Seoul's foreign policy conferences
Read this before attending a government or think-tank conference in Seoul
Every year, Seoul hosts a number of large-scale government and/or think-tank conferences focused on foreign policy and the Korean Peninsula. They’re hosted at grand venues; often sponsored by prominent organizations, feature high-level individuals in the field, including government officials, think-tank leaders, and academics; and include a keynote speech by a minister or ex-minister.
Despite their high-profile nature, they routinely fall short of expectations. Never been to one? Here’s what to expect.
No new ideas
In South Korea, foreign policy is set by a coterie of presidential advisors and the president’s inner circle. The presidential advisors are part of the foreign policy epistemic community (usually from universities or think-tanks) and the inner circle are close foreign policy confidantes (often enough from industry or from think-tanks, which are in turn funded by industry). Individuals within these two circles have reached a level of career where self-belief, and sometimes arrogance, peaks. Understandably, they are not looking for new ideas. They are looking for support and reassurance - Track-1, Track-1.5, and Track-2 foreign policy conferences in Seoul are a cozy mix of influence-peddling and self-aggrandizement.
Accordingly, presenters are invited for several reasons: They are already in the organizer’s network (and consequently share ideological convictions); present a future opportunity for the organizer; and/or they represent a publicity draw card. This is the reason that every single large-scale government and/or think-tank foreign policy conference in Seoul brings back the same voices (with slight differences between progressive and conservative administrations).
There are a number of usual suspects that end up at every foreign policy conference in Seoul - from CSIS, Brookings, CFR, CEIP, Rand, Hudson, and AEI. Hearing the same people again and again gets nauseating. It’s worse when some of those people have been pushing the same ideas for more than twenty years - the same ideas that didn’t work twenty years ago.
The Korean Peninsula is one of the oldest, stalest, most fetid, entrenched foreign policy problems of the modern era. A war that ended in an armistice more than seventy years ago; a long, long history of border provocations, and failed negotiations; and a black hole of ongoing human rights abuses. Yet, nobody wants to challenge the status quo???
Challenging the status quo is vital for growth, progress and policy. It encourages critical thinking and innovation, allows society to address outdated practices, inefficiencies, and injustices. By questioning established norms, individuals and organizations can uncover new opportunities, solve complex problems, and adapt to changing circumstances. This process leads to the development of better policies, better use of technologies, and improved social systems that more accurately reflect contemporary values and needs. Challenging the status quo fosters a culture of continuous improvement, empowering people to think creatively, push boundaries - and solve entrenched foreign policy problems.
On all Korean Peninsula issues: unification, human rights, North Korea, Korea-US relations, Korea-Japan relations, Korea-China relations, on the strategic environment, and on middle powers and multilateral affairs, the same dead horse is flogged over and over and over again (with slight differences between progressive and conservative administrations).
For presenters, for one reason or another you’re now in - keep saying the same stuff and you’ll be invited back every year.
For attendees, drink LOTS of coffee.
Of course there are exceptions. Keep an eye out for conferences that highlight creativity, innovation, and challenging the status quo in their promotional materials.
Diversity be damned
As demonstrated time and time again, Seoul foreign policy conferences rarely consider diversity in gender, nationality, age or background. The overwhelming majority of presenters and panel participants are either Korean (socioeconomic upper class, educated in the US, with a blend of government and academic experience) or American (white, socioeconomic upper class, with government and think-tank experience). There will be a smattering of Japanese, European, Chinese, Russian, or even Australian, Canadian, or Southeast Asian former ambassadors and/or senior think-tank folk, depending on the topic being covered. Much less often will there be any adequate gender balance or youth representation.
Diversity is important. It fosters innovation, creativity, and problem-solving by bringing together varied perspectives and experiences. It enriches communities and organizations, promotes inclusivity and respect, and leads to a more equitable society. It improves decision-making and productivity, and reflects global expectations. It challenges stereotypes and encourages institutional growth, helps to develop empathy and cultural awareness. It sustains progress and builds resilience.
It’s fair to say, at this stage, attending these large-scale government and/or think-tank foreign policy conference in Seoul can present an organizational and individual reputational risk. When the conference attracts more negative than positive attention because of its glaring failure to consider diversity, organizations and individuals representative of those organizations must consider the impact that being associated with the event has on their reputation.
