BTS, military enlistment controversy, and lessons for Korea’s public diplomacy

6 December 2022

Members of BTS — a boyband consisting of seven visually attractive and talented pop musicians from South Korea (often referred to as ‘idols’) — have found themselves in a whirlwind of debates regarding their mandatory military service. Conscription is an inherent part of Korean men’s lives, and the same is true for male K-pop idol groups. Military exemption, however, is not unprecedented. The politicisation of Korean popular music is also not novel in the history of the country. But why is the case of BTS controversial? By looking at this question from the perspectives of public diplomacy and soft power, it becomes clear that the excessive public scrutiny of BTS stems from a miscalculation by the Korean government in exploiting and maintaining BTS as a diplomatic tool.

Pathway to a conundrum

With the Republic of Korea still at war with its peninsular counterpart, military service is of great importance but is also a contentious topic. The legislation states that all able-bodied men aged between 18 and 28 must enlist to serve in the military for a minimum of 18 months. In December 2020, just a few days before Kim Seok-jin (aka Jin) — the oldest member of BTS — turned 28, the National Assembly passed an amendment to the Military Service Act. The amendment allows male K-pop stars who have received government medals for their contributions to the country’s reputation to postpone their military service for two years (or until they turn 30). As recipients of the Order of Cultural Merit, BTS members were eligible to apply for this deferment.

Two years later, as the deadline for Jin to serve approached once again, the BTS members were appointed as the honorary ambassadors of the Busan Expo 2030. Shortly thereafter, the government introduced a new proposal for an alternative serving time of only a few weeks for K-pop idols to minimise disruptions in their careers. Although BTS’ management agency has confirmed that the group will fulfil their military service in the next few years regardless of the National Assembly’s decision on the proposal, it is worth noting the consequences of this incident and what lessons to draw for public diplomacy practices.

Exemptions for BTS are worth considering...

In multiple aspects, BTS is the ‘goose laying golden eggs’ for Korea. Economically, the boyband attracted more than seven per cent of all international visitors to South Korea in 2018 and brings around USD 3.6 billion to South Korea annually. Politicians advocating for the Military Service Act amendment reported even more impressive numbers in 2021 when making the case for BTS’ military exemptions. Music-wise, BTS represents the Korean music industry in the global music market by reaching No. 1 on the Billboard 200 in 2018, topping the Billboard Hot 100 with their song “Dynamite” in 2020, and, most remarkably, prolonging their domination on social media by leading the Billboard Social 50 for 210 weeks in 2022. Unlike the ‘Gangnam Style’ craze sweeping across the global music market in 2012, “BTS consolidate the cultural power of Korea and remake K-pop history”.

Miscalculated interventions from the government as in the case of BTS weaken South Korean soft power, social cohesion, and — even worse — personal rights (by instrumentalising humans as public diplomacy tools).

BTS’ popularity and commercial success align with the South Korean government’s public diplomacy goals. Since implementing the Public Diplomacy Act in 2016, Seoul has prioritised communicating its national prestige and image by targeting a global public using a wide range of public diplomacy tools, including educational exchanges, exhibitions, conferences, and cultural products. Against this backdrop, it is plausible for K-pop groups, attractive to fans all over the world, to be promoted at the forefront of South Korean public diplomacy for the sake of visibility.

Among assorted active K-pop idols, BTS has amassed a huge fan base which calls itself ‘ARMY’ and operates with the “exponential power of networks”, forming a role model for effective civic engagement in public diplomacy. Through its work, BTS generates a network of supporters who perceive themselves as sharing and acting upon common values. The most prominent example is the ongoing ‘Love Yourself’ campaign (named after a 2017 BTS song) in collaboration with UNICEF to raise funds for ending violence and generating awareness for self-care via social media.

According to Yoon Sang-hyun, an independent South Korean lawmaker who put forward the military exemption for BTS, “BTS has done a job that would take more than 1,000 diplomats to do” — especially given the volume of and responses to BTS’ civic engagement initiatives. Such statements are not quite as exaggerated as they may seem considering the Moon Jae-in Administration officially recognised BTS as honorary diplomats in 2021. This move alludes to the government’s intention of deploying BTS as a public diplomacy tool across multilateral platforms, including the United Nations. In this sense, putting BTS on hiatus for military enlistment at the height of their career appears to be a short-sighted decision.

