South Korea’s ambassadorial appointments and dwindling diplomatic effectiveness
Domestic political polarization and global competition means South Korea can no longer rely on unqualified political appointees.
South Korea follows the U.S. tradition with each presidential administration appointing its own ambassadors to key posts. This means that political allies, donors, or campaign supporters will take key ambassadorial roles. The rationale is that the receiving state has better direct access to the presidential administration. This has proven true in specific historical circumstances.
However, this practice is now rooted in political expediency, and is becoming increasingly problematic. Two factors are working against the practice: (1) political professionalization and polarization has weakened the candidate pool and appointments no longer reflect qualities that puts them above career diplomats - or any other government officer; and (2) as the global order shifts and South Korea strives to enhance to take a more prominent place on the international stage, the country needs more competent, professional diplomats.
Political professionalization and polarization makes poor diplomats
As South Korea's political landscape becomes more divided, the appointment of ambassadors has increasingly reflected political loyalty rather than merit. Governments have prioritized personal connections, often filling critical diplomatic posts with trusted political insiders, key allies, supporters or funders, many of whom lack relevant foreign policy experience and are unwilling to learn. This tendency is particularly harmful at a time when global diplomacy demands nuanced expertise.
Ambassadors who are perceived as partisan figures do not in themselves undermine diplomatic interaction. Indeed, a partisan ambassadorial appointment, if they have the ear of the president and are capable, can be an excellent appointment. However, once abroad, an appointed ambassador must let go of their ideological and partisan positions in order to pursue the national interest. Many recent presidential appointments have failed to do this. They effectively become “presidential representatives” rather than “ambassadors”. They seek to promote and strengthen the administration, the party, and the president’s political position, rather than the country. Often, with their eye on their own political or professional career, they are more interested in building contacts that serve personal or party interests. This wrecks South Korea's credibility abroad.
Foreign governments may hesitate to engage meaningfully with such appointees, fearing they represent only narrow political agendas rather than South Korea's broader national interests. In contrast, professional diplomats—trained to operate under any administration—offer continuity and impartiality, promoting stable relationships with partner nations regardless of domestic political changes.
South Korea’s diplomatic effectiveness depends on appointing individuals based on their knowledge and experience, not political allegiance. Relying on political appointees risks high-profile diplomatic missteps, particularly as global challenges demand specialized expertise that cannot be learned on the job.
Political ambassadorial appointments are often driven by personal connections or rewards for financial and political support. This has led to influential figures, including business leaders and former politicians, being given prestigious ambassadorial roles in key countries. While some political appointees have performed adequately, many have treated these positions as ceremonial roles, lacking the necessary focus on diplomacy’s strategic responsibilities.
Nepotism within ambassadorial appointments also discourages talented career diplomats who have dedicated years to mastering the complexities of international relations. It also weakens South Korea’s global image, sending the message that diplomatic roles can be granted as favors rather than based on skill and experience.
Other nations—particularly China, Japan, the U.K, Singapore, and the European Union—are strengthening their diplomatic networks by promoting experienced professionals. If South Korea continues to favor politically connected appointees over career diplomats, it risks being outpaced by nations that treat diplomacy as a serious, strategic endeavor rather than a political reward.
It is important to recognize that South Korea is NOT America. It is not the leading state in the world that every other state must (put up with) deal with. Other states accept U.S. politically appointed diplomats because they must. South Korea’s political appointments simply means that other states will be less inclined to interact, and at worst, forced to put the relationship on hold and await a more competent ambassador.
The need for better diplomats
In the current multipolar world, diplomacy is more complex than ever. Regional powers such as China, India, and the European Union are asserting influence, and South Korea must navigate evolving alliances, geopolitical tensions, and regional rivalries. Diplomatic effectiveness in this environment requires expertise, cultural understanding, and negotiation skills—qualities that career diplomats bring to the table.
Political appointees, lacking these specialized skills, often struggle to manage complex relationships or adapt quickly to changing international dynamics. Every diplomatic misstep carries significant risks, potentially weakening South Korea’s strategic interests and ceding influence to rival nations.
South Korea needs ambassadors with deep regional knowledge, language proficiency, and institutional memory—attributes career diplomats can possess after years of service. Inexperienced political appointees, by contrast, can jeopardize relationships that are essential for maintaining regional stability and promoting South Korea’s global standing.
One of the most significant drawbacks of political ambassadorial appointments is the lack of continuity they create in South Korea’s diplomacy. Political appointees, serving only for the term of the administration that appointed them, are either replaced mid-term to pass on another favor, or replaced as the administration winds down. This disrupts relationships with foreign counterparts, complicating long-term diplomatic efforts.
Such discontinuity erodes trust among allies and partners, who may question whether tacit understandings made with one administration will remain valid under the next. In contrast, career diplomats provide stability and consistency, representing South Korea's interests regardless of which political party is in power.
Long-term diplomatic efforts, such as trade agreements, climate cooperation, and regional security partnerships, require sustained engagement. Career diplomats—unencumbered by short-term political agendas—are better positioned to manage these complex relationships over time, ensuring that South Korea remains a reliable and trusted partner on the global stage.
Over recent years we’ve seen many needless diplomatic gaffes. Hot mic whoopsies, cable leaks, ethics violations, protocol blunders, prosecution parachute appointment fiascos, and diplomatic mismanagement. Many of these gaffes derive from inadequate training (KNDA), inadequate training of political appointees (KNDA/MOFA/Presidential Office), or just the poor choice of diplomatic appointee (Presidential Office).
A return to career diplomat ambassadors?
South Korea must recognize that the practice of political ambassadorial appointments no longer aligns with the demands of today’s global environment. Leading nations are investing in professional diplomatic networks, emphasizing expertise and continuity. If South Korea hopes to remain competitive, it must follow suit.
Transitioning to a system that prioritizes career diplomats over political appointees would demonstrate a commitment to professionalism in foreign policy. It would send a clear message to the international community: that South Korea is serious about diplomacy and focused on advancing national interests rather than political agendas.
A more professional diplomatic corps would also boost morale among South Korea’s foreign service officers, ensuring that their expertise is recognized and valued. By prioritizing competence and experience, South Korea would be better equipped to navigate complex challenges and strengthen its influence in the global arena (and here lies another major problem - the Korea National Diplomatic Academy - KNDA - needs to be reformed to strengthen diplomatic education and training).
The tradition of political ambassadorial appointments in South Korea must come to an end. As domestic political polarization intensifies and global competition increases, the nation can no longer afford to rely on unqualified political appointees for critical diplomatic roles. Nepotism and partisanship have weakened South Korea’s diplomatic effectiveness, while the demands of a multipolar world require greater professionalism and continuity than ever before.
By shifting away from political appointments and embracing a merit-based system, South Korea can strengthen its diplomatic standing and ensure that its interests are effectively represented abroad. Career diplomats, with their expertise and long-term vision, are essential for maintaining stable international relationships and advancing South Korea’s strategic goals. Ending political ambassadorial appointments is not just an administrative reform—it is a necessary step toward safeguarding South Korea’s global credibility and influence in an increasingly competitive world.