To begin with, it needs new operational plans. The recent National Assembly debate on pragmatic diplomacy was a farce. If it is to become more than a mere slogan, pragmatic diplomacy needs a practical philosophy. The term “pragmatic diplomacy” is closely related to the ills of the ideological diplomacy pursued in the last decade. It is because we tried to manage 21st-century diplomacy with the dated ideologies of the 20th century that we ended up forsaken by everybody. Lee’s pragmatic reaction is just as likely to flounder on 21st-century reality without a practical philosophy. Ideological diplomacy without practicality is problematic, but so is practical diplomacy without ideology.

If we are to weather the storm of 21st-century diplomatic realities and build an advanced republic, we have to erect a lighthouse of 21st-century ideology. We don't have time to continue with the false dichotomies of the past decade -- independence vs. alliance, rectifying past wrongs vs. the future, Sunshine Policy vs. humanitarian assistance. The office of the senior presidential secretary for foreign affairs and security must be more than just an office. Jumping over bureaucratic inertia, it must be able to map out and push ahead with the philosophy of Lee's pragmatic diplomacy. If the bureaucrat-centered foreign affairs and unification personnel find it innately difficult to map out new visions, they must seek help from expertise available to the state elsewhere. Without that, Korean diplomacy will sink back into the dichotomies of a bygone era.

We must improve our ability to plan and negotiate based on a philosophy befitting the 21st century. This is not an easy task. Measured by modern international political yardsticks of strength and monetary power, our counterparts abroad all pull a bigger punch. Look at Korea-Japan relations. There the same cycle of promising to look to the future and falling back on an adversarial blame game is being repeated. Japan, the first Asian country to join the new world order from a nationalistic standpoint centered on military and economic might, has attained heavyweight status. But its efforts to free itself from the past lag behind those of the U.S. and European countries.

Until Japan graduates from a 19th-century view of modern international politics and properly embraces a 21st-century view, the Dokdo issue, the symbol of the contemporary tragedy in Korea-Japan relations, will keep coming up. We therefore need to work for long-term modernization and post-modernization. That requires a three-dimensional strategy -- domestic, bilateral, and regional-global including the U.S. We have to pay special attention to 21st-century negotiation skills, which largely depend on who arranges more effectively for domestic and international support. And we must tread carefully, since the effort involves changing Japanese hearts and minds as well as persuading the world.

Our diplomatic recovery depends on how effectively we nurture our capabilities. The world is undergoing revolutionary transitions in networking and knowledge application. But our consciousness and institutions have yet to catch up. The Foreign Ministry came into being when we joined the international stage in the latter half of the 19th century. It's high time that the ministry made a general transition to the 21st century in terms of philosophy, organization and budget. We also need a new international college, adapted to Korean realities and transcending old era-style international education, to train manpower for 21st-century diplomacy and trade.

The column was contributed by Ha Young-sun, a professor of international relations at Seoul National University.