Delays in Ambassador Appointments and Rise in Non-Diplomat Post Heads Spark Concerns
Only a month into this year, international affairs have become increasingly volatile. U.S. President Donald Trump shocked the world by apprehending Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Chinese President Xi Jinping has purged Zhang Youxia, Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission, further consolidating his one-man rule. It is widely anticipated that U.S.-China geopolitical rivalry will become more overt this year.
The situation surrounding South Korea is also far from stable. The recently released U.S. National Defense Strategy (NDS) explicitly states that South Korea must bear responsibility for its conventional defense. U.S. President Donald Trump has escalated pressure by threatening to raise tariffs to 25%, overturning agreements made during his visit to South Korea last year.
Amid this context, Foreign Minister Cho Jung-taek attended the Kwanhun Debate on the 29th of last month — the first time in five years. For one hour and 30 minutes, he discussed major diplomatic issues with panelists. The debate drew significant attention as it followed U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby’s visit to South Korea before Japan, and Trump’s sudden tariff hike remarks. Media naturally focused on tariffs and security. However, from the perspective of someone who planned and moderated the debate, it is also worth revisiting discussions on the Trade Negotiations Headquarters, Foreign Ministry personnel matters, and the relationship with Unification Minister Chung Dong-young.
“It is regrettable that the Trade Negotiations Headquarters separated from the Foreign Ministry”
First, the Trade Negotiations Headquarters issue. Regarding Trump’s provocative proposal of a “25% tariff,” I asked, “In a situation where trade and security are intertwined, isn’t the government’s response system still stuck in a siloed structure?” The Trade Negotiations Headquarters was transferred to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources in 2013 under the Park Geun-hye administration. The question was whether it should be reorganized into a system closely linked with diplomacy or become independent, like the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).
In response, Minister Cho said, “Many Foreign Ministry staff still regret the separation of the Trade Negotiations Headquarters. Many feel that negotiations could have been handled better if trade functions had remained under the Foreign Ministry.” He added, “At the time of the government’s launch, without a transition team, we had to manage negotiations with major countries simultaneously. The current security situation also makes organizational restructuring difficult.”
When asked, “Do you plan to raise the issue of reorganizing the Trade Negotiations Headquarters when the opportunity arises?” he replied, “Of course. I will raise it when conditions are ripe. If it’s a matter that won’t yield results, it’s better not to pursue it.” This was his first statement since taking office last year, indicating that discussions on the transfer of the Trade Negotiations Headquarters may unfold in the future.
In this regard, former Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kwan, current chairman of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, stated in a recent interview with the Chosun Ilbo’s “Editor’s Q” that the Trade Negotiations Headquarters should return to the Foreign Ministry. He argued, “The transfer of trade functions to the industry ministry was a product of an era that emphasized separating politics and economics. Now, security, technology, and supply chains are deeply intertwined. Monitoring key technologies and supply chains using the global diplomatic network is essential, but the current dual system fails to integrate policy outcomes properly. It is desirable for trade functions to return to the Foreign Ministry.”
“I hear there is impatience due to delayed personnel appointments”
The second issue was personnel matters. Park Min-hee, a senior reporter from the Hankyoreh political department and a panelist, pointed out, “Over 40 diplomatic posts remain vacant, and delays in key appointments have dampened the Foreign Ministry’s atmosphere.” She asked, “In a time of extreme global disorder, the Foreign Ministry has much to do. Why are appointments delayed, and what plans do you have to swiftly appoint ambassadors and senior officials to appropriate positions?” This was a critique of the Lee Jae Myung government’s mass recall of special envoys appointed by former President Yoon Suk-yeol immediately after its inauguration in June last year, leaving nearly a quarter of global posts vacant for over half a year.
Minister Cho responded, “Rushing appointments often leads to accidents and problems, so we proceeded cautiously. As a result, I’ve heard there is impatience.” He added, “I urge Foreign Ministry staff not to view this negatively. For example, during a recent trip, I visited a post where an acting ambassador had served for months. I told them, ‘This is a great opportunity. Demonstrate your capabilities fully during this period.’ Some even secretly hope to remain in their current roles.”