...but communicating the reforms needs strategising

All legislative changes, both enacted and proposed, serve to consolidate K-pop in the Korean public diplomacy plan, but basing these revisions primarily on BTS is detrimental. Despite the generally favourable public opinion on BTS’ military service exemption, numerous negative comments, voiced in particular by Korean men, were directed at the group’s members suggesting a sense of discreet dissent. Being enlisted or not, when and for how long, have never been matters under the full control of male K-pop artists, particularly in the case of K-pop bands.

At the top of the decision-making hierarchy is the legislation that compels enlistment within the predetermined age range. Next is the management agency that carefully arranges a conscription schedule for its contracted artists to avoid an extended hiatus or risking disbandment. As Jin explained, such planning is a process of balancing the band’s activities, individual preferences, and conscription deadlines. The government’s communication of military deference and later exemptions lead to the public mainly blaming BTS members for their hesitant attitude toward military service.

This unwarranted criticism of BTS over its member’s military enlistment not only reduces the domestic support for the group as a national public diplomacy tool but also dehumanises the seven artists. The incident raises the often-overlooked question of humanity in using human resources for public diplomacy: are BTS just a mere instrument to be exploited at the government’s disposal?

Military conscription has always been a ‘hot potato’ in South Korea, with which the BTS brand should not be associated. Although military service is perceived as a sacred notion embodying a high sense of patriotism and nationalism, the arbitrary enlistment system prompts divided opinions among Korean men. Exemptions are viewed as undermining the level playing field of a so-called national duty. Historically, exemptions have been granted for high achievers in sports, like soccer player Son Heung-min, and in music, such as pianist Cho Seong-jin, for winning international awards.

This new bill might help to erase the stratification between pop culture artists and others with special achievements. Nevertheless, putting exemptions on BTS now further complicates the fundamental debate on conscription and pushes these idols closer to the status of the privileged who are granted more opportunities than the rest of the population. Such a status goes against all the social values that set BTS apart from the rest of the K-pop industry.

BTS uses folk appeals to engage with audiences, rather than the conventionally manufactured and beautified appearance of K-pop idols, and promotes freedom in music and the autonomy of artists. BTS is known for its ability to connect people, both domestic and international, with universal values, such as authenticity, empathy, and “frientimacy”, through its music and social media presence. When it comes to conscription, however, BTS members are portrayed as not having to follow the social expectation of military service because of their privileged status. BTS as “a special Presidential envoy for future generations and culture” and BTS as a privileged but reluctant servant of the nation cannot co-exist. Such a contradiction is a hard blow to the credibility of the BTS brand.

Government interventions do more harm than good

Miscalculated interventions from the government as in the case of BTS weaken South Korean soft power, social cohesion, and — even worse — personal rights (by instrumentalising humans as public diplomacy tools). Only time will tell if the controversy has severely damaged Korean public diplomacy, but two lessons from the incident should be drawn imminently for future improvement.

First, BTS may have initially emerged without any political intention, but its potential to be a sustainable contributor to Korean public diplomacy relies on credibility and domestic support. The government needs to ensure effective communication with the South Korean public to legitimise the significance of BTS as a political tool, or at least not damage the established bond between BTS and the Korean population. Second, symbols of the national image such as BTS should not be associated with a potentially sensitive social issue like military exemption. Instead, the communication about military exemptions for K-pop artists should focus more on setting appropriate and applicable eligibility requirements for artists instead of singling out BTS and its activities to avoid the impression of exceptionalism.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.

Author biography

Nguyen Le is a PhD candidate at the School of International Studies at the University of Nottingham, Ningbo campus (UNNC). Her research interests include soft power, public diplomacy, and political communication, with China, South Korea, and Vietnam as her focused case studies. Prior to her doctoral study, she earned a MA (Research track) in Global Politics from Aberystwyth University and a BA in International Relations from the University of Nottingham, The UK. Image credit: Wikimedia.