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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Selected Media Coverage

• The Stanford Daily - May 26
• Yonhap News - May 22
• Yonhap News - May 21
• Yonhap News - May 20
• Yonhap News - May 20
• SPOTV News - May 21
• Rappler - May 20

Event page and complete agenda 
Event press release 

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.

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.

In the last two weeks, I received far more than I bargained for. Mr. Lee opened his doors to our camera crew of three, and gave us access to himself, as well as to artists such as EXO’s leader Suho (who will be on campus for the May conference); NCT’s Mark, Johnny, and Jaehyun; and aespa (who just returned from a wildly successful appearance at Coachella).

We toured recording studios and dance spaces and were given an opportunity, nearly unheard of, to enter the “Chamber of Secrets” of SM to see the sinipsaeng, K-pop megastars-in-training. These trainees are the chosen few who survived countless rounds of cutting and selection, and who have made it to the top by virtue of talent and sheer grit. In addition, we interviewed executives and creative culture technology entrepreneurs who are working at the cutting edge of the next level of Korean pop culture: the metaverse.

The preliminary results of our fieldwork will be aired during the two-day conference, where Suho will speak on a panel and Mr. Lee will give a speech discussing future visions for K-pop. Audience members not able to attend in person (seating is extremely limited) can participate virtually through the streaming service provided by the Korea Program. Tune in to the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center's YouTube channel for the livestream.

This essay originally appeared in Korean in the May 2022 issue of Sindonga (New East Asia), Korea’s oldest monthly magazine (established 1931), as the first in a monthly column, "Shin’s Reflections on Korea." Translated by Raymond Ha. A PDF version of this essay is also available to download.

Fourth, the presidential transition was anything but smooth. Trump refused to concede the election and launched a legal challenge against the election results, resulting in an unprecedented, violent takeover of Congress by his most fervent supporters. In South Korea, Lee Jae-Myung, the Democratic Party’s candidate, unequivocally conceded the election before all the votes had been counted. This initially provided some hope and relief that South Korea would not follow the path taken by the United States. However, it was not long before President-elect Yoon’s transition team and the outgoing Moon administration collided over a host of major issues, including relocating the presidential office, providing COVID-19 relief to small business owners, and filling high-level government positions. There is a broad similarity between the United States and South Korea in that both presidential transitions encountered significant obstacles.

Finally, both democratic norms and the spirit of democracy were betrayed under the guise of the rule of law. Trump defied a widely held norm by nominating a Supreme Court justice during an election year, while Moon attempted to fill key government positions during the presidential transition, including seats on the Board of Audit and Inspection’s inspection panel.[3] Responding to public criticism, the Blue House stated that the sitting president has the de jure authority to make appointments to government positions. This is evidently true, but according to democratic norms and past practice, such appointments should wait until the incoming president takes office. At minimum, the incumbent should adequately consult and obtain the agreement of the president-elect before proceeding with “midnight” appointments.

Democratic Decay in South Korea

The chaos and disarray on display during these elections and presidential transitions cannot be dismissed as passing aberrations. They are the result of a democratic decay that has taken place in South Korea and the United States for the past several years, one that should be taken seriously.

The democratic recession in the United States has received serious attention among academics and intellectuals. My colleagues at Stanford University, including Larry Diamond and Francis Fukuyama, have been actively sounding the alarm about worrying trends in the United States. I have also expressed my deep concerns in previous essays about an apparent backsliding of democracy in South Korea. In an April 2020 essay in Sindonga magazine, I warned that South Korea’s democracy was gradually crumbling, in a manner captured by the Korean expression “to become soaked by a light drizzle without noticing.”[4] In an article published in the Journal of Democracy in July of the same year, I characterized the state of South Korea’s democracy as one of “democratic decay.”[5]

Since the late 1980s, Korea has served as an exemplary case of the “third wave” of democratization, but its democracy has been in retreat since the 2010s. The Park Geun-hye administration (2013–17) regressed to an authoritarian mode of governance reminiscent of the Park Chung-Hee era, and she was ousted from power with impeachment. An obsolete model of authoritarianism à la Park Chung-Hee was constantly in tension with Korea’s democratic, pluralized civil society.

