Election lacks positive agenda for future

Kim Won-soo

The Korean presidential election race is in its final stretch, with the main candidates focusing their campaigns on the domestic political agenda.

As a result, the economic agenda is being sidelined, let alone foreign policy. The old mantra of “It’s the economy, stupid” has lost its relevance, despite alarming economic challenges. In a larger sense, this election boils down to another showdown between two polarized camps. Three years ago, former President Yoon Suk Yeol won by a very slim margin — 0.73 percent — over the liberal Democratic Party of Korea's candidate, Lee Jae-myung. Although Yoon is not running this time, his martial law fiasco continues to haunt the conservative People Power Party and its candidate, Kim Moon-soo, who is fighting the election in the shadows of the Yoon legacy.

This election is being driven more by negativity than positivity. The DPK's main slogan focuses on getting rid of the Yoon legacy, while the PPP is focused on highlighting the legal troubles and other scandals plaguing Lee.

These two main candidates are failing to present a vision for a better future for Korea. This may be in part due to the short amount of preparation time caused by the snap election. However, greater blame should be placed on the worsening polarization of Korean politics and, consequently, its effect on society. Supporters of both parties are more focused on choosing a leader they see as a stronger fighter for their partisan interests, rather than a mediator capable of building a consensus vision for the future.

As a result, the political agenda is likely to dominate the campaign until June 3. The election will largely hinge on which of the two negative narratives—Yoon’s legacy or Lee’s image — Korean voters perceive as more significant.

In a nutshell, this is a contest of who will be less disliked rather than more liked. Regardless of the outcome, the election is more likely to deepen political divisions than to heal them. This will make postelection consensus-building on major policy issues including in particular foreign policy almost impossible. In such a polarized environment, the new government will struggle to navigate the turbulent waters of foreign affairs. It will also face two major stress tests expected early in its term.

The first challenge stems from the second U.S. Donald Trump administration, as the July 8 deadline for completing tariff negotiations rapidly approaches. Trump is likely to link tariffs to defense cost-sharing and other aspects of the U.S.–Korea alliance.

These issues will be high on the agenda if the new president speaks with Trump either in a telephone conversation or through an in-person meeting. The latter possibility may emerge at the NATO summit slated for June 24-25 in the Netherlands or earlier in Canada, if Korea is invited to the G-7 summit in mid-June. This diplomacy with Trump must be approached carefully and thoroughly. Given Trump’s well-known preferences for personal rapport, transactional diplomacy and symbolic gestures, there will be no second chance to make a good first impression. The first summit is not merely ceremonial — it is a test of leadership acuity.

The second test is how to define North Korea challenges. As is often the case, North Korea may test new governments in Seoul and Washington through provocations. In anticipation of this, the new president must craft a clear and calibrated strategy to manage and mitigate the risks of escalation. This approach should balance deterrence with diplomacy and present a viable path toward lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula — with all key neighbors, including the U.S., China, Japan and Russia, playing their respective roles.

How to handle these two challenges is a complex task requiring thorough policy review. However, the candidates do not have the luxury of an usual transition period. The new president will be forced to make urgent decisions on foreign policy early on.

For the parties until the election, it is "domestic politics, stupid," but for the incoming president after the election, it will be "foreign policy, stupid." The priority of the foreign policy agenda must be elevated higher in preparation now to prepare for the 30-day plan of the new government. The plan must be scenario-based and concrete enough to be actionable from Day 1, the day after the election. The main candidates should therefore think hard from now on as to how they should prepare themselves for the inevitable crash landing on foreign policy.

Kim Won-soo is the former Under Secretary-General of the United Nations and the High Representative for Disarmament. He is now the Rector of the Global Academy for Future Civilizations and Chair Professor of the Kyung Hee University in Korea.