Choice of Smart-Power Dipomacy: Implications for South Korea

[허만]

Choice of the Soft-Power Diplomacy: Implications for South Korea in the AI Age

Professor Emeritus Heo Mane/The Former President of KSCES

Diplomacy has long been an essential instrument for conducting negotiations and managing relations, both among states and among private actors. Since the middle Ages, it has served as an important means of reaching agreements at the individual level and regulating interactions between political entities. Today, diplomacy has evolved into the fundamental art of communication and negotiation among states, as well as among public and private groups. In times of peace, it contributes to the consolidation of stability and cooperation; in times of war, it plays a crucial role in preventing escalation and facilitating the restoration of peace.

Diplomacy can be broadly categorized into several forms. State diplomacy manages a country's official foreign affairs; public diplomacy advances the interests and values of public and private groups through engagement with foreign publics; and personal diplomacy serves the interests of individual rulers, monarchs, or authoritarian leaders. In the age of artificial intelligence, however, the role of diplomacy is undergoing profound change. Traditional diplomatic practices are no longer sufficient in a world that has rapidly moved beyond the digital age into the AI era. The unprecedented speed of information dissemination and the rapid advancement of science and technology have challenged many of the conventional functions of diplomacy.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Professor Harold Nicolson argued that honesty and trustworthiness were the foremost qualities required of diplomats. These virtues remain indispensable for ministers of foreign affairs, ambassadors, and envoys in carrying out their duties, particularly during negotiations with foreign counterparts. Nicolson also identified calmness as another essential quality of the ideal diplomat. A diplomat should be good-tempered or, at the very least, capable of maintaining complete control over personal emotions. In this regard, Nicolson cited the French ambassador to London, Paul Cambon, as one of the most successful diplomats in modern history.

The question, however, is what kind of diplomacy South Korea most needs in the AI age. The contemporary international environment is marked by extraordinary uncertainty. The global order has become increasingly fragmented and multipolar, with no effective center of gravity capable of maintaining stability. In other words, the international community lacks a functioning guardian of order. The United States has often displayed a tendency toward self-interested interventionism. China continues to pursue its vision of the “Chinese Dream.” Russia's actions have demonstrated a willingness to use force for territorial expansion. Meanwhile, NATO has shown reluctance to become involved in the Middle East’s security crises, such as efforts to disable the highly enricehd uranium(HEU) and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Under such circumstances, peace can easily become vulnerable to conflict, recalling aspects of the imperial era.

The temporary cessation of hostilities can be attributed, in part, to the effectiveness of smart-power diplomacy. At the same time, however, the renewed outbreak of conflict also reflects the limitations of that approach. Smart-power diplomacy alone has proven insufficient to secure a lasting peace, as its impact has been constrained by several intervening factors, including the issue of highly enriched uranium (HEU), the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz with transit-fee arrangements, and the continuing clashes involving Israel and Lebanon.

Another critical issue lies in the divergent interpretations of the fourteen provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and its Iranian counterparts. These differences have complicated the implementation of the agreement and undermined mutual confidence.

The United States is therefore expected to exercise smart-power diplomacy more effectively in order to establish a stable balance of power capable of ensuring durable peace and security in the Middle East. Such an approach should involve Iran, Israel, and Lebanon as principal stakeholders in a comprehensive regional security framework.

In recent days, hostilities between the United States and Iran have once again intensified. The renewed confrontation appears to have been driven largely by unresolved disputes over transit fees—reportedly amounting to US$40 million—and disagreements concerning the use of designated maritime navigation routes. Anticipating the possibility of a further escalation, the United States has reportedly begun preparations for a worst-case scenario, including plans for a potential amphibious landing on Iranian territory, the redeployment of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, and the dispatch of a vessel reportedly carrying approximately 1,000 tanks, with hundreds of howizer and the largest quantity of cannonballs. Moreover, on June 25, 2026, President Donald Trump reportedly declared, "Communists have begun to move again. I have been waiting for this moment, and now the game has begun." Therefore, such newest exchanges of fire raised questions abut President Trump's MOU with Iran. So Iran's Foreign Minister accused the US of "treaty breaking."  Accordingly, Iran's Foreign Minister accused the United States of violating its treaty obligations. As a result, both parties must bear equal responsibility for breaching the MOU, thereby eroding an already fragile framework that could otherwise have served as a foundation for lasting peace and regional stability.