These tensions erupted in the Candlelight Protests of 2016 and 2017—a watershed moment in Korea’s political history. These protests demonstrated a recurring feature of Korea’s democratization since the late 1980s: a confrontation between the state and civil society. Instead of political parties competing with each other, civil society is pitted against the “state,” which includes political parties. Through the Candlelight Protests, Korea’s civil society rejected and ousted an authoritarian state once again.

The Moon Jae-In administration built its political legitimacy on these protests by calling itself the “candlelight government,” but it failed to faithfully uphold the demands of the protestors and presided over a period of democratic decay in South Korea. The regressive tendencies on display during this past election and the presidential transition should be understood in their wider historical context. Specifically, it is vital to consider three issues that have precipitated democratic decay in South Korea.[6]

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' analysis and commentary.

Democracy without Liberalism

The first is illiberalism. As I note in Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy (2006), Korea was imbued with an extreme version of ethnic nationalism as it experienced colonial rule and national division on its path to modernity. Ethnic nationalism elevates the collective over the individual, unity over diversity. It was thus difficult for liberalism, with its emphasis on individual rights and autonomy, to take root in Korea. The anti-communism of South Korea’s past authoritarian regimes and the chauvinistic anti-Japanese ideology of the Moon Jae-In administration both draw heavily from ethnic nationalism, which remains an incredibly powerful and attractive ideology to this day.

After the late 1980s, South Korea undoubtedly attained the status of a de jure democracy, with the requisite legal foundations. It is highly unlikely that it will regress to the authoritarianism of its past. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether liberal democracy has been firmly established in South Korea. As political scientist Yascha Mounk points out in The People vs. Democracy (2018), having the rule of law does not necessarily imply the existence of a liberal democracy.

A liberal democracy cannot be sustained merely upon the procedural legitimacy of the rule of law. Democratic norms and the spirit of democracy must also be honored. It is important to heed the warning of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, both professors of political science at Harvard University, in their book How Democracies Die (2019): even without a revolution or a coup, democracy can gradually wither away if elected leaders violate democratic norms or the spirit of democracy.

South Korea and the United States are no exception. When the core democratic norms of mutual tolerance and forbearance are not respected, the procedural formalities of the rule of law alone cannot protect liberal democracy. Democratic decay is all but inevitable if a politics of hate and confrontation overwhelms toleration and compromise, and if the exercise of power becomes unbalanced and veers toward rampant abuse.

South Korea has unfortunately experienced democratic decay at the hands of a generation of politicians who, in their younger days, participated in pro-democracy activism. Ahn Byong-Jin, a noted progressive academic and a professor of political science at Kyunghee University, observes that the central figures of the Moon administration contributed to democratization by taking part in the struggle against authoritarianism, but they had no opportunities to learn or experience liberal values. In other words, they failed to internalize liberal democratic norms and values, such as individual freedoms and rights, mutual respect, and tolerance. They often conflated majoritarianism with democracy.

Choi Jang-Jip, professor emeritus at Korea University and a renowned scholar of Korean democracy, harshly criticized the generation of former pro-democracy activists for adopting a confrontational and divisive approach to politics even after assuming power. These politicians did not view the opposition as a partner in governing the country, instead treating it as an enemy that must be defeated at all costs. The progressive elements of South Korea’s civil society, which played a critical role in democratization, lost sight of their duty to act as a watchdog over government power and became a pipeline to political office. Former civil society activists filled key positions in the Blue House and the Cabinet. The policies they implemented—real estate regulations, income-led growth, and the phasing out of nuclear power—resulted in abysmal failures. Even so, they were intoxicated by an outmoded sense of moral superiority and thought of themselves as the “candlelight government,” while regarding the PPP and other opponents as an “old evil.” Far from upgrading South Korea’s democracy, they degraded it. Korean politics has descended into a sordid, partisan battle between good and evil. The extreme mudslinging on display during the recent presidential election revealed the consequences of this style of politics all too clearly.

The populist turn in Korea’s politics is another important factor contributing to democratic decay. The populism that is erupting across the world in the 21st century differs from previous forms of populism, which simply sought to appeal to public sentiment. Jan-Werner Müller, a political theorist at Princeton University, characterizes 21st-century populism as consisting of anti-elitism and anti-pluralism. Anti-elitism attacks the elite, and anti-pluralism rejects coexistence with different political actors. The former fosters hatred toward party politics, and the latter leads to the demonization of opposing political forces. On top of this, advances in information technology and the development of social media platforms have enabled a culture of direct communication between populist leaders and their supporters, which is another defining characteristic of 21st-century populism. In this sense, Trumpism in the United States is the archetype of populism in the 21st century.

