I have written articles about multiculturalism, and have received variations of the following question from several readers. They asked, ''Governments in advanced countries, such as Germany and France, have declared that multiculturalism is a failure. Then, why do the Korean government and media still believe in what is arguably a problematic policy?

In Korea, the concept of multiculturalism has a different meaning from that in Europe. Even before there was a public discussion and debate about what multiculturalism is, and whether Korean society should officially adopt it or not, the government included the term in its laws and policies. Yet, the government was cognizant of what may be a prevalent misconception of some Koreans, who erroneously regard multiculturalism as a policy that provides benefits for foreigners, presumably at the expense of Koreans.
Some Koreans are apathetic and even voice their antipathy against multiculturalism. I suspect this may have originated from an inadequate knowledge and understanding of the term, ''multiculturalism." Whenever I think about this, I feel sorry that the Korean media never adequately discussed multiculturalism in the public arena.

For these aforementioned reasons, I welcomed the Fifth Korea Foundation Global Seminar, which was held at Mayfield Hotel in Seoul from November 29 to December 3; the theme was, "Challenges of Multicultural World and Global Approaches to Coexistence: Realities, Visions and Actions." At the Seminar, scholars, government workers, activists, and journalists from various countries got together and engaged in lively discussions and debates on what multiculturalism is and whether this idea is still the best viable policy.

In particular; two pro and con presentations were very interesting to me; that is, Professor Will Kymlicka from Canada, supports multiculturalism, and Professor Christian Joppke from Switzerland, is against it.
Professor Joppke argued that multiculturalism, at first glance, may look like a policy to prevent discrimination and engender respect for diversity but antidiscrimination and multiculturalism are different ideas. In general, he believes that multiculturalism celebrates difference and diversity.
At the Seminar, Professor Joppke also stated what he thought should be done in the future; he said, "We have to select good immigrants." He argued that Canada's multiculturalism is succeeding because they are selective in allowing only certain kinds of immigrants. This latter remark by Professor Joppke triggered many questions from the audience during the question and answer session. The Q&A session was very interesting because many participants at the Seminar have a background experience of immigration. For example, these participants included Korean-Americans, who went to the United States when they were young, Germans with Korean mothers or fathers, and Korean-Swedes, who were adopted by the Swedish. The discussions about multiculturalism and immigration issues were not only because they were experts in this field but also because they had personal experiences of it.

Throughout the Seminar, the term, ''citizen integration" was frequently mentioned but this concept is relatively new in Korea. Many Western countries emphasize ''citizen integration," thus going beyond the discussion on guaranteeing diversity and human rights for immigrants. This concept calls for immigrants to learn the language, society, and culture of their respective countries in order that they may assimilate and fulfill their duties and responsibilities as citizens.
Opinions differ among scholars as to whether citizen integration and multiculturalism are compatible with each other, but no one at the Seminar ignored citizen integration or found it unnecessary. Scholars and participants from various countries unanimously agreed on the importance of citizen integration; and all these scholars are from countries that have more experience in dealing with immigration than Korea. After hearing their comments I began to think about the direction Korea should take in order for it to advance and become a harmonious society.
Among other things, this Seminar was meaningful in that Korean society took the first step toward how to define multiculturalism and with what philosophy to draw up immigration policies.
In Korea, which has only a relatively recent history of immigration, the government has been so busy solving problems of immigrants that it often viewed the phenomena from a short-sighted perspective and hence made policies accordingly. If Koreans try to discuss multiculturalism only among themselves and solve these problems in an ad hoc trial and error manner, then the underlying causes and systemic problems will remain.
Hence, The KF Global Seminar offered a valuable opportunity to avail ourselves of the experiences and ideas of participants from countries that have a long history of immigration. Based on what was discussed during the Seminar, how Korean society will define multiculturalism and integrate immigrants will be left as a major task for Korean scholars, policy makers, activists, and journalists.

Lee Saem-mul
Staff reporter
Dong-A Ilbo