The ICC does not have the authority to act on its own, and it requires the cooperation of relevant states to arrest suspected war criminals. It seems highly unlikely that Putin will ever face trial at The Hague. Because the ICC does not hold trials in absentia, a trial cannot proceed unless Putin is arrested within Russian territory. After the wars in the former Yugoslavia, former President Slobodan Milošević stood trial before an international criminal tribunal on charges of genocide and war crimes. Unlike in the case of Milošević, prosecuting Putin does not appear to be a feasible option at this time. Even so, South Korea must actively join the international community in sanctioning Russia for its actions in Ukraine.

The Threat of Sharp Power

It is especially troubling to note that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is taking place in the midst of a worldwide democratic recession. According to Freedom House’s latest annual report, for the past 16 years, more countries experienced a decline in freedom than countries that saw a growth in freedom.[4] The Third Wave of democratization, which began in the 1970s, has now given way to the “Third Reversal.”

There has been an authoritarian shift during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which governments claimed a public health rationale to infringe upon individual freedoms or delay elections. In Hungary, one of the most prominent examples of democratic decline in recent years, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán achieved a landslide victory in the April 3 parliamentary elections to secure a fifth term in office.

In particular, there are growing concerns about the consequences of “sharp power,” which China and Russia have deployed across the world. Unlike traditional “hard power” (military and economic) or “soft power” (cultural), sharp power refers to the use of covert means to exercise influence. Dark money, economic leverage, and intelligence operatives are used to coerce a target state into complying with particular demands. Authoritarian regimes have engaged in information and ideological warfare as part of this effort.

Larry Diamond, a professor at Stanford University and a renowned scholar of democracy, warns in his book Ill Winds that the future of democracy will be bleak if liberal democracies, including the United States, do not defend against China and Russia’s sharp power. In 2016, the Russian government interfered in the U.S. presidential election in a blatant display of its sharp power. If fascism from Germany on the right and Bolshevism from the Soviet Union on the left threatened to destroy the international order in the 20th century, it is now China and Russia’s sharp power that poses the most serious danger to democracies across the world. It is in this context that Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine.

Twenty-first-century populist leaders are defined by two traits: anti-elitism and anti-pluralism. By challenging the West and opposing a pluralistic world, China and Russia have emerged as “populist” powers on a global scale.
Gi-Wook Shin

The End of Globalization

Russia’s invasion may have sounded the death knell for globalization. Joining a growing chorus of observers, David Brooks declared in his New York Times column on April 8 that “globalization is over.”[5] After the end of the Cold War, it seemed that the United States would usher in a new era of globalization, with the whole world coming together as one. During the presidency of Kim Young-Sam (1993–98), South Korea also joined this rising tide by pursuing a policy of globalization. A seemingly unstoppable wave of neoliberal globalization swept across the entire world in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. While the September 11 attacks were truly devastating and were later followed by the Iraq War, these events did not fundamentally alter the international order.

Today, we face a much greater challenge. Democracy is in retreat across the world, and barriers to trade are on the rise. Anti-immigration sentiments are widespread across the West, including in the United States. Brexit and the rise of Trumpism embody these global trends. Moreover, the pandemic has disrupted global supply chains. Cross-border exchanges are being slowed by rising trade barriers, and many countries are suffering from high inflation as prices skyrocket. The South Korean economy, which relies heavily on international trade, is being pummeled by these economic shocks. If countries take steps to reduce their dependence on other countries, then globalization gradually unravels.

Populist leaders have seized this moment, marching under the banner of chauvinistic nationalism. Twenty-first-century populist leaders are defined by two traits: anti-elitism and anti-pluralism. By challenging the West and opposing a pluralistic world, China and Russia have emerged as “populist” powers on a global scale. Just as the Korean War marked the beginning of the Cold War in earnest, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may prove to be the first test of resolve for democracies in their struggle against authoritarianism.

The powerful sanctions enacted by the United States and the European Union against Russia underscore this sense of urgency. With the UN Security Council in paralysis, Washington coordinated with Brussels to impose a series of sanctions against Moscow. Only two days into the invasion, Russia’s Central Bank was removed from SWIFT. These “shock and awe” sanctions, which President Biden called the most powerful and wide-ranging sanctions ever imposed in history, were rolled out with the speed and precision of a sophisticated military operation. The ruble tanked as over $1 trillion of Russian assets were frozen. The 11th-largest economy in the world was pushed to the edge of a sovereign default. More than 300 global companies, including Apple, Google, ExxonMobil, and Mcdonald's, have shuttered their operations in Russia. During a recent conversation, a senior Google executive told me in no uncertain terms that “it will be difficult to return to Russia, even after the end of the war.”

The international community’s support, as well as the devastating sanctions imposed against Russia, have shored up Ukrainian morale as its people rally around President Zelensky. International public opinion is firmly behind Kyiv as more and more people around the world seek to help Ukrainians in their struggle against the Russian dictator.

In Germany and elsewhere, there are deepening fears that maintaining close economic ties with China, which remains friendly toward Russia, could become a critical weakness for Europe.
Gi-Wook Shin

The Rebirth of Sinocentrism?

The crisis in Ukraine has had a decisive impact on U.S. foreign policy. The Biden administration’s flagship Indo-Pacific Strategy is centered on working with its partners in the Quad—Japan, Australia, and India—to check the rise of China. Until early this year, the prevailing concern in the United States had been the possibility that China would launch an invasion of Taiwan. Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, in the face of heavy criticism from home and abroad, was motivated by a need to focus on the Indo-Pacific Strategy. While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has vigorously revived the transatlantic relationship, the United States now has to contend with both Russia and China at once. India’s reluctance to fully participate in sanctions against Russia, despite its key role in the Quad, is also cause for concern in Washington.