The Legacy of “Eradicating Deep-rooted Evils”

The Moon administration’s populist character was most clearly revealed in its campaign to “eradicate deep-rooted evils.” These “deep-rooted evils” refer to the ancien régime. Any obsolete order must, of course, be discarded. Those who engage in corruption or commit crimes must be punished. However, the boundary between the old order and the new order is ambiguous in South Korea’s politics and civil society.

The campaign to uproot the ancien régime should have been guided by what Jürgen Habermas labeled “self-limitation.” In other words, tasks that were essential to dismantling the old order should have been completed as promptly as possible, so that efforts could then be directed toward pursuing a new form of societal unity and integration. Unfortunately, the Moon administration’s all-encompassing campaign to eradicate the ancien régime lasted far too long, constraining Korea’s pluralistic liberal democracy in the process.

This year’s presidential election took place within this political and social milieu. As noted by sociologist Kim Ho-Ki of Yonsei University, a progressive academic, this election was the first presidential election since democratization in 1987 that was framed as a battle between old and new elites, no longer a struggle between pro-democratic and authoritarian political forces. Instead of the traditional archetype of a democratic leader who values compromise and cooperation, there was a clear preference for unrelenting “strongmen” from the outside who were not accustomed to the political logic of Yeouido and would forcefully battle anti-elite forces.[7]

This type of leader values decisiveness and forceful action over deliberation and the ability to foster compromise. It is not a coincidence that Lee and Yoon were chosen as the respective candidates of the ruling and leading opposition parties. They persistently attacked each other as the “old” elite or the “new” elite, rejecting toleration and coexistence.

Political Fandoms on the Left, Gender Politics on the Right

Following the global financial crisis of 2008, the issue of inequality—particularly in the form of deepening economic polarization—was widely discussed around the world. Both the IMF and the OECD stressed the importance of reducing economic polarization. However, the issue of political polarization also merits close attention. Countries across the world are suffering from this malaise, which is inextricably tied to economic polarization. South Korea is part of this global trend. The dearth of liberal values and the emergence of populism, as noted above, amplified political polarization. In 2019, there were rallies by the Moon-ppa, ardent supporters of President Moon, near the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office in Seocho-dong. At the same time, there were anti-Moon rallies by the so-called Taegukgi brigade at Gwanghwamun Plaza in the heart of Seoul, named after the national flag they wave at their rallies. The extreme confrontation exemplified by these competing rallies showed that political polarization was taking root as South Korea’s new normal.

As mutual distrust between individuals and groups deepened, a partisan, Manichean logic of good and evil took hold. The symptoms of democratic decay became noticeable in many corners of Korean society. Pluralistic norms, such as agreeing to disagree and seeking commonalities while acknowledging differences, vanished. There was only “us” and “them.” The anti-pluralism and anti-elitism inherent in illiberalism and populism transform politics into a ruthless battle for power between opposing camps, each defined by common beliefs and sentiments. Because South Korea has a powerful presidency fused with a winner-takes-all electoral system, presidential elections are inevitably framed as a contest between those seeking to retain power and those seeking to reclaim it at all costs.

This partisan war manifests as a culture war, as conceptualized by James Hunter, or identity politics, as described by Francis Fukuyama. Hunter argued that American society was split into two irreconcilable camps based on “hot-button” issues such as abortion, separation of church and state, homosexuality, and gun rights. A culture war may arise for many reasons, and its particular form can differ between countries. The form and intensity of a culture war are determined by the nature of socioeconomic policies aimed at addressing inequality, the extent of societal and cultural toleration for minorities, and whether political institutions foster majoritarian or consensus-based politics.

A culture war gains explosive power when it is channeled into identity politics. Identity refers to the thoughts, emotions, and ideologies that provide an individual with a sense of self. Traditional forms of institutionalized politics are being replaced by identity politics, which expresses resentment and resistance toward a status quo that disregards or rejects elements of one’s identity, be it religion, race, nation, or gender. This trend has been especially pronounced in the 21st century.

