► On September 20, President Yoon delivered a cautious speech at the 77th United Nations General Assembly. It was long on upholding the UN system and South Korea’s efforts to become the global pivotal state that Yoon envisioned in his essay for Foreign Affairs.

► But Yoon’s speech did little to convince that South Korea was ready for that pressure or to become a global pivotal state. Rather than making difficult choices and using its weight to help pivot the world, he intends for South Korea to stand still and watch the world change around it. 

On September 20, President Yoon delivered a cautious speech at the 77th United Nations General Assembly. It was long on upholding the UN system and South Korea’s efforts to become the global pivotal state that Yoon envisioned in his essay for Foreign Affairs. It was also short: at under 12 minutes it was one of the shortest speeches given that day; short on specifics of how South Korea’s goals would be realized; and even shorter on North Korea. In fact, Yoon never mentioned North Korea at all. While the speech itself will not be long remembered that seems to have been the point. It will not create drama abroad for a president already mired in drama at home, and he will be able to say he went in front of the world and championed South Korea’s technological and cooperation-focused approach—even if only vaguely—to global challenges.

Avoiding North Korea is understandable for a president with a North Korea policy in a holding pattern. The most direct reference to North Korea was to note near the end of his speech that “the very first mission of the United Nations after its founding was to approve the Republic of Korea as the sole legitimate government on the Korean Peninsula”. That will elicit a frosty response from North Korea. But the Yoon administration is likely holding out hope that North Korea will come around to his “audacious” plan. That is unlikely.

North Korea has already registered its thoughts on Yoon’s approach to North Korea. In an August speech from Kim Yo-Jong—Kim Jong Un’s sister—Yoon’s economic initiative was called “absurd” and she correctly noted that his plan was basically a re-hash of Lee Myung-bak’s plan to bring economic aid and investment to North Korea in exchange for progress towards denuclearization. The Yoon administration did not deny the point, calling its plan an “upgrade.”

Of course, Kim Yo-jong’s speech also denounced President Yoon himself, but that hardly makes him unique. North Korea denounces all South Korean presidents at some point. That should not obscure the fact that North Korea’s critique is largely correct. Yoon’s approach to North Korea is a retread of conservative administrations of the past. For some, this only highlights that Yoon is unprepared to think creatively to solve the North Korea problem. But that criticism rings hollow. If the North Korea nuclear problem were easy to solve, it would have been solved decades ago. Moreover, progressive presidents have also failed to fundamentally alter the equation on North Korea.

At the very least, Yoon’s speech at the UN did not serve as an accelerant to foreclose policy options on North Korea, even if North Korea has ruled out the main thrust of that policy.

The remainder of Yoon’s speech focused on not making waves and was a masterclass in using all the right words to say little of substance. There were multiple references to “global challenges” and “global norms” and proposed that the “UN system” was the best way to uphold the latter and to best address the former. But it stood in contrast to speeches throughout the day. World leaders from Colombia, Lithuania, Romania, Guatemala, and others spoke directly and passionately about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, climate change, and energy and food security.

Perhaps the most notable difference in world outlook came from the speech delivered by Japan’s Prime Minister Kishida. While President Yoon warned that deviating from the UN system would “divide the global community into blocs, further compounding the crisis and turmoil” of the world, Kishida called for serious reform of the United Nations and its Security Council. Kishida’s statement, “What is truly needed now is not a discussion for the sake of discussion, but action towards reform.” suggests that there is more than history that keeps the two countries from improving relations. There may be a fundamental divide on their respective prognosis for the direction of the world. While Yoon suggests that the system itself is fine and should be closely adhered too, Kishida seems to be saying that the system is unequipped to handle the current slate of problems and needs to be changed.

Perhaps Yoon’s speech was the vision for South Korea as a global pivotal state. It is a vision that sees South Korea at least rhetorically as a friend to all and an offender of none. It is a comforting vision, but one that seems out of step with the realities of a world that is indeed dividing into blocs and seems to be bee-lining for disaster. That will mean middle powers like South Korea will need to assume greater responsibilities across an array of issues and will face greater pressure from all directions. But Yoon’s speech did little to convince that South Korea was ready for that pressure or to become a global pivotal state. Rather than making difficult choices and using its weight to help pivot the world, he intends for South Korea to stand still and watch the world change around it.