Come to Seoul for the World Knowledge Forum!

The 26th World Knowledge Forum was held in Seoul from 9-11 September. Let’s call it the WKF. The WKF is an annual event on Seoul’s conference schedule. In fact, I’m underplaying it. It’s a prime event. If you know the Seoul conference circuit, you know the quality of this designation.

George W. Bush, Nicolas Sarkozy, Therea May, Bill Gates, John Hennessy, Larry Ellison, and George Soros - virtually every target of an Alex Jones conspiracy alert - has spoken there. And this year, it was Justin Trudeau’s turn.

The 23rd Prime Minister of Canada and Liberal Party leader who was dumped as the world around him changed, fittingly spoke on “Leadership and Resilience in a Time of Transition”. I didn’t watch it as I’m not a sadomasochist, but it was probably less on leadership in his corruption riddled government, and more on resilience cos that speaker’s circuit payment would’ve really complemented his parliamentary and ministerial retirement benefits.

You’d think someone at the WKF would ask the question: “Why are we having a privileged ponce who fell into the prime ministership talk about leadership and resilience?” Nobody asked.

So, I guess it was down to the panels to bring up the vibe. Now, I wasn’t invited and couldn’t afford the $2000 registration fee, but some of the videos are on YouTube, so let’s take a look at what I thought was a promising panel: Surviving Great Power Turmoil in Northeast Asia. Unfortunately, in the end, it said more about Korea than great power turmoil.

“Surviving Great Power Turmoil in Northeast Asia”, was hosted by former South Korean Ambassador to the U.S., Ahn Hoyoung; and included three speakers: Andrew Kim, a former Assistant Director and head of the Koreas Desk at the CIA; Michael Reiterer, Former EU Ambassador to South Korea; and Suzuki Kazuto, a professor at the University of Tokyo.

The first thing to note is the speakers themselves. With all due respect, the choice of speakers to discuss surviving great power turmoil in Northeast Asia could probably have been better - and this says a lot about Korea rather than the speakers themselves.

The format consisted of four retired or near-retired men. Each with a resume and a professional standing that lets them pass the Korean respectability register at the 9.5/10 level. Now this is often a problem at South Korea’s conferences. Speakers are chosen so that on paper, they make the organizer shine. It’s all about respectability and showing off.

I’ve asked around about this. The selection of speakers often follows an order: (1) friend of the organizer; (2) colleague of the organizer who invited the organizer to a previous conference in their country; (3) prestigious title; and (4) local availability - so that the first three can be paid.

Needless to say, speakers are not chosen for their knowledge, their reputation as being unorthodox and provocative, their oratory flourish, and definitely not for their willingness to criticize. Know a mumbling, stumbling f%$K from Yale, Harvard, or Princeton? Put him on a panel because that makes us look good (and I say him because for some reason it always is).

The biggest problem about this approach is that international relations dies of boredom on the stage.

Four very distinguished, well-dressed, highly presentable dignitaries with hardly a word to challenge convention or criticize the failures that brought us to the current situation. This was ‘milk and bread’ boring, or shall we say ‘kimchi and rice’ run-of-the-mill?

I swear, even the presenters looked bored. Can’t somebody give them a coffee - in fact when you get to that stage of your career, you may need an Irish Coffee to get really riled up. Very, very, very Irish.

The question of the panel was “How can we survive amid the law-of-the-jungle dynamics shaping Northeast Asia?”. In response, we got monologues on Europe; waffle about Kim, Xi, and Putin; and some carefully crafted words to avoid giving out too much information - all interspersed by inane roundabout questions. Now, yes this sounds overly critical, but look at the cuts to the audience - they’re half-asleep.

When you have speakers who are so embedded in the system, you’re really not going to get any insight or ideas about the real problems we face.

With all due respect, our esteemed former ambassador of Europe railed on about the challenges of China and Russia, and reverted back to his tenure talking points (something many ex-ambassadors tend to do) on how Korea must position itself firmly on one side. States must be part of a “coalition of the willing” to help reform and strengthen the existing order. I can imagine a few South Koreans in the audience smirking. There’s a certain degree of arrogance in handing out advice when you’ve been part of a system that has led to an inexorable decline.

Now it would be unfair of me to be critical and not offer any advice. Well, organizers of future conferences - spice it up a bit!!!

• Get speakers known for their unorthodoxy. All those start-up sponsors and industry execs in the audience want to hear what is really happening, not the sludgy talking points of ten years ago.
• Change the format. Four dignified suited men on a stage looking bored as f%&K? Change it to a debate; a townhall with audience participation; use tech with questions being shot off over the backdrop; use lights that excite rather than dull and calm. Push for passion and emotion, so that speakers can speak off the cuff and from the heart.
• Let the light shine in. Now I’m not often considered to be woke or even vaguely less than a grumpy old anti-social recluse, but FFS - get some diversity!!! We want youth, socio-economic, gender, and national diversity when talking about the future. To talk about “surviving” great power turmoil you line up three great powers and a sycophantic supplicant? Why not get in someone from a state that can argue back? Why not someone from a relevant middle power or non-state actor? I mean the topic is Northeast Asia… Pardon the French, but WTF is Europe doing there?

Regardless of my insignificant and overly cynical views, everyone put their hands together at the end. They probably knew that they could get a breath of fresh air and a coffee (did I mention my cynicism?).

Next post, we’ll take a look at what Henry Hagard, John Mearsheimer and Robin Niblett have to say about “the Future of the Global Geoeconomic Order”. It reminds me of a joke: An international relations professor, a think-tanker, and a diplomat walk into an economics bar. They turn around and walk out.