The missing voice in South Korea’s foreign policy - youth

The absence of adequate youth representation in South Korea’s foreign policy means that future changes in foreign policy will be more abrupt.

While traditionally dominated by seasoned diplomats, politicians, and academics, the foreign policy landscape is evolving. In an increasingly interconnected world, the voices of young people are more important than ever in shaping the direction of foreign policy. Youth inclusion is not just just beneficial but also essential for creating effective, forward-thinking, and sustainable foreign policy. Here’s the scorecard on Korea’s foreign policy youth inclusion?

Why foreign policy youth inclusion?

There’s a number of studies that demonstrate the importance of including a youth voice in foreign policy decision-making. They discuss four broad interconnected rationales: technology; youth activism; government legitimacy; and sustainability. 

Young people are digital natives, accustomed to accessing vast amounts of information, connecting across borders, and importantly - advocating for social causes online. Policymakers can gain insights into how these global shifts are perceived by younger populations and can craft policies that are more aligned with the realities of the modern world. 

Young people are agents of change. Across the globe, youth-led movements have shown their capacity to influence political agendas and bring about significant societal changes. From the Arab Spring to climate strikes, it’s evident that youth can mobilize, advocate, and drive change on a global scale. Incorporating youth into foreign policy processes taps into this energy and activism. It empowers young people to take ownership of the policies that will shape their future, fostering a sense of responsibility and commitment to the international community. 

Young people’s trust in government has decreased and there is a growing disconnect between the government and the younger population. This leads to disillusionment and apathy. Including youth in foreign policy can help bridge this gap. When young people see that their voices are heard and valued, it fosters trust in governmental institutions and the political process. 

Finally, today’s young people are tomorrow’s leaders, and by giving them a seat at the table now, we prepare them to take on leadership roles in the future. This early involvement provides invaluable experience in diplomacy, negotiation, and international relations, ensuring that the next generation of leaders is well-equipped to navigate the complexities of global politics.

Youth and South Korea’s foreign policy

To outsiders, there appears to be more than enough youth participation in foreign policy in South Korea. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) runs social media campaigns on major platforms that promote programs for youth aspiring to enter the field, to promote programs that inform youth about MOFA’s work, including at the UN and UN programs. MOFA also engages youth participation in public diplomacy with bilateral youth engagement programs, such as the Korea-ASEAN youth camp or the Korea-Japan Youth Exchange programs, and with the “KOREAZ”, digital public diplomacy social media channel run by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X. 

However, there’s another layer under this shiny coat. Students criticize the current approach, arguing that it is pointless, unidirectional, surface level engagement. They argue that their participation serves MOFA’s interest rather than their own. And quite often, students feel as if they were treated as ‘tools’ rather than ‘constituents’. Students criticize the fact that there is actually no channel to voice their opinions on South Korea’s foreign policy - except through political protest. 

Youth in South Korea face a variety of pressing issues that are shaping their perspectives and actions. These concerns are central to their lives and are influencing their attitudes, aspirations, and involvement in social and political life. It also has an impact on their representation in South Korea’s foreign policy. 

• Employment and job security. There’s a high rate of youth unemployment with many young people struggling to find stable and well-paying jobs after graduation, leading to frustration and anxiety about their futures. Even when employed, many young South Koreans face precarious work conditions, such as temporary or part-time contracts, which offer little job security or benefits. This means that engagement in MOFA and think-tank foreign policy programs are not about expressing their opinions or having their voice heard, but more about checking the box on their resume and building networks.

• Education pressure. South Korea's highly competitive education system places immense pressure on students to perform well in school and secure admission to top universities. This has led to high levels of stress, mental health issues, and a culture of intense competition. This means that youth participation is highest and most passionate well before students start high school, while at university level it is limited and career-oriented. Further, there are distinct expectations that silo students into programs within their field, meaning the only people participating in MOFA programs are already studying politics or international relations. Rather than a youth voice, this is a “MOFA-ready” youth voice.

• Social inequality. There is growing concern about widening economic disparities in South Korea, with young people from lower-income backgrounds and non-metropolitan areas facing greater challenges in accessing quality education and job opportunities. Combining the above two, the cost of education and the need to secure employment prevents young people from lower-income backgrounds and non-metropolitan areas from participating in MOFA programs. 

• Gender inequality. Gender inequality remains a significant issue, with young women facing discrimination in the workplace, including wage gaps, glass ceilings, and expectations related to family responsibilities; and young men feeling burdened by responsibilities of a society that still expects them to do military service and provide for a family. While there is today roughly equal representation in cadet intakes at the Korea National Diplomatic Academy (KNDA), the higher levels of MOFA do not demonstrate a gender balance. Females are often pushed towards development, human rights, and public diplomacy roles, while males tend towards security, politics and economics roles. Add to this the overwhelming and often uncontested gender imbalances in international relations academic departments, conferences, and news programs, and the image of foreign policy as a vocation for half the population substantially declines.

For most youth, foreign policy just doesn’t rank as important because they have no way to influence it. This means foreign policies are less legitimate and less effective, and less likely to gain broader public support or be sustainable in the long term. This points to a significant challenge that also impacts South Korea’s diplomatic partners.

The absence of adequate youth representation in South Korea’s foreign policy means that changes in foreign policy are more abrupt. As politicians seek to secure the wavering (and largely dissatisfied) youth vote, there’s a temptation to adopt more populist positions. Over the past decade across both progressive and conservative administrations, this has seen South Korea step back from global trends in gender mainstreaming, human rights, and nuclear non-proliferation. Arguably, these abrupt changes will increase with youth holding significantly different positions from older generations on issues, such as Korea-Japan, Korea-China, and Korea-US relations. 

The inclusion of youth in foreign policy is not merely a symbolic gesture; it is a strategic imperative. Young people bring fresh perspectives, drive change, and help build trust in governmental institutions. For bilateral partners, understanding how South Korea’s youth view the world could provide valuable insight into a country where foreign policy decision-making is dynamic, highly concentrated, and contained within single five-year presidential terms.