When designing foreign policy, think bigger than just diasporas

By Eugene Lee

Today, the world is a huge hodgepodge of people of different sorts, constantly moving from one corner to another. Among these nomads are groups of people who eventually settle and form a community, which we often call a diaspora. Most of the time, the main characteristic that distinguishes this group from any others is ethnicity. Some diasporas go back in history for millennia ― for example, Jewish diasporas ― and the word "diaspora" itself primarily entered use while describing these communities.

As it is in many other countries, the current Yoon administration has set out to create a diaspora ministry as part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This venture is nothing really new. The South Korean government has been very proactively engaging Korean diasporas for decades in various ways. At times, those efforts were in the form of different types of visas and, in some cases, there were scholarships to study either the Korean language or an opportunity for some to acquire bachelor's degrees in South Korea.

Years ago, these attempts to court the Korean diasporas were made for geopolitical reasons, particularly to subvert similar efforts by North Korea, which looked to the Korean diasporas to sway support for its endeavors. The ultimate goal of that rivalry was to win the claim about whichever country was the "true Korea." However, the nuclear test in the early 2000s prompted many countries to reevaluate their relations with North Korea, and many have severed diplomatic relations with Pyongyang, leaving Seoul as the main partner for those diasporas.

Despite the good intentions, all indications are, in my view, that this enterprise is likely to falter. First is the way-too-obvious political intent. In previous elections, according to some data, the support for diasporas was more or less toward the left. The current administration wants to turn the tide in its favor and gain the future support of Korean diasporas around the world. Seemingly a political ploy, the effort already raises red flags and criticism. Furthermore, the diasporas themselves are well aware that they can and have been used for political purposes.

Many countries do use diasporas to advance their national interests. To ensure its existence in the volatile region, Israel has been using its diasporas in the U.S., U.K., France, and other countries. Its Ministry of Information and Diasporas has been instrumental in crafting opinions and images of Israel in the mass media around the world.

In China's case, its use of Chinese diasporas has been very aggressive, if not blatantly selfish. For the past decade, it didn't just try to build connections, it saw those diasporas as a pool to draw technological talents and financial resources, and it didn't shy away from using them to plunder technological know-how abroad.

Today, however, diasporas play completely different roles, and the use of diasporas is receiving a backlash. The treatment and image of those diasporas in host countries often suffered. In part, the blame for anti-Asian or anti-Semitic sentiments goes to the countries that used those diasporas. The word "diaspora" has earned itself bad "karma."

I would agree that there is a need to manage relations with Korean diasporas, and yet, I would object to the use of the word "diaspora." For a start, the word diaspora is an ethnicity-centered construct.

Also, the calculation is made in order to tap into the riches that Koreans accumulated while living abroad, while leaving many out of focus as they never considered wealth to be an objective in their lives. Even if at times diasporas indeed helped countries and provided an inward flow of investments, these attitudes did reverse very quickly as well.

My discomfort with the word diaspora doesn't end here. Today South Korea is becoming more and more diverse day by day. As a multiethnic and multicultural country, it needs to be more inclusive. Once we mention diaspora, we automatically exclude everyone of foreign origin, even its citizens, who still care for and love this country.

We have many multinational families, where one spouse may be Korean and the other one could be from the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan or many others. What about their children, and spouses' extended families? Or, North Korean defectors here in Korea and abroad, can they be considered diaspora? If they are, then what kind?

Let me advance my argument against the use of the word for its exclusivity even further. The word "diaspora" also implies that these people stayed unchanged and did not integrate into the society they reside in, which is not necessarily the case for many Koreans who live abroad. Unfortunately, it tends to delineate between one group and others, drawing that community as one homogenous entity while excluding many others. It also assumes a longing feeling by the diaspora and an eventual return to their motherland. But is that really the case today?

So, what would be my suggestion? Instead of diasporas, we must embrace everyone who has any attachment and care for the country. So, my tentative name for the new ministry would be "Great Korea Cooperation Ministry" ("Daehan Gyoryu Bu" or "Daehan Gyoryu Gwanli Bu" in Korean). By doing away with the word diaspora, we can surpass its limitations.

It will include anyone and any community that is willing to cooperate with the country. It would help build bridges between cultures and people without any delineation between them while embracing Korean diasporas and including all people of partial Korean descent.

Eugene Lee (mreulee@gmail.com) is a lecturing professor at the Graduate School of Governance at Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul. Specializing in international relations and governance, his research and teaching focus on national and regional security, international development, government policies and Northeast and Central Asia.