While Putin envisions the re-establishment of the Soviet Empire, Xi dreams of a rebirth of Sinocentrism. Having forcibly imposed its will on Hong Kong, there are growing concerns that China could use military force to bring Taiwan under its thumb. Beijing’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative evidently seeks to go beyond economic cooperation and form a new China-led bloc built on economic assistance. In addition to bilateral trade disputes, decoupling between the United States and China in the high-technology sector is accelerating. The Biden administration is taking steps to bolster economic security, with the so-called Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) as its strategic centerpiece.[6]

While China is currently pursuing a relatively loose form of cooperation with Russia, Putin and Xi, both populist leaders on the global stage, could join forces in earnest to upend the international order. At the same time, Prime Minister Modi of India, another populist leader, is taking an ambiguous stance. He has kept his distance from Washington and Brussels in terms of imposing sanctions against Russia, and he has stepped in to expand India’s imports of cheaper Russian oil.[7]

Since Russia’s invasion, there has been a sense of crisis among European capitals about the dangers of excessive energy dependence on Moscow. There is also growing apprehension about a national security crisis emanating from China. Although Europe and China have clashed in recent years over the repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang and bans on Chinese technology, there was an underlying consensus about maintaining friendly economic relations. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has significantly altered Europe’s calculus, however. In Germany and elsewhere, there are deepening fears that maintaining close economic ties with China, which remains friendly toward Russia, could become a critical weakness for Europe. Michael McFaul, a colleague at Stanford and a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, has stressed that the outcome of the war will have lasting implications for the future of the liberal international order. In other words, a Russian victory will further entice China to invade Taiwan, with profound global consequences.

South Korea cannot afford to remain an idle spectator to the conflict in Ukraine. There could be serious repercussions for Seoul, much sooner than expected. At a moment when the international order could rapidly change, it would be highly imprudent to sit on the sidelines or take a position of strategic ambiguity. Over the past five years, the Moon Jae-In administration adopted an ambiguous stance in its foreign policy, with a disproportionate focus on North Korea. The end result was diplomatic isolation. Moreover, Russia’s invasion reminds us once again of the importance of values and norms in international politics. The right to self-determination—the right of citizens of a given state to determine their own destiny—is a basic principle of the international community, enshrined in Article 1 of the UN Charter.

The Need for a Consensus on “Core Interests”

The once-popular paradigm of an-mi-gyeong-joong (“the United States for security, China for the economy”) is now obsolete. It is time for South Korea to seriously consider a foreign policy based on common values. While accounting for economic interests, it is critical to formulate a consensus on its “core interests”—that is, on fundamental political values. The rising tide of anti-China sentiment among South Korea’s youth is rooted in their rejection of China’s illiberal, authoritarian modus operandi.[8] They want to stand side-by-side with fellow liberal democracies, in opposition to authoritarian powers. This is part of a global trend. According to a 2021 poll of 17 advanced economies by the Pew Research Center, unfavorable views of China were near “historic highs.” 88% of respondents in Japan, 80% in Sweden, 78% in Australia, 76% in the United States, 63% in the United Kingdom, and 71% in Germany held unfavorable views of China. 77% of respondents in South Korea indicated the same—the highest ever recorded by Pew for Korea.[9]

In its policy toward North Korea, Seoul should avoid overemphasizing the “special” nature of inter-Korean relations on the basis of belonging to the same ethnic nation. It should also abandon the illusion that it can act as a mediator between Pyongyang and Washington. Seoul’s North Korea policy should be cognizant of the larger context of today’s international politics, which is defined by competition between authoritarian regimes (Russia, China, North Korea) and liberal democracies (United States, European Union, South Korea). As transatlantic cooperation on security issues intensifies, South Korea should also strengthen its ties with Europe. It was thus timely for Yoon Suk-Yeol, while he was president-elect, to send special envoys to the United States, Japan, and the European Union. The U.S.-South Korea alliance should also serve as a basis for Seoul to broadly solidify its relations with fellow democracies across the world.

The once-popular paradigm of an-mi-gyeong-joong (“the United States for security, China for the economy”) is now obsolete. It is time for South Korea to seriously consider a foreign policy based on common values.
Gi-Wook Shin

This does not imply that South Korea must proclaim an “anti-China” policy stance. It is also unnecessary to needlessly provoke North Korea. Nonetheless, South Korea should clearly declare to the world its resolve to honor and defend universal values, including democracy, human rights, sovereignty, and core international norms. It will face difficult decisions in its relations with Beijing, especially due to economic considerations, and it will be impossible to treat North Korea just like any other country. As will be the case with every other democracy, South Korea will have to confront vexing challenges as it seeks to pursue its interests while upholding its values.

Since 1945, South Korea has been the largest beneficiary of the post-WWII liberal international order. It is time for South Korea to defend democratic norms and help uphold the rule-based international order. There is no free ride. As the tenth-largest economy in the world, South Korea’s economic heft alone entails certain responsibilities. If democracy is defeated by authoritarianism, there will be no future for South Korea. Intellectuals and policymakers in the United States are keeping a close eye on how South Korea responds to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They are hoping that Seoul will join hands with its fellow democracies in their arduous struggle against authoritarian powers.