The appearance of political fandoms, in which supporters only pay attention to information that reinforces their existing attitudes, cannot be adequately understood in isolation from the emergence of identity politics. In today’s post-truth era, subjective beliefs matter more than objective facts. The subjective beliefs that underlie political and cultural identities influence the thoughts and actions of individual citizens at least as much as economic and material interests.

As South Korea’s culture war grows ever more intense, identity politics is also becoming increasingly prominent. In this vein, the appearance of political fandoms among progressives and the deployment of gender politics among conservatives is far from surprising. On the left, an online community called Nosamo (“People Who Love Roh Moo-Hyun”) in the early 2000s gave way to the Moon-ppa. This year’s election has given rise to the so-called gae-ddal (“daughters for reform”), referring to women in their 20s and 30s who have thrown their support behind the Democratic Party. There is a parallel genealogy on the right. An association called the Parksamo (“People Who Love Park Geun-Hye”) was followed by the Taegukgi brigade. Most recently, yidaenam (“men in their 20s”) coalesced as a political force during this year’s election. As political “tribes” on both ends of the political spectrum continue to surface in new forms, the space for tolerance, coexistence, and compromise grows narrower. The tantalizing 0.73 percent margin of victory in the presidential election is a stark reflection of South Korea’s polarized society. It was as if the country were split into two different nations, one seeking to safeguard KDP rule and the other intent on stopping it. The deepening of political polarization does not bode well for South Korea’s democracy.

When it came to power five years ago, the Moon administration declared that “opportunities will be equal, the process will be fair, and the result will be just,” vowing to “create a country that no one has ever experienced before.” They were wrong about the first part, but tragically correct about the latter. South Korea has never experienced anything like this before. Its democracy, which was becoming gradually soaked by a light drizzle, has been drenched in a heavy downpour over the course of this year’s presidential election. A devastating typhoon may lie ahead.

Yoon Must Break the Mold of a Strongman

Biden entered office with the Democratic Party in control of the House and the Senate, but Yoon faces strong political headwinds from the outset. The KDP commands an overwhelming majority of 171 among 300 seats in the National Assembly.[8] Yoon will also have to contend with the “street politics” of progressive civil society organizations and labor unions. Biden has decades of political experience, but Yoon’s political ability remains unproven. At the very least, foreign perceptions of Yoon as a political leader do not seem to be especially favorable. He is seen as a hard-headed prosecutor who opposes feminism and holds anti-China attitudes. This is a far cry from the mold of a traditional liberal democratic leader, typified by politicians such as Biden. The image of a strongman may have helped Yoon become the conservative party’s candidate, but it would be unwise to stay on this path as a leader who must govern a democratic society. Yoon must cultivate a different image if he is to play an active role on the international stage, and there must be corresponding policy measures to support this effort.

Yoon does not yet have a firm base of political support, and he is still a largely unknown figure outside of South Korea. He has undergone a whirlwind transformation into a politician after entering politics last summer, but he still seems better suited to play the role of a prosecutor general.

Yoon gained popularity as a man of integrity, a prosecutor unrelenting in his efforts to root out corruption and unyielding to political pressures. It was this reputation that propelled him to the presidency. In a pluralized, democratic society, however, there are bound to be repercussions if the highest elected leader decides to simply cut the Gordian knot every time. For example, consider the issue of relocating the presidential office. Yoon and his transition team could arguably have made greater efforts to garner public support and obtain adequate assistance from the current administration, even if they were displeased with the uncooperative attitude of President Moon’s Blue House. Governing the country in the face of powerful resistance from a super-majority opposition party and a dense network of progressive civil society organizations will require deft political leadership. It will be necessary to carefully consider the full range of public opinion, lead political negotiations, mediate and compromise between different views, and exercise restraint in wielding power. Prosecutors are appointed as public servants, but presidents are elected by the people. They each have different roles and responsibilities.