IAEA President Rafael Grossi emphasized that Iran's declaration of its willingness to halt the production of HEU is, by itself, insufficient to inspire confidence. He argued that a robust and systematic verification mechanism must be established to ensure full compliance. The nuclear issue has remained a persistent source of instability in the Middle East since the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It continues to be one of the principal drivers of regional insecurity, and the recent U.S. military strike can, at least in part, be attributed to the unresolved nature of this issue.

Given these realities, South Korea should place the highest priority on the development of smart-power diplomacy. Such an approach would enable the country to advance its national interests, including peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, while navigating an increasingly fragile and uncertain international order. Smart-power diplomacy is founded on two complementary pillars: economic, technological, AI, and cultural capabilities on the one hand, and military capabilities on the other. The former generate soft power, while the latter provide hard power. The effective integration of these two dimensions creates a balanced and reliable source of national strength.

Soft power fosters internal resilience, international influence, and long-term sustainability, whereas hard power provides the material capabilities necessary for deterrence and defense. By combining both forms of power, South Korea can pursue a more flexible and autonomous diplomatic strategy, one that is not constrained by digital diplomatic frameworks, historical precedents, or excessive dependence on any single great power. In the AI age, smart-power diplomacy offers the most effective path for safeguarding South Korea's interests and enhancing its role in an increasingly complex global environment.

Two notable examples of Korea's effective use of smart-power diplomacy are the achievements of the diplomat Seo Hui during the Goryeo Dynasty (918–1392) and Syngman Rhee during the mid-twentieth century.

In 993, when the Khitan-led Liao Dynasty (907–1125) launched its first invasion of Goryeo, the Kingdom faced a severe military disadvantage in terms of both troop strength and weaponry. Rather than relying solely on military confrontation, Seo Hui employed exceptional negotiation skills and strategic persuasion. Through diplomatic dialogue with the Khitan commander Xiao Sunning, he successfully prevented further escalation of the conflict and secured Goryeo's right to expand its territory up to the Yalu River, where defensive fortifications and six military garrisons were subsequently established.

A similar example can be found in the leadership of former President Syngman Rhee during and after the Korean War. Long before the establishment of the Republic of Korea, Rhee advocated Korean independence in the United States and Europe, relying largely on diplomatic persuasion rather than military means. Following the Korean War, he skillfully persuaded U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower to commit to Korea's security, culminating in the signing of the Republic of Korea–United States Mutual Defense Treaty in July 1953.

These cases illustrate how Korea successfully leveraged smart power—combining limited hard power with effective diplomacy, persuasion, and strategic statecraft. In both instances, soft power played a more decisive role than military strength, enabling Korean leaders to achieve significant national objectives despite unfavorable power asymmetries.

Smart power diplomacy is inherently linked to public diplomacy. Public diplomacy relies heavily on the activities of non-state actors, including private organizations, civil society groups, and individual citizens. These actors exert influence over broad segments of the public as well as intellectual and professional communities. In many cases, civilian diplomatic organizations, media institutions, business groups, and cultural organizations shape public opinion and can indirectly influence or place pressure on official state diplomacy. A flexible and strategic integration of public diplomacy into broader diplomatic efforts can significantly enhance a country's influence over its counterparts.

When Professor Joseph Nye first introduced the concept of soft power in 1990, the United States possessed an unparalleled reservoir of soft power and exercised considerable influence over international affairs, reinforcing what was often described as Pax Americana. Ironically, however, although the United States pioneered the concept of soft power, it has struggled in recent decades to win the hearts and minds of global audiences. In contrast, China has invested extensively in public diplomacy, cultural outreach, and strategic communication, enabling it to narrow—and in some regions surpass—the United States in the realm of persuasion and influence.

In conclusion, the author presents an insightful anecdote that challenges conventional understandings of power in international relations. As Winston Churchill recounts in The Second World War, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed that the Pope Pius XII be consulted on matters concerning the establishment of the post-war international order. Stalin’s well-known reply—“How many divisions does the Pope have?”—illustrates his deeply materialist conception of power. His reaction suggests a failure to recognize the importance of soft power and diplomatic influence, highlighting a worldview in which military strength constituted the primary, if not the sole, source of political authority. A most suprised scene was then that Stalin asked this question to Roosevelt, with a look of his "frigthened eyes."

Stalin’s remark reveals a fundamentally materialist conception of power, one that overlooks the importance of soft power and diplomatic influence. For South Korea, the key challenge is to build a form of smart power that effectively combines soft power with hard  power, thereby maximizing its deterrence and defense capabilities in the AI age.