The Lessons of Korea’s History

Watching Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brings to mind the painful and bitter history of Korea’s recent past, which was marked by the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–95), the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05), and the Korean War (1950–53). South Korea did not succumb to adversity, however. It overcame formidable obstacles to become the economic and cultural powerhouse that it is today. As a result of its failure to appropriately respond to trends in international politics in the late 19th century, Korea lost its sovereignty. Amidst the chaos of division in 1945, the foundations for South Korea’s remarkable development were laid when it aligned with the United States instead of the Soviet Union. In 1991, at the end of the Cold War, South Korea pursued peace on the Korean Peninsula through its “Northern Policy,” also known as Nordpolitik.[10] It is especially interesting to note that at key junctures in the history of the modern international order, conservative leaders (Syngman Rhee in 1945 and Roh Tae-Woo in the 1990s) played a decisive role in steering South Korea in the right direction.

Faced with the relentless march of imperialism across the world, Korea’s leaders and intellectuals in the late 19th century responded in one of three ways. The first group advocated for Western-oriented reform, calling for the adoption of Western institutions and practices to achieve modernization. Seo Jae-Pil and Syngman Rhee were prominent figures in this camp. Second, there were those who called for Asian solidarity. Under this view, Korea would join hands with China and Japan to resist Western imperialism. An Jung-Geun’s vision of “Peace in East Asia” is a famous example. Lastly, some responded with a focus on Korean nationalism. Sin Chae-Ho and Park Eun-Sik made significant contributions to this strain of thought.

In the end, Korea was unable to coalesce around a unifying vision for the country. The Joseon Dynasty failed to achieve modernizing reforms, and Korea became a colony of Japan. Seo Jae-Pil and Syngman Rhee left for the United States. Furious at Japan’s betrayal, An Jung-Geun assassinated Itō Hirobumi, a leading advocate of Asian solidarity, at Harbin in October 1909. Korean nationalism evolved in controversial directions under colonial rule, as reflected by Yi Kwang-Su’s theory of national reconstruction.[11] Sin Chae-Ho, who wrote influential works of nationalist historiography, eventually turned to anarchism in his later years. This is the tragic portrait of a country, and of national leaders, who failed to gauge and adjust to shifting geopolitical winds.

With Japan’s defeat in 1945, the Korean Peninsula was once again thrown into a political vortex. Liberated from colonial rule, Korea was divided due to the strategic calculations of great powers. There was a tremendous loss of life not only during the Korean War, but also in the political instability that followed liberation. As the Cold War order began to take shape, North Korea stood with the Soviet Union. Fortunately, South Korea sided with the free world. Syngman Rhee played a critical role in this regard. Rhee was not well acquainted with Korea’s domestic politics, but he was perhaps the most perceptive Korean leader when it came to international politics. It is terrifying to imagine what may have transpired if South Korea had joined the communist bloc. Although Rhee’s legacy has been stained by his authoritarian rule, it is important to acknowledge his prescience in international affairs.

Storms on Both Fronts

As the Cold War order collapsed in the 1990s, South Korea once again stood at a geopolitical crossroads. The Berlin Wall unexpectedly fell in 1989, and the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991. Amidst this sea change in international affairs, the Roh Tae-Woo administration seized a historic opportunity. South Korea established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1990, entered the United Nations at the same time as North Korea in 1991, and normalized ties with the People’s Republic of China in 1992. By pursuing this audacious “Northern Policy” in the face of staunch opposition from some conservatives, the Roh Tae-Woo administration laid the foundations for sustainable development and peace on the Korean Peninsula. Perhaps the present moment, in which China and Russia are disrupting the international order, calls for a new Northern Policy that redefines Seoul’s relationship with Moscow and Beijing. The core of this new Northern Policy, of course, must be rooted in solidarity with fellow democracies against authoritarianism.

It is difficult to anticipate how the geopolitical storm set off by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may develop. For the time being, it appears quite likely that this storm will grow into a major typhoon instead of fizzling out, but it is hard to tell how powerful it will be or what direction it will take. What is certain is that the international order will not be the same, and this change will have significant repercussions for South Korea.

In fact, South Korea may already be at the center of this storm. There is momentary calm in the eye of a typhoon, but the full force of its impact will be felt in due course. When South Koreans finally experience the damage from this storm in a few years, it may be too late.

The Yoon administration has barely sailed out of the harbor, but it is already being battered on two fronts. As noted in last month’s essay, which focused on domestic issues, South Korea’s democracy is heading into troubled waters. This essay has examined an external shock: the geopolitical storm raging across the world since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Both present formidable challenges for South Korea.

History unfolds in mysterious ways. Just as in 1945 and 1991, a conservative leader is once again in the wheelhouse as South Korea heads into a geopolitical storm. The Yoon Suk-Yeol administration must keep its eyes wide open and firmly grasp the helm as it navigates these troubled waters. Syngman Rhee and Roh Tae-Woo turned geopolitical crises into opportunities for South Korea. I sincerely hope that Yoon Suk-Yeol will also be able to chart a safe course for South Korea through the coming storm

 


[1] Yoon is a newcomer to politics. He entered the People Power Party in July 2021, less than a year before the presidential election.
 

[2] Lauren Giella and Alex Backus, “Blinken Says Targeting Civilians Was Part of Russia’s Plan All Along,” Newsweek, April 7, 2022. https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-war-live-ukraine-asks-nato-allies-more-weapons-1695973.
 

[3] David Charter, “Putin ‘Wanted Conquest—Now It’s Annihilation’,” The Times, April 4, 2022. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fiona-hill-putin-war-aim-has-become-carnage-and-annihilation-gbpthv76n.
 

[4] “Freedom in the World 2022: The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule,” Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2022/global-expansion-authoritarian-rule.
 