To avoid repeating the errors of its predecessor, the Yoon administration must go beyond emphasizing a principled approach and abiding by the law. The rule of law is necessary for democracy, but it is not sufficient. While building a firm foundation on the rule of law, there must also be a conscientious effort to reflect on and staunchly defend democratic norms, such as tolerance for the other side and forbearance in the exercise of power. Yoon and his administration must resist the temptation to label the opposition as evil and launch yet another campaign to eradicate deep-rooted evils. They must show patience in persuading the opposition party and the people, aiming to pursue commonalities while acknowledging differences. There are already concerns in some quarters that the Yoon administration will create “a republic of prosecutors,” just as the Moon administration formed “a republic of former pro-democracy activists.” If these fears are realized, South Korea’s democracy will regress even further. Yoon’s administration must learn from the failures of the Moon presidency.

It is also critical for Yoon to shed the perception of being anti-feminist as soon as possible. During the campaign, Yoon’s campaign devised a gender-based electoral strategy aimed at earning the votes of young men, promising to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family in one of its high-profile campaign pledges. This strategy backfired. Yoon lost support among female voters, and it only reinforced his image as an anti-feminist. Although Yoon and his advisors may insist that this image was created entirely by the KDP and the left-wing press, foreign observers would disagree. In its first article following the presidential election, Agence France-Presse labeled President-elect Yoon as “anti-feminist political novice.” Many other foreign news agencies took a similar view in their coverage. Feminism and gender identity are highly sensitive issues on the global stage. If his image as an anti-feminist becomes further solidified, this will impose significant constraints on Yoon’s ability to act as a global leader.

Finally, Yoon must abandon his previous appeals to chauvinistic anti-China sentiment. It was not prudent to appeal to anti-China sentiment following the hanbok controversy at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Winter Olympics[9] or to take the hardline stance of vowing to deploy more THAAD anti-missile batteries if elected. Such remarks are reminiscent of Roh Moo-Hyun’s appeals to anti-U.S. sentiment ahead of the 2002 presidential election. As a result, the Roh administration faced difficulties in managing the relationship with the United States early on in its term. The Yoon administration must resist the temptation to exploit anti-China sentiment for political gain in the same way that the Moon administration used the anti-Japan rhetoric of “traitors in our midst.” The relationship between Seoul and Tokyo reached a nadir during the Moon presidency. Yoon must learn from these mistakes. Even though public opinion is important and Beijing may engage in wrongful actions, his administration must maintain a calm, far-sighted approach in support of South Korea’s national interests. Yoon’s emphasis on pragmatism must also extend to foreign policy and national security issues.

Keeping a Close Eye on South Korea

In 2020, President-elect Biden was faced with the task of healing a fragmented society and bridging political divides. The same is true of President-elect Yoon in South Korea today, but serious conflicts with the Moon administration during the presidential transition have already dashed hopes for a honeymoon period. Previous South Korean presidents typically entered office with around a 70 percent approval rating, but Yoon is failing to reach 50 percent even before he begins his term.

This brings to mind the challenging situation that Biden is currently mired in. He succeeded in preventing Trump’s re-election, but he has struggled in the face of formidable political obstacles and policy challenges. Biden’s approval ratings hover at 40 percent, which is the lowest of any president two years into the term except Trump. Unless the situation improves, the Democratic Party is likely to suffer a defeat in the November midterm elections. There are growing concerns that Biden’s failures could enable Trump to return to the White House for a second term. Meanwhile, the election of Yoon Suk-Yeol has resulted in a transfer of power, but it does not necessarily represent a victory for South Korea’s conservatives. The failure of the Yoon administration could lead to a progressive resurgence. In many ways, Yoon is faced with a task of historic proportions.

This year’s presidential election in South Korea was closely watched by the foreign press. In addition to U.S. news media, I conducted interviews about the election with prominent centrist and progressive media outlets in Europe, including Der Spiegel in Germany, the New Statesman and The Guardian in the UK, and a Swedish public broadcasting channel, all of which published special reports about South Korea’s election. These outlets, which have a powerful influence on shaping public discourse in the West, were keen on understanding how the victory of a prosecutor general–turned-opposition candidate would affect the future of South Korea’s democracy. As the West grapples with its own crisis of democracy, there is heightened interest in whether South Korea—once an exemplar of democracy in East Asia—will be able to repair its democracy.

South Korea’s democracy was being gradually soaked by a light drizzle, which turned into a heavy downpour over the course of the election and the presidential transition. Foreign media outlets and intellectuals will keep a close eye to see whether Yoon Suk-Yeol will be able to save South Korea’s democracy from the impending thunderstorm and undo the damage that has already been inflicted.