While Minister Cho generally provided above-average answers during the 90-minute debate, this response was unconvincing. Though he attempted humor to navigate a difficult situation, few found it appropriate.
Diplomatic posts — embassies and consulates — require ambassadors and consuls general to function effectively. Acting ambassadors and consuls general have limitations in acquiring critical information. While posts may operate normally under ordinary circumstances, during crises like the current volatile international climate, ambassadors and consuls general must assume their roles as soon as possible. When asked, “Will ambassadorial appointments be finalized by February?” Minister Cho replied, “It’s difficult to set a deadline, but it will happen soon.” His refusal to give a definitive answer has led to speculation that vacancies in over 40 posts will extend beyond February.
All appointed post heads this year are non-diplomats
There is also growing concern within and outside the Foreign Ministry that the number of special envoys — non-career diplomats — appointed as post heads has increased unprecedentedly. In fact, five post heads appointed this year were all special envoys. No career diplomats were appointed as ambassadors or consuls general this year.
On January 16, Park In-ho, former Air Force Chief of Staff, was appointed ambassador to Israel, and Kim Sung-min, former professor emeritus of philosophy at Konkuk University, became consul general to Shenyang. On January 29, Kang Shin-chul, former deputy commander of the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command, was named ambassador to Saudi Arabia; Jang Ha-yeon, former head of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, to Timor-Leste; and Jeong Jeong-tae, a lawyer at the law firm Jipyong, to Ho Chi Minh City.
While the special envoy system itself is not problematic, appointing only external figures in two rounds of post head appointments is unusual. The Foreign Ministry’s press releases emphasize each appointee’s expertise: military personnel to Israel and Saudi Arabia to strengthen security and defense cooperation, and legal and consular experts to Southeast Asian posts to enhance citizen protection and economic collaboration.
However, critics inside and outside the diplomatic community argue that appointing military, police, academic, and legal figures to key posts prioritizes political and symbolic considerations over diplomatic expertise amid a chaotic international landscape. Placing individuals without experience in managing diplomatic issues weakens the Foreign Ministry’s professionalism, they say. Deeper concerns suggest the current administration lacks trust in diplomats. High-ranking diplomats with decades of field experience are being excluded from ambassadorial candidate pools, fueling anxiety.
Regarding the Foreign Ministry’s recent atmosphere surrounding personnel issues, Park Min-hee’s description of it as “dampened” was a restrained expression. Traditionally, capable diplomats who served as deputy ministers, global multilateral affairs coordinators, and bureau chiefs at headquarters were appointed as ambassadors to major posts, playing pivotal roles in South Korea’s diplomacy. However, under the Lee Jae Myung government, appointments are delayed compared to previous administrations, and rumors of mass “parachute” appointments of special envoys have left even senior diplomats uneasy. Journalists covering diplomacy question the logic of not utilizing experienced diplomats while emphasizing the importance of diplomacy.
“After strongly expressing dissent, I always explain the reasoning in person”
The debate also touched on Minister Cho’s relationship with Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, his senior by five years at their high school. When asked, “Does your personal connection as high school seniors cause you to overly respect the Unification Ministry’s stance?” Minister Cho deflected, “Some even say I’m trying to cut personal ties.” He emphasized, “Even after strongly voicing dissent in meetings, I always explain the reasoning in person. While interagency disagreements are natural, they do not escalate into government conflicts.”
On the “independence vs. alliance” debate, Minister Cho stated, “The media coined those terms. ‘Realist’ or ‘pragmatic diplomacy’ are more accurate.” He also mentioned explaining and securing support from former unification ministers who criticized the Foreign Ministry. While some argue the Unification Ministry’s voice overshadows the Foreign Ministry under the Lee Jae Myung government, Minister Cho refuted this. Many hope the two ministries’ relationship will proceed as he described during the debate.