[5] David Brooks, “Globalization Is Over. The Global Culture Wars Have Begun,” The New York Times, April 8, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/08/opinion/globalization-global-culture-war.html.
 

[6] In the May 21, 2022 Joint Statement issued after the U.S.-South Korea summit, Presidents Biden and Yoon “commit to cooperate closely through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), based on the principles of openness, transparency, and inclusiveness. Both leaders agree to work together to develop a comprehensive IPEF that will deepen economic engagement on priority issues, including the digital economy, resilient supply chains, clean energy, and other priorities geared toward promoting sustainable economic growth.” President Yoon delivered virtual remarks at the May 23 summit that launched the IPEF, making South Korea a founding member of this initiative.
 

[7] India joined the IPEF as a founding member, with Prime Minister Modi attending the May 23 launch summit in Tokyo in person.
 

[8] Gi-Wook Shin, Haley Gordon, and Hannah June Kim, “South Koreans Are Rethinking What China Means to Their Nation,” Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, February 8, 2022. https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/south-koreans-are-rethinking-what-china-means-their-nation.
 

[9] Laura Silver, Kat Devlin, and Christine Huang, “Large Majorities Say China Does Not Respect the Personal Freedoms of Its People,” Pew Research Center, June 30, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/06/30/large-majorities-say-china-does-not-respect-the-personal-freedoms-of-its-people/.
 

[10] This was the foreign policy vision of the Roh Tae-Woo administration (1988–93). South Korea established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China in 1992 and the Soviet Union (Russia) in 1990.
 

[11] Yi Kwang-Su, an influential writer in Korea’s modern literature, published an essay called “On National Reconstruction” in 1922. In this essay, Yi called on Koreans to rectify undesirable traits in their national character. Yi was criticized, among other reasons, for ignoring the issue of achieving political independence from Japan.

Download a pdf version of this essay

Read More

The Gwangju Uprising
Commentary

Gi-Wook Shin on Gwangju and South Korea’s Democracy

“The tragic outcome was a brutal wakeup call to Korean democratic movements.”
Gi-Wook Shin on Gwangju and South Korea’s Democracy
South Korea's President Yoon holds a champagne glass
Commentary

Which Yoon Should Biden Expect at the Upcoming South Korea-U.S. Summit?

Yoon has been compared to Biden’s own nemesis, Donald Trump, but he is far from a political iconoclast.
Which Yoon Should Biden Expect at the Upcoming South Korea-U.S. Summit?
Yoon Suk-yeol speaks during a press conference
Commentary

In Troubled Waters: South Korea’s Democracy in Crisis

Just as the United States experienced a crisis of democracy under the Trump administration, South Korea underwent a democratic recession during President Moon Jae-in’s time in office. The consequences of this decline have been evident throughout the election and the subsequent presidential transition.
In Troubled Waters: South Korea’s Democracy in Crisis
All News button
1
Subtitle

It is difficult to anticipate how the geopolitical storm set off by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may develop. What is certain is that the international order will not be the same, and this change will have significant repercussions for South Korea.

Authors
Shannon Tiezzi
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

This Q&A first appeared in The Diplomatmagazine.


The Gwangju Uprising of May 18-27, 1980, was a pivotal step in South Korea’s march toward democratization. After protesting students were brutally attacked by soldiers, the people of Gwangju joined in armed resistance against the martial regime of Chun Doo-hwa, who had seized power in a coup. The uprising was put down by government troops; the final death tally remains hotly debated, but most academic estimates place it at over 1,000 dead.

The public outrage sparked by the incident sowed the seeds of Chun’s downfall, though it would take another seven-plus years for South Korea to hold its first democratic presidential election.

The Diplomat interviewed Gi-Wook Shin – the director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and the founding director of the Korea Program, both at Stanford University – about the legacy of the Gwangju Uprising in South Korea, and how it resonates today. Shin is also the William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea; a senior fellow of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies; and a professor of sociology, all at Stanford University.

The Gwangju Uprising was in 1980; South Korea would finally hold democratic elections in 1987. What role did the Gwangju Uprising — and the resulting massacre — play in South Korea’s democratization process?

The tragic outcome was a brutal wakeup call to Korean democratic movements. Their failure in 1980 called for a new movement strategy to build an alliance between students/intellectuals and grassroots citizens. This alliance became instrumental in successfully organizing and mobilizing the masses in the summer of 1987, when millions of people marched together for democracy. Gwangju also became a symbol of the struggle for freedom and human rights throughout Korea’s democratization.

The massacre also created serious legitimacy problems for the Chun regime throughout its tenure. Chun was widely portrayed as the only ruler in Korean history who mobilized government troops to kill their own innocent citizens. It was almost impossible to justify extending autocratic rule beyond his regime, and Chun and his military colleagues had to accept democratic reform and elections in 1987.

Finally, the massacre provoked anti-American sentiments and movements in the 1980s during pro-democracy movements. Largely pro-American until then, Koreans expected the U.S. to support their fight for democracy – in fact, the Carter administration pressed the Park Chung-hee regime to improve human rights and political freedom. However, Koreans were disappointed and angry that the U.S. did not stop the Korean military, which was under the U.S. commandership, from killing innocent citizens. While there existed controversies over the extent to which the U.S. was complicit in the tragic incident, the U.S. was no longer deemed an ally in their fight for democracy but just another neocolonial power supporting dictatorship.