This essay is the first in a series of forthcoming monthly commentaries in Sindonga magazine that will be translated into English, so as to reach a wider audience. It is my sincere hope that these essays will contribute to a constructive discussion and debate among intellectuals, both at home and abroad, about the issues that lie ahead for South Korea’s democracy.

This commentary first appeared in The Diplomat magazine.

At the 2022 Grammy Awards on April 3, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered a pre-recorded speech, imploring musicians and the global community to speak out on the ongoing war in Ukraine. “Russia,” he said, “brings horrible silence with its bombs.” Zelenskyy urged the Grammy artists to “fill the silence with your music… Tell the truth about this war on your social networks, on TV.”

Many artists in the United States and worldwide have been doing just that, with singers ranging from Billie Eilish to Elton John donating and speaking out in support of the Ukrainian people. But one group has been conspicuously absent from this movement: South Korea’s K-pop singers. Despite their rising global stature, only a handful of K-pop idols have heeded Zelenskyy’s call.

Indeed, while outspokenness on hot-button societal issues has become ubiquitous among American celebrities – who voice their thoughts on causes ranging from the war in Ukraine to Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+ rights, and climate change – the social media accounts of Korean idols cultivate squeaky-clean images rather than broach subjects that could prove controversial. Only top stars like BTS have had leeway to speak out on pressing issues – and even then, this is rare. At most, others express their support quietly with subtle fashion items, or advocate on relatively uncontroversial causes, like air pollution or animal rights.

K-pop idols’ silence is particularly conspicuous in comparison to their global fanbase, which has proved to be a formidable source of human rights advocacy around the world. K-pop fans in Myanmar have played a crucial role in organizing anti-authoritarian protests in the country. In 2020, pro-democracy protesters in Thailand marched to the tune of the Girls’ Generation song “Into the New World” – a track that has a rich history of use in South Korea’s own protest movements. In the United States, during the major Black Lives Matter movements in 2020, K-pop fans drowned out racist voices by flooding anti-BLM Twitter hashtags with fancams of their favorite idols.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' commentary and analysis.

Korean celebrities’ avoidance of these contentious issues stems, understandably, from the goal of achieving widespread popularity. In trying to foster an expansive, loyal fanbase, K-pop agencies have instructed singers to avoid topics that could alienate fans instead of attracting them: K-pop stars are not allowed to date, let alone voice opinions on sensitive global causes.

Yet, if K-pop hopes to have global staying power, it is time to break this silence. To ensure that K-pop is taken seriously, the industry’s idols should begin to engage with serious issues that global audiences care about. This is especially true in light of a growing expectation that idols should do so. For example, fans seek accountability from an industry that benefits from the appropriation of Black culture or the support of LGBTQ+ communities, yet whose stars remain silent on the rights issues these groups face. Speaking out on such causes is a sure way for K-pop to garner widespread global respect and cement its place as a genre that is relevant, global-minded, and here to stay.

True, idols may alienate some fans by advancing certain positions, but this has done little to hurt K-pop’s overall march toward global domination. The genre’s popularity is so immense that in 2020, the Chinese Communist Party backed down from an attempt to stir nationalist frenzy against BTS. The mega-boy group emerged unscathed.

Even the Kim Jong Un regime, one of the most oppressive governments in the world, is no match for K-pop: The genre’s popularity among North Koreans persists despite the threat of execution for individuals caught listening. In fact, the issue of human rights in North Korea could be an important cause for K-pop celebrities to take up, especially given K-pop’s penetration into the reclusive nation. Who is better positioned than South Korean idols to speak up on behalf of their brethren to the north?

The problems within the K-pop industry itself may be another good place to start. Idols face notoriously grueling working conditions and immense mental and physical pressure. If idols are to begin voicing their opinions, agencies must better support their artists, rather than abandoning them when controversy arises.

K-pop stars do not need to become as politically hyperactive as their counterparts in the United States. However, now that they have a foothold in global markets, they should use their platform to speak out on human rights movements – not only because they are well-positioned to support these causes, but also because doing so will cement their global staying power. To remain globally relevant, K-pop must be the first mover, not a fast follower – or risk getting left behind.