Michelle Steel is about to take up her post as the new U.S. ambassador to South Korea.
She has taken the oath of office, and the South Korean government has already granted its agrément, the host country’s formal consent to an ambassadorial appointment. All that remains is for her to board a flight to Seoul.
Yet an unusual chill appears to be greeting her before she even arrives.
At a time when Steel is preparing to assume one of the most important diplomatic posts in the U.S.-South Korea alliance, a senior lawmaker from South Korea’s ruling party publicly suggested that he would have preferred someone else.
Rep. Song Young-gil of the ruling Democratic Party recently returned from a visit to the United States and posted on Facebook about a book he had read on his flight home. In the middle of the post, he turned unexpectedly to Stephen Biegun, the former U.S. deputy secretary of state and special representative for North Korea during President Donald Trump’s first administration.
Song noted that Biegun is expected to visit South Korea in September and praised his approach to North Korea.
He said he had been impressed by Biegun’s willingness to address the North Korean nuclear issue “not only through the logic of power, but through diplomacy and negotiation.”
Then came the remark that raised eyebrows.
“I strongly wish someone like this had come as the U.S. ambassador to South Korea,” Song wrote.
He went further, arguing that in the future South Korea should exert greater diplomatic and political influence by recommending and discussing in advance ambassadorial candidates whom both governments can trust, rather than repeatedly facing controversy over appointments.
The problem is who made the remark — and when.
Song won the Incheon Yeonsu A by-election last month and returned to the National Assembly after four years away. He is now a six-term lawmaker, making him one of the most senior members of the legislature. He is also considered a prominent contender for the Democratic Party leadership ahead of its August convention.
In other words, one of the ruling party’s most senior lawmakers publicly said he would have preferred a different ambassador after South Korea had already granted agrément and Steel was preparing to assume her post.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the comment was diplomatically inappropriate.
And if Song becomes party leader and one of the public faces of South Korea’s ruling party, who will bear the consequences of such a remark?
Steel’s appointment carries unusual weight
Steel’s arrival in Seoul is not an ordinary ambassadorial appointment.
She is the first U.S. ambassador sent to South Korea during Trump’s second administration.
She will be the second Korean American to serve as U.S. ambassador to South Korea, following Sung Kim, and the first Korean American woman to hold the position.
Born in Seoul, Steel is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives who grew up in South Korea and Japan before immigrating to the United States. She speaks Korean fluently and has spent decades in American politics.
It is rare for Washington to send to Seoul a political figure with that combination of Korean roots, congressional experience and connections within the Republican Party.
Most importantly, Steel is regarded as someone who can communicate directly with Trump.
Her husband, Shawn Steel, is also a longtime Republican power broker. He served as chairman of the California Republican Party and has represented California on the Republican National Committee since 2008.
Few U.S. ambassadors to Seoul arrive with this kind of political network.
Of course, Michelle Steel is going to South Korea to represent the national interests of the United States.
It would be naïve to assume that simply because she is Korean American, she will automatically advocate for South Korea’s interests.
But her background gives her something that cannot be easily replicated: an understanding of Korean culture and sentiment, combined with deep familiarity with the American political system.
That could make her an unusually effective bridge in reducing misunderstandings between Washington and Seoul.
Seoul should use the opportunity
The U.S.-South Korea relationship now extends far beyond traditional security issues.
Trade, investment, advanced technology, visas and North Korea policy are all intertwined.
Issues such as a proposed E-4 specialty occupation visa category for South Korean professionals cannot advance without persuading both Congress and the executive branch.
Having a Korean American former member of Congress serving as ambassador should therefore be viewed by the South Korean government as an opportunity to be used actively, not a political inconvenience to be kept at arm’s length.
Steel has long described herself as a proud Korean American.
Her first responsibility will unquestionably be to advance U.S. interests. But it would be equally unrealistic to pretend that her Korean heritage and familiarity with the country will have no bearing at all on how she understands the relationship.
There is no reason to reject that potential in advance simply because of partisan politics.
Diplomacy is not a venue for declaring personal likes and dislikes.
Whoever Washington sends as ambassador, South Korea’s first question should be how to build a productive relationship with that person and advance its own national interests.
That is particularly important at a time when American politics is more polarized than ever.
South Korea should be expanding channels of communication with both Republicans and Democrats, not narrowing them according to its own domestic political preferences.
Michelle Steel’s appointment is a diplomatic reality for South Korea.
The task is not to resent it or keep her at a distance. It is to turn her appointment into an opportunity to strengthen the U.S.-South Korea alliance and expand Seoul’s diplomatic room to maneuver.
The question South Korean politicians should be asking Steel is not, “Why you?”
It is, “What can we accomplish together?”