Gwangju became the most important issue of transitional justice in the democratic era and victims were compensated through a special law, while perpetuators such as Chun and Roh were punished.
Gi-Wook Shin

Both Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo were sentenced to prison for their roles in the Gwangju massacre, among other charges. Both former presidents, however, were pardoned in 1997. Chun and Roh passed away in 2021, eliminating any possibility of an apology. Is there still a sense of “unfinished business” or a lack of closure after the massacre of May 1980? 

Gwangju became the most important issue of transitional justice in the democratic era and victims were compensated through a special law, while perpetuators such as Chun and Roh were punished. The uprising was officially recognized as “Gwangju Democratization Movement,” and May 18 is celebrated as an unofficial memorial day in Korea.

However, there remains a sense of lack of closure. Besides the two former presidents passing without making an apology, there has been little progress on efforts to recognize the “May 18 Democratization Movement” in the preamble of South Korea’s constitution. President Yoon made campaign promises to support such recognition, and if/when this happens, it will be an important step toward a final closure.

Gwangju’s legacy remains contested. The far-right claims (as Chun did until his death) that North Korea was behind the unrest and that death counts were overblown. Is this a fringe view, or does it resonate more broadly with South Korea’s conservatives?

Gwangju’s legacy is now much less contested, and such a view is held only by the far-right minority. Presidents of conservative administrations such as Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye attended the May 18th Memorial Services held in the city and the main conservative party apologized for its past members (far rightists) who “defamed” and “insulted” the Gwangju movement a few years ago.

President Yoon visited the city to pay a tribute to the victims during his presidential campaign and attended this year’s memorial services on May 18. Furthermore, his cabinet members and presidential advisers, as well as National Assembly members of his party, all accompanied him to the service. This shows a broad consensus about the meaning and legacy of Gwangju in Korean society, regardless of political or ideological orientation.

How does the legacy of the Gwangju Uprising reflect a broader disagreement in framing the legacy of South Korea’s past dictators? For example, after Chun’s death Yoon Suk-yeol – then a candidate, now South Korea’s president – praised the former dictator for being “good at politics.” 

There certainly exists a nostalgia among some conservatives in South Korea who believe that leaders like Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan did well in improving the nation’s economy, while being authoritarian. Yet even those people would not contest the tragic nature of the uprisings and their aftermath.

Yoon’s comment was made as an attempt to explain that even though he does not have much experience in politics, he could do well by relying on able technocrats, as did Chun. I don’t think he meant by it that he supports dictatorship, and he immediately made an apology for his remark.

How does South Korea’s struggle for democracy factor into modern day politics, especially as the generation directly involved are aging out of the political sphere? Does the legacy of the Gwangju Uprising resonate with young South Koreans? 

Democratic activism has become a valuable type of political capital since democratization, and former activists have become the ruling elite of the progressive governments, especially in the Moon Jae-in administration. As these so called “386 generation” activists (those who were born in 1960s, entered college in the 1980s, and were in their 30s at the time of their activism) became the power elite, however, they acted no differently than their conservative counterparts. After all, they were accused of simply becoming another new establishment.

As a result, after the Moon administration, past activism lost moral ground and is no longer valued as political capital. As I pointed out elsewhere, the former activists played a crucial role in bringing in democracy but have since stopped short of advancing liberal democracy in Korea.

As far as I know, the legacy of the Gwangju Uprising does not resonate much with young South Koreans – it is just part of Korean history.

What is the relevance of the U.S. approach to the Gwangju Uprising for the modern-day relationship? Does past U.S. support for South Korea’s dictators, despite the bloodshed at Gwangju, still rankle? 

Charges of U.S. complicity in the Gwangju massacre and the subsequent rise of anti-Americanism in Korea undoubtedly concerned American policymakers. When millions of people filled the streets again demanding democratic reform in the summer of 1987 with such anti-American slogans as “Yankees, Go Home,” the U.S. was deeply concerned. This time the Reagan administration moved decisively by sending Gaston Sigur, an assistant secretary of state, to Seoul to meet with Chun, who was considering mobilizing armed forces once again to resolve the crisis. The U.S. seemed to learn lessons from what had happened in Gwangju seven years prior. Pressured by the Americans, Chun cancelled plans to crush the opposition by using military force and granted political concessions that paved the way for a democratic transition in Korea.

Still, anti-Americanism continued to rankle U.S.-ROK relations for many more years that followed. In 2002 when two Korean school girls were killed by U.S. military vehicles during the military exercises, for instance, another wave of anti-Americanism swept the country and the progressive candidate Roh Moo-hyun, who took a tough stance toward the U.S., won the 2002 presidential election.

Since then, however, anti-American sentiments gradually declined, and now the majority of South Koreans do not any longer hold resentment against the U.S. On the contrary, an increasing number of South Koreans support a stronger alliance with the U.S. in the face of rising China. The new Yoon government is expected to join the U.S. in defending a liberal international order that is threatened by autocratic leaders like Putin and Xi.

Read More

South Korea's President Yoon holds a champagne glass
Commentary

Which Yoon Should Biden Expect at the Upcoming South Korea-U.S. Summit?

Yoon has been compared to Biden’s own nemesis, Donald Trump, but he is far from a political iconoclast.
Which Yoon Should Biden Expect at the Upcoming South Korea-U.S. Summit?
Yoon Suk-yeol speaks during a press conference
Commentary

In Troubled Waters: South Korea’s Democracy in Crisis

Just as the United States experienced a crisis of democracy under the Trump administration, South Korea underwent a democratic recession during President Moon Jae-in’s time in office. The consequences of this decline have been evident throughout the election and the subsequent presidential transition.
In Troubled Waters: South Korea’s Democracy in Crisis
South Korean President-elect Yoon Suk-Yeol
Commentary

South Korean Democracy Under Stress: Yoon Suk-yeol’s Victory Likely to Increase Domestic Polarization

On CNBC's "Squawk Box Asia," APARC Director Gi-wook Shin shares insights about the potential for democratic backsliding and further domestic tension after Yoon Suk-yeol’s victory in the contentious presidential election in South Korea.
South Korean Democracy Under Stress: Yoon Suk-yeol’s Victory Likely to Increase Domestic Polarization
All News button
1
Subtitle

“The tragic outcome was a brutal wakeup call to Korean democratic movements.”

