Earlier this week, South Korea’s president Yoon Suk-yeul completed his visit to the United States which commemorated seventy years of the alliance between the two countries.  This marks the fifth visit and second summit between the two presidents in the last year since Yoon’s election in 2022.  Under Yoon’s presidency, South Korean foreign policy has appeared to focus more on nurturing its relationship with the U.S., as opposed to its neighbour on the Korean peninsula.  During the campaign for the 2022 presidential elections, then-candidate Yoon told reporters that “there is no other option to block a nuclear attack at the moment except through a pre-emptive strike with the Kill-Chain.”

This statement made it clear that within South Korea, society is becoming increasingly polarised, particularly regarding foreign policy towards North Korea. The presidential election further exacerbated this polarisation. Studies from the Korean Economic Institute of America have warned about the increasing elite polarisation between the “Together Democratic Party” (DPK) and the conservative People Power Party (PPP), the two major parties in South Korea.  While foreign policy can be a divisive issue in any country, the South Korean public is required to pay close attention to its international relations, as it directly affects their livelihoods and safety.

Certainly, when it comes to President Yoon’s foreign policy strategy, the South Korean public are divided.  His comments about making pre-emptive strikes against North Korean missile tests were well received by conservative voters, while angering those on the left.  Academic critics might consider these divisive comments as dangerous, having the potential to incite violence.  However, his presidency so far has appeared to focus more on foreign policy with the U.S., as evidenced by the number of meetings with President Biden in the last year.

What does this polarisation mean for the future of South Korean foreign policy?  One of the potential scenarios is the elimination of audience costs.  Audience costs, a concept first introduced by James Fearon, is the public backlash that occurs after a political leader “backs down” after having made a show of force.  The backlash, which can be both domestic and international, occurs because the leader in question has lost credibility and proven themselves to be inconsistent.  However, in a polarised society, audience costs may not exist because supporters of the political leader will be inclined to view all their actions as favourable.

The lack of audience costs could have negative or positive implications for South Korean foreign affairs.  On one hand, President Yoon’s promises of pre-emptive strikes will be perceived as empty threats by Kim Jong Un, who could attempt to test the resolve of the new South Korean president.  On the other hand, this could present itself as an opportunity for South Korea to experiment with new foreign policy strategies.  The Yoon administration has already shown itself to be more flexible regarding its international relations, particularly in the strengthening of South Korean-U.S. relations.

Although the future of South Korean foreign policy is uncertain, the first year of Yoon’s presidency can be viewed optimistically, as he explores diplomatic means to escape the current stalemate between South Korea and its hostile neighbour.