Diplomacy is an extension of politics

Lee Hyun-sang
The author is a senior editorial writer of the JoongAng Ilbo.

One day before the summit with President Yoon Suk-yeol, U.S. President Joe Biden officially announced his candidacy for next year’s presidential election. It is natural to question whether the announcement obscured attention away from on his summit with Yoon. John Kirby, National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications, said it would be a period focusing on Yoon’s leadership and Korea’s positive influence on the global stage. His comment suggests that Yoon’s state visit and Biden’s candidacy will be a “win-win.” But it is unclear what comes first — foreign policy or domestic politics.

President Yoon’s seven-day visit was a great political event for Biden. Yoon’s 43-minute speech to the Congress mentioned “freedom” 46 times, “alliance” 27 times, and “democracy” 18 times, emphasizing America’s contribution to the development of Korea. His speech was a tribute to American values. The summit was a valuable opportunity for Biden to show off his success in securing an alliance against China and Russia. Yoon did not mention current economic issues between the two countries, such as the CHIPS and Science Act or the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The IRA and the CHIPS Act are actually among the moves for Biden’s reelection campaign. The New York Times pointed out that during Yoon’s visit, Biden advocated the IRA as his achievement, which angered the Korean people. He must have been thankful to Yoon for not mentioning those issues.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is also enjoying the effects of his summits with Biden and Yoon. His approval rating, which plunged to the 20 percent range earlier this year, has surpassed the 50 percent level in a Nihon Keizai poll. Kishida, who was even nicknamed “the boring man of Nagatacho” (the Japanese political center where the Capitol is located), has a renewed presence today.

Attention is on whether Kishida will make a forward-oriented statement on past issues when he visits Seoul on May 7 for a summit with Yoon. Expectations are high that Kishida will express his willingness to inherit the Kim Dae Jung-Obuchi Joint Declaration, which contained “deep regret” and “sincere apology.” The level of expression remains to be seen.

At the summit with Yoon in March, Kishida only made lukewarm remarks. “I generally inherit the positions of previous Cabinets on historical recognition,” he said. As Kishida lacks solid party ground, he should be conscious of the hardline right wingers in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). Moreover, although the LDP won the by-elections and local elections last month, Kishida must pay heed to the rise of the Japan Innovation Party, which is farther right than the LDP.

President Yoon’s approval rating also went up after the Korea-U.S. summit in April. According to a Realmeter poll, the positive evaluation of his performance of state affairs rose by 1.9 percentage points from a week ago. But the rebound is not strong enough to offset the drop from the controversy over Korea-Japan relations and the dispute over the U.S. intelligence agency’s wiretapping and eavesdropping on Korea. Although diplomatic performance cannot be evaluated by the approval rating alone, Yoon should reflect on why he cannot enjoy the kind of diplomatic effect being enjoyed by the leaders of the U.S. and Japan.

After all, it’s about delicacy. Much of the problem with Yoon stems from his rough rhetoric. I doubt whether his comment at the press conference on May 2 — “What do you want me to do when China does not participate in sanctions against North Korea?” — are really appropriate in diplomatic terms. The aggressive language from a head of state can eliminate the room for “diplomacy of saving faces” that China values. I am not worrying about China saving its face but about the adverse impact on the Korean economy. I am not saying Yoon must please China. I am saying harsh words are not the only way to express national pride. It is enough to have his staff say such words. Diplomacy needs a “good cop, bad cop” strategy.

The purpose of diplomacy is “national interest.” But the concept of national interest may differ. It is naive to think that diplomacy is done by a “single actor,” the state. Diplomacy is a complex process of security, economy, and public opinion embodied through the views of the political leader. If the leader’s perception seems far from the people’s, closing the gap is the first step in diplomacy. It must be explained in refined language so that the national interest in the leader’s mind can be delivered to the general public. Just like war is an extension of diplomacy, diplomacy is an extension of politics.