It was not long ago when I heard that Kim Jeong-hoon, former president of Bell Labs, had been offered a job in the new South Korean Cabinet. I later learned that he withdrew his candidacy and returned to the United States. After this experience, Kim contributed an article titled “A Return to South Korea, Thwarted by Nationalism” to the Washington Post, in which he advised his fellow Koreans to embrace diversity and use transnational resources to achieve a greater economy.

In this article, Kim also characterized himself as a victim of Korean nationalism, a claim that made headlines in the Korean press. After learning about Kim’s experiences and reading his article, I began to question whether or not Kim was a victim. 

Like Kim, I also emigrated from South Korea to the U.S. to pursue a satisfying career. To say the least, I found his article to be intriguing and painfully exposing with raw emotions and frustrations. To be fair, Kim did a nice job of illustrating the new government’s vision for Korea’s future and highlighted opportunities that depend on innovations in technology.

Kim also wrote, “Change-resistant forces in the political and bureaucratic circles and certain business spheres naturally raised objections to my candidacy, mostly on the basis of my nationality and presumed lack of allegiance.” This, however, smudged his goodwill farewell to his fellow Koreans. In this statement, Kim claims that he was denied the opportunity to serve in the South Korean Cabinet because of his nationality.

Is it true that he could not be offered the job because he was an American? Is it possible that Kim’s nomination would have been approved if he were a Korean citizen? Not necessarily. In fact, his failure should be considered in a broader pattern of multiple unqualified nominees appointed by President Park Geun-hye. Their misconducts or unethical practices in government included evading tax or military service, or securing lucrative employment in the private sector. In light of the poisonous political climate, Kim’s candidacy was exploited only to magnify the disconnect between elites and the Korean public.

Another reason why Kim faced struggles with his candidacy was because President Park’s government-restructuring plan had run into a political deadlock, delaying the parliamentary confirmations of her ministerial nominees.

One of the key initiatives in the president’s proposals was to create the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, and Kim’s nomination became an easy target for political attacks in the opposition party’s ploy to debilitate Park’s operation. For these reasons, Kim’s argument that his nomination fell through in the face of Korean nationalism does not hold much credibility. In essence, Kim’s nomination was unable to overcome the old paradigm of Korea’s divisive domestic politics.

The political smearing Kim reported having experienced in Korea is something every politician (whether it is in the U.S.) is expected to get over. For example, President Obama developed his political grit in the South Side of Chicago, which made its name for brutal political attacks on the opposition and challenging the commitment to service with power. On the other hand, Kim might have been misled to believe that his political career could be much more efficient and stress-free than President Obama’s, and that his success and status in America could transfer to the political power in Seoul without a hitch.

Although Kim fell apart due partly to the opposition research, rumors, and the ruthlessness of Seoul politics, his surprising departure left quite a bitter taste in the mouths of those who supported his candidacy, including President Park.

The Korean public responds to political figures with vision, commitment and perseverance. These three qualities are commonly found in successful politicians in Korea, whether they are liberal or conservative. Kim had his vision supported by President Park who wanted to tap into his talents to materialize her framework of creative economy. However, Kim’s commitment to Korean public service was questioned, and the probing process from the opposition party was ugly. When Kim handled his exit the way he did by claiming that he had been treated unfairly, it shows that he had a lot of room to grow in the area of perseverance.

During the U.S. presidential election, some people criticized President Obama for carrying the middle name, Hussein. Some of the press exploited this fact and challenged his patriotism. People watch how politicians fend for themselves from the negative attacks they receive. This is how Korean people or citizens of any country acknowledge political grit and perseverance in a politician.

Unfortunately, Kim’s first public gesture (when he came back to the United States) was writing to a major U.S. newspaper to seek support from his fellow Americans and make a “bizarre” argument that the Korean nationalism prevented him from serving the country he was born in. I have little doubt that Kim loves both countries of his, South Korea and the United States. He may not realize this, but when he stepped down and needed support, he went to the United States. This is telling. When people get hurt and need support, they look for a safe place to go. That place is their true home.

By Lim Woong

Lim Woong is assistant professor of mathematics education at Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, Georgia. He can be reached at wlim2@kennesaw.edu. ― Ed.