Authors
Noa Ronkin
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

South Korea’s cultural wave has swept across the world. Known as Hallyu, the Korean Wave spans music, film, TV, fashion, and food, expressing soft power that engages global audiences and transforms the ways in which they view and consume pop culture. North Korea, by contrast, is a systemic abuser of human rights and remains fixed on the pursuit of military might that poses regional and international threats. These two divergent aspects of Korea that intrigue scholars and the public alike were the focus of a conference that marked the 20th anniversary of the Korea Program at Stanford’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC).

The two-day event, held on May 19 and May 20, convened leaders from academia, government, and the entertainment industry to explore how to translate the wide fascination with South Korea’s pop culture wave and North Korea’s geopolitics into an increased academic interest in Korea and to envision new horizons for the field of Korean studies. The conference featured keynote addresses by Ban Ki-moon, former United Nations secretary-general, and Soo-Man Lee, founder and chief producer of SM Entertainment, and a presentation by SUHO, leader of K-pop group EXO.

They joined long-time Korea Program supporters and members of the general public and Stanford community, who came together to celebrate the accomplishments of the Korea Program in its first two decades and consider its future. The event drew robust audiences both in person and online, including a large number of enthusiastic Stanford students and tens of thousands of viewers who watched the event livestream

To understand contemporary Korea and further Korean studies, it is critical to couple the traditional focus on the Peninsula’s security dilemma with a broader examination of Korean society and culture.
Gi-Wook Shin

Expanding the Field of Korean Studies

As he welcomed conference attendees, Stanford sociologist Gi-Wook Shin, the William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea and founding director of the Korea Program, explained that the goal in gathering participants and presenters who represent deep and varied interests in Korea is to highlight the importance of Korean studies programs and build bridges between the United States and Korea, creating a lasting impact well beyond campus.

Shin, who also serves as APARC director, reflected on the efforts made to build a thriving Stanford research hub on contemporary Korea. These include establishing a Korean collection at the East Asia Library, recruiting faculty with expertise in both the social sciences and the humanities, academic publishing, offering training and fellowship opportunities, and events programming.

The conference’s dual focus on North Korea’s geopolitics and South Korea’s Hallyu reflects Shin’s commitment to expanding the range of inquiry about Korea. “To understand contemporary Korea and further Korean studies, it is critical to couple the traditional focus on the Peninsula’s security dilemma with a broader examination of Korean society and culture,” he said.

Professor of International Studies Michael McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, the parent organization of APARC and the Korea Program, and Professor of Jewish Studies Gabriella Safran, the senior associate dean for humanities and arts, contributed additional welcome remarks, symbolizing the Korea Program’s bridging of both the social science and humanities fields. Safran observed that Korean studies instruction at Stanford has been designed to engage the university community broadly and highlighted the evolution of Stanford students’ understanding of popular culture, thanks in part to the rising popularity of the Korean Wave.

North Korea’s Geopolitics and Society

The morning session of the conference opened with a panel on North Korea. Attendees heard from Siegfried Hecker, professor emeritus in management science and engineering, about the prospects for a renewed diplomacy policy with North Korea; from Kim Sook, former ROK ambassador to the United Nations, about the status of inter-Korean relations and North Korea’s efforts to stave off a COVID-19 crisis; and from Joohee Cho, Seoul bureau chief at ABC News, about the challenges of reporting from and on North Korea and the need to better understand North Korean society beyond the trope of the diplomacy of denuclearization.

Reflecting Back, Looking Ahead

Ambassador Kim, who is also a former fellow with the Korea Program, is one of many Program alumni from the academic, policy, and industry sectors. Speakers on the following panel represented the scope of expertise of the Program’s alumni community and the wide-ranging training and fellowship opportunities the Program facilitates.

The panel brought together Paul Chang, associate professor of sociology at Harvard University, Joon-woo Park, former ROK ambassador to the EU and Singapore, Jong Chun Woo, former president of Stanford APARC-Seoul Forum, and Megan Faircloth, a Stanford Senior in the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures, to consider the Korea Program’s past, present, and vision for the future.

Hard, Soft, and Smart Power

Delivering the keynote address on the first day of the conference, former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon focused on the paradox of the two Koreas. On the one hand, the Republic of Korea has followed a remarkable national development trajectory to become a powerhouse of cultural and artistic creativity – “a global soft power pace-setter,” said Mr. Ban. On the other hand, North Korea, with its stunted development, is seen as a global pariah, and its fixation on hard power suffocates the creativity, innovation, and culture of its own people through systemic repression, state control, and censorship.

But hard power and soft power are not the only two paths, Mr. Ban stated. He went on to explain that a truly advanced country should embrace a forward-thinking national identity of smart power, combining and ultimately transcending hard power- and soft power-related attributes and characteristics. “In an uncertain future, I am certain that Korea’s ascension into a smart power can advance a common destiny for all, one rooted in peace, sustainability, and prosperity,” said Mr. Ban. The best way to achieve this vision, he concluded, is to educate new generations to embody the principles of global citizenship and help them live in harmony and peace with other human beings, irrespective of their nationality.