Sometimes, when you’re new to the game and desperate for a gig, it’s understandable to want to attend. Sometimes, you have to attend, because the sponsors are responsible for keeping you employed. Sometimes, the offer of plush hotel accommodation and free flights to get away from the 9-5 is just too, too tempting and after years of struggle, you can’t resist. Regardless of the reason, it’s incumbent on the invitee to investigate what they are getting into.
For presenters, ask “who else is speaking?” before accepting the invitation and don’t attend if it’s a ‘manel’.
For attendees, drink LOTS of coffee.
Again, there are exceptions. Keep an eye out for conferences that demonstrate geographical diversity in the lineup, maintain gender balance, have a degree of youth representation, give voice to the less privileged, and have at least a few unknown names in the lineup.
No open debate
Don’t expect open debate. Arguably, it’s because confrontational discourse can be seen as disrespectful or disruptive, especially in professional settings. Participants in the field and in the game for long enough, often avoid open disagreement to maintain social harmony and hierarchy, particularly when senior figures are present.
There’s an emphasis on collective agreement and preserving relationships which ends up in scripted discussions rather than spontaneous debate. This tendency is reinforced by societal values that prioritize group cohesion and face-saving, resulting in conferences where true debate is minimized to avoid conflict and preserve decorum.
For presenters, frame arguments constructively and be particularly careful with sensitive topics.
For attendees, drink LOTS of coffee.
Again, there are exceptions. Keep an eye out for conferences that specifically pit contrasting views on the same panel, hold structured debates, or allow town hall ‘call for action’ events.
The fun stuff
There’s a few more recurrent conference features that never get old if (a) you have a light-hearted attitude; (b) are open to the absurdity of life; or (c) want to write a novel. Keep your eyes open for:
Time travelers. Observe carefully, and will enjoy the older, senior presenter who loses track of time. The chair will be afraid to call him out because of his status, and consequently each subsequent speaker will be forced to speed through their notes (and I’m not taking liberties here - see above point on diversity). They usually start the process by reading a Daum translated speech, and their slotted seven minutes of presentation time turns into twenty minutes. Is it time traveling? Not in the traditional Back to the Future sense, but I’m willing to bet the Doc would say keep an open mind.
Dust spoilers. There will be at least one presenter with enough dandruff to gross you out. If you’re an attendee, you’ll notice the fine dust on their suit and occasionally see flakes break off their head. If you’re a dandruff-free presenter and forced to use the same seat, don’t freak out. It won’t kill you. Ask one of the many interns running the show to give the seat a clean. They’ll not like you for it, but they probably won’t be in charge until after you retire.
IR younglings. The IR younglings who attend foreign policy events are common to Seoul as they are to Washington, Tokyo, Moscow, Singapore and Sydney. They are the young university and recently graduated students who dream of getting into government service or the think-tank world. They’ll stalk the big name foreign invitees until pouncing during the coffee break for a selfie. The only difference is the energy, nervousness, and desire to use inane hand gestures in selfies, but then, coming to Seoul, you should already be well aware of this.
The sleepers. Keep an eye on the audience. There’ll always be one or two senior figures who fall asleep. The interns will be too scared to wake them, and not until they start snoring will it come to a head.
Underground geriatric grifter clan. A personal favorite, there’s always a swathe of retired individuals, part of an underground clan that runs a Kakao chat room sharing information about the best conferences, upcoming conferences, and conferences with the best food - and alcohol. Watch carefully, and you’ll see them fill pockets and even bags with food and grog (they bring their own corks). They started a good while ago now, and were actually hired to fill seats when an organizer feared the embarrassment of an empty conference hall. Now with fedoras on heads and canes in hand, they run their own show.
Clearly, the utility of attending these foreign policy conferences in Seoul has diminished over the years. They do not aim to create, debate, or analyze ideas. They’re simply run-of-the-mill influence-peddling and self-aggrandizement. It’s a wonder the same speakers keep coming back. Perhaps, in the end, it is as one long-time presenter told me after a few drinks, “it’s a living, but only just”.