The semiotics of diplomacy and foreign policy in South Korea

In the Korean language, "diplomacy" and "foreign policy" are translated as a single term. Does this influence how the country deals with the world?

In international relations, the terms “foreign policy” and “diplomacy” refer to two processes. The former relates to the political act of setting national priorities and agendas, while the latter relates to the bureaucratic act of putting in place those priorities and agendas.

While these terms are often used interchangeably (particularly in America), they refer to distinct processes.

Foreign policy refers to a government's strategy in dealing with other nations, outlining its goals and principles in international relations. It encompasses decisions on trade, defense, and international agreements.

Diplomacy, on the other hand, is the practice of managing these relationships through negotiation and dialogue. It involves diplomats and officials engaging with foreign counterparts to resolve conflicts, build alliances, and promote mutual interests.

Essentially, foreign policy sets the objectives, while diplomacy is the method used to achieve those objectives. Both are essential for maintaining a country's standing and influence in the global arena.

In the Korean language, these two distinct terms translate as a single term oegyo (외교).

Inevitably, this leaves a degree of confusion.Oegyo-bu (외교부) is the foreign ministry; butoegyo-won (외교원), which is part of the oegyo-bu (외교부), is the diplomatic academy. It gets more difficult with translation. The decision to translate any one instance of use as “foreign policy” or “diplomacy” will have an impact. An institute, whose name in Korean is oegyo yeonguso (외교연구소) could choose a title as “Institute of Foreign Affairs” or “Institute of Diplomacy”. Each would imply substantially different focus, and would attract significantly different students, researchers and academics.

Now, while this can be confusing for foreign language learners, it also has a deeper semiotic significance. In the Korean language there is no distinct differentiation between the two. Differentiation requires modifiers or context.

Using modifiers, foreign policy becomes oegyo jeongchaek (외교 정책) and diplomacy must be translated as oegyo gwanhaeng (외교 관행). Modifiers can specify but add another layer, which is not routinely used.

Using context, language users must convey meaning through surrounding words (linguistic context), specific topics (situational context), shared understanding (cultural context, like two diplomats unknown to each other discussing methods for a process), shared understanding (interpersonal context, like two close colleagues talking about work), or previous similar conversations (historical context).

However, adding layers of meaning to a word to aid speaker intent and reduce ambiguity also brings nuance. It brings an underlay that structures thought.

This leads to a question, does the merging of "diplomacy" and "foreign policy" into a single term in Korean influence how South Korea deals with the outside world?

YES! There are three distinct issues that I consider to be a direct result of this semiotic conundrum.

1. Korea lost much of its diplomatic tradition (epistemicide) as it transitioned into Western diplomatic practice but still carries these approaches in cultural norms, which in turn constrains its diplomatic practice.

2. Diplomatic studies (a practice oriented academic discipline) doesn’t exist! There are no schools and no scholars that focus on diplomatic practice in South Korea. The closest we get is in the field of public diplomacy, which is itself a distinct subfield of international relations often thought of as totally seperate to diplomatic studies.

3. The Korean National Diplomatic Academy (KNDA) doesn’t think about diplomacy! The KNDA never explores diplomaric studies. It is a centre of intense, competitive struggle for students, and a slow, stifling bureaucratic swamp for faculty. There is no innovation, no consideration and no thought put into diplomatic processes, behaviors, and meanings. On its website and in its practice, it overwhelmingly focuses on foreign policy.

This ambiguity results in situations where diplomatic approaches lack comprehensive foreign policy understanding or, conversely, situations where policy-driven actions neglect the diplomatic finesse. I’ll be writing on these issues seperately in future posts.