Global Pivotal State

Korea needs to modernize its national security strategy

By Lee Geun

One of the traits of a pre-modern society is the importance of titles. In a status-driven society, titles symbolize privileges, wealth, power and respect. In the pre-modern era, when there was no meaningful economic growth, wealth was inherited by those who had high titles or positions. Interestingly, one of the most successful modernizers of the 20th century, Korea well inherited that pre-modern tradition, and it is no secret to that the Korean people love titles and positions. At a restaurant or any service center, employees commonly call their customers "president" or "chairperson" even though they do not know a customer's real title. Likewise, the customers do not correct those addressing them when their real titles are of a lower rank.

With titles go protocols. Koreans are extremely sensitive about where they sit at a conference table, and where they stand at a photo zone. The size of a car, the width of offices, and the amount of time they can spend on speeches also matter significantly for people in high positions. Time and space become status symbols.

In modern societies, where the capitalist market became the centerpiece of all human life, titles are means or designations to perform certain tasks which are directly or indirectly related to the market. The president of a company is supposed to make the final decisions on the general management of the company, professors teach university students who will comprise the main workforce of the society, doctors take care of patients, and lawyers provide legal services to the people.

In the modern market economy, a soccer player can get far wealthier than the president of a country, and an idol group or a YouTuber can attract people's love and respect far more than a lawmaker. In other words, titles of pre-modern nature do not matter anymore. Yet, titles, positions and protocols still do matter in the minds of the Korean people.

In the world of modern diplomacy and international politics, a country's title and position are as important as a person's. A country strives for certain positions in the international arena, such as hegemony, a neutral state, or a member of the G7 to take advantage of that very position to accomplish specific national and international goals. For example, a hegemon has the capability and right to set international rules and standards in its favor, and a neutral state can avoid being entrapped in the conflicts of other states. G7 members form an exclusive club of their own so that they can acquire privileged rights to set the rules and standards for their industry champions. Titles and positions of a country in international politics are not just a status but means and instruments to achieve very specific and concrete national goals.

In the field of diplomacy, Korea's pre-modern yearning toward high titles and positions is no exception as well. There have been several proposals for Korea's national vision so far, and most of them are status or position-oriented. Visions such as Middle Power, Small but Strong State, Bridge State, Central Power in Northeast Asia, and G10 are all positional pictures depicting Korea's place in the world. The problem is that those visions do not tell us why we need those positions, other than international recognition or the position per se. The pre-modern tradition of Korea solidly remains in the field of diplomacy.

The "Global Pivotal State" vision of the Yoon Suk Yeol administration is of a similar nature. Although it sounds fancy, the word "pivotal" only creates an image of Korea's higher status than before. It is not clear what "pivotal" means here. Why must Korea be "pivotal?" Even the newly published National Security Strategy of the Presidential Office does not explain persuasively what benefits Korean people may enjoy if Korea takes the "pivotal" position.

In the modern era, states rise and decline within the international market. China was able to re-rise to the status of a global power by taking advantage of the market. The relative decline of the United States parallels a relative decline in markets generally. Korea has become a top 10 power in the world by international trade. Market power is a lot more important than geographical location or the size of a country. That same market is now undergoing a huge transformation at a speed and a scale unseen before mainly driven by ever-evolving digital technologies, climate change, and uncertainty created by a few revisionist states. The Yoon administration, before too late, needs to prioritize its industrial and market strategies within its national security strategy to safely position Korea at the forefront of the transforming market. After all, modern diplomacy is all about the market.

Lee Geun is a professor of international politics at Seoul National University. He was formerly president of the Korea Foundation and dean of Seoul National University's Office of International Affairs.