The soft and hard power strategies of the two Koreas are also the focus of two new documentaries commissioned by the Korea Program. Focused on K-pop and the North Korean human rights crisis, the films are intended to help scholars in teaching students about these two topics. The conference included the unveiling of the documentaries’ trailers and a discussion with film director Hark Joon Lee. The complete documentaries will be released later this year.

Hallyu Has No Borders

There is no doubt that the speaker who most charmed conference attendees and the multitudes of global viewers who watched the event livestream was SUHO, leader of K-pop group EXO. “Today, I am here as the guardian of EXO and K-pop,” SUHO said at the start of his speech, referring to the meaning of his stage name.

He went on to talk about his decade-long experience as a K-pop artist and the hard work and level of detail that go into the complex choreography of the K-pop dances, emphasizing the special, social media-driven emotional bond K-pop artists share with their global fanbase and noting how many fans take a deeper interest in Korean culture because they follow EXO.

Hallyu has no borders and no longer stops at one specific art form, concluded SUHO. “We are witnessing its expansion into our society from every angle: music, dramas, movies, food, education, and more. K-culture is more than a passing trend. It’s a global phenomenon that will continue to grow and evolve,” he said.

Joining SUHO for a discussion of the Korean Wave were Stanford’s Marci Kwon, assistant professor of art and art history, and Angela Killoren, CEO of CJ ENM America, Inc., who oversees U.S. operations for the South Korean entertainment conglomerate that is known for its multiple Academy Award-winning movie “Parasite” and popular K-dramas such as “Crash Landing on You.”

Killoren described the evolution of the global adoption of K-dramas, largely made possible by their distribution through Netflix, and offered insights into the drivers and shapers of the rise of Korean entertainment. According to Killoren, unlike the predominantly male gaze-driven entertainment forms in other cultures, Korean entertainment content caters to the female gaze, as befitting the consumer side of the Korean economy that has been driven by the purchasing power of women

From Immediate Interest to Long-Term Commitment

The second day of the conference convened leading academics to examine how to translate the wide interest in North Korea and K-pop into Korean studies. Panelists included Michelle Cho, assistant professor of East Asian studies at the University of Toronto, David Kang, professor of international relations and business at USC, and Stanford’s own Yumi Moon, associate professor of history, and Dafna Zur, associate professor of East Asian languages and cultures and director of the Center for East Asian Studies.

The panelists agreed on the importance of funding and supporting the study of Korean language in higher education, providing students with tools to articulate their knowledge and experience and help them arrive at insights that are personal, meaningful, and constructive; and fostering and supporting junior faculty. The discussion was followed by a lively Q&A session that engaged many student attendees.

Future Visions of K-pop

The conference concluded with a keynote speech by Soo-Man Lee, founder and chief producer of SM Entertainment. SM is one of South Korea's largest entertainment companies and is famous for fostering and popularizing the careers of a myriad of K-pop groups and stars — including the likes of aespa, NCT, Red Velvet, SUPER JUNIOR, and EXO — and for leading the worldwide K-pop phenomenon and the musical side of Hallyu

Lee recounted his roots as “K-pop’s first mover,” explaining how K-pop music expanded globally and how it demonstrates the power of content amid exponential technological revolution. “It connects the hearts of people around the world beyond generations and ideologies,” he said.

Lee described SM’s systematic production and management system, which he coined “Culture Technology (CT)” and which includes casting, training, content production, and marketing. This so-called CT system is the “growth engine of K-pop,” he noted.

He elaborated on his vision for a future of K-pop that centers on the “Play2Create” (P2C) ecosystem and combines metaverse technology. Within this blockchain-based ecosystem, which Lee says forms part of a new creator economy, fans, or “prosumers” can proactively use the original SM intellectual property to enjoy and create new content through recreation. The ultimate vision of K-pop and Hallyu is to contribute to human creativity, concluded Lee.

The conference made headlines in Korean media and elsewhere. Explore selected media coverage, the event press release, conference agenda, and YouTube playlist including the full livestream recordings via the links below

Read More

Dafna Zur with K-pop group aespa.
News

K-pop’s “Next Level”: Notes from the Field

Prof. Dafna Zur shares impressions from her visit with Soo-Man Lee, founder and chief producer of SM Entertainment, and the rare opportunity to tour the Seoul-based company and see the K-pop megastars-in-training. The preliminary results of this fieldwork, part of a documentary on K-pop, will be aired during the Korea Program's 20th Anniversary conference.
K-pop’s “Next Level”: Notes from the Field
Xion, Seoho, Ravn, Keonhee, Leedo, and Hwanwoong of OneUs visit the Empire State Building
Commentary

It’s Time for K-pop Stars to Speak Out on Human Rights

With few exceptions, South Korea’s K-pop idols have been conspicuously silent on controversial subjects – including the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
It’s Time for K-pop Stars to Speak Out on Human Rights
The Gwangju Uprising
Commentary

Gi-Wook Shin on Gwangju and South Korea’s Democracy

“The tragic outcome was a brutal wakeup call to Korean democratic movements.”
Gi-Wook Shin on Gwangju and South Korea’s Democracy
Hero Image
All News button
1
Subtitle

The Korea Program at Stanford’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center marked its 20-year anniversary with a two-day conference that gathered eminent leaders from academia, government, and the K-pop industry, including former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and global star SUHO, leader of K-pop group EXO.

Authors
Gi-Wook Shin
Kelsi Caywood
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

This article first appeared in The Diplomat magazine.


U.S. President Joe Biden will first meet new South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol in Seoul on May 21. It will be an important meeting for both leaders – not only to strengthen the South Korea-U.S. alliance but also to collaborate on a range of pressing issues, from North Korea to the Russia-Ukraine War to the protection of liberal democracy. The summit, to be held just 11 days after Yoon was inaugurated as president, will be his debut as a political leader on the international stage. Unlike political veteran Biden, Yoon formally entered politics only last summer and has yet to develop a policy track record. What should we expect from the new South Korean president at this first summit?

During the hotly contested campaign, Yoon’s opponents criticized him as South Korea’s Donald Trump. Western media and pundits also tended to portray him in a similar vein as an “anti-feminist political novice” with a “Trump-style brand of very divisive identity politics.” To be sure, he is not a conventional democratic leader who values negotiation and compromise; he envisions a strong South Korea that can stand up to China and North Korea, echoing Trump’s “America First.” Yet such a characterization risks setting off a false alarm that can badly mislead the United States and other allies in how they approach his administration.


Subscribe to our newsletters to receive our experts' commentary and analysis


First and foremost, Yoon is not a “political outsider” in the same sense as Trump. While Yoon, unlike every South Korean president since democratization, has no legislative experience in the National Assembly, he served as prosecutor-general during the Moon Jae-in administration, a leadership position often requiring sound political judgment as well as legal expertise. Yoon built his reputation as a fierce fighter against abuse of power and corruption, shifting public opinion in his favor. This degree of legal, policy, and political experience is a far cry from starring on “The Apprentice.”

Crucially, Yoon curried strong support among conservatives, successfully mobilizing diverse factions to create an anti-Moon coalition and win the election, similar to Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. Whereas the Trump administration was filled with individuals offering only limited policy experience, and many critical appointed positions were left vacant, Yoon is supported by the seasoned conservative establishment joining his administration. In this respect, Yoon recalls George W. Bush, whose first formal foray into Washington politics came after serving as governor of Texas and who relied on the close network of the Republican establishment, such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, for policy and political guidance.

At the upcoming summit, Yoon will have the opportunity to assure global audiences that he is not South Korea’s Trump but a reliable partner of the United States and other allies with shared democratic values.
Gi-Wook Shin and Keli Caywood

Yoon’s key cabinet and presidential office nominees are well-known figures with extensive policy backgrounds. New Unification Minister Kwon Young-se is a four-time member of the National Assembly and served as Seoul’s envoy to Beijing during the Park Geun-hye administration. Yoon’s national security advisor, Kim Sung-han, is a professor at Korea University who served as the vice minister of foreign affairs and trade during the Lee Myung-bak administration. Yoon is also supported by a powerful group of South Korean elites who attended Seoul National’s law school, his alma mater. Such heavy reliance on experienced hands of the conservative establishment reduces uncertainty for the Biden administration.

Yoon is expected to adopt a largely conventional conservative stance on major policy issues, both domestic and foreign. His economic policy is likely to be market-led and minimize state intervention, replacing Moon’s policies such as “income-driven growth” that Korean conservatives branded as socialist. On foreign policy, Yoon seeks to strengthen the U.S. alliance and restore relations with Japan, which, under Moon, were the most precarious they have been since the normalization of relations in 1965.

It is noteworthy that, as president-elect, Yoon sent his special delegation to the United States and Japan followed by the European Union, but not to China and Russia, departing from past precedent. Yoon is expected to take a firm stance against Beijing and Pyongyang rather than embrace appeasement.

At the upcoming summit, Yoon will have the opportunity to assure global audiences that he is not South Korea’s Trump but a reliable partner of the United States and other allies with shared democratic values. In his inaugural speech, he repeatedly stressed the importance of “freedom” to clearly signal his resolve to protect liberal democracy both at home and abroad. This is great news for Biden, who badly needs support from allies like South Korea in his fight against global autocracy.

Just as Yoon will be tested, the summit presents a chance for Biden to demonstrate he is prepared to work closely together with the new South Korean president, overcoming the concerns unearthed during his campaign, in order to bolster the alliance and democracy.

Read More

Yoon Suk-yeol speaks during a press conference
Commentary

In Troubled Waters: South Korea’s Democracy in Crisis

Just as the United States experienced a crisis of democracy under the Trump administration, South Korea underwent a democratic recession during President Moon Jae-in’s time in office. The consequences of this decline have been evident throughout the election and the subsequent presidential transition.
In Troubled Waters: South Korea’s Democracy in Crisis
South Korean President-elect Yoon Suk-Yeol
Commentary

South Korean Democracy Under Stress: Yoon Suk-yeol’s Victory Likely to Increase Domestic Polarization

On CNBC's "Squawk Box Asia," APARC Director Gi-wook Shin shares insights about the potential for democratic backsliding and further domestic tension after Yoon Suk-yeol’s victory in the contentious presidential election in South Korea.
South Korean Democracy Under Stress: Yoon Suk-yeol’s Victory Likely to Increase Domestic Polarization
Xion, Seoho, Ravn, Keonhee, Leedo, and Hwanwoong of OneUs visit the Empire State Building
Commentary

It’s Time for K-pop Stars to Speak Out on Human Rights

With few exceptions, South Korea’s K-pop idols have been conspicuously silent on controversial subjects – including the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
It’s Time for K-pop Stars to Speak Out on Human Rights
All News button
1
Subtitle

Yoon has been compared to Biden’s own nemesis, Donald Trump, but he is far from a political iconoclast.

Subscribe to South Korea