Newsletter

Attempting interdisciplinary research on a global scale

  The Northeast Asian History Foundation held the <2023 NAHF Forum> on August 24-25 at the International Conference Hall of the Korea Press Center with the theme of “The Dawn of the New Cold War Era and Clash of Civilizations”. NAHF stands for the Northeast Asian History Foundation. Today, the international society is witnessing deepening confrontations and conflicts that have weakened since the end of the Cold War. There are negative views regarding the current situation as a ‘New Cold War’, citing the ambiguity of the ideological conflict composition and the presence of nations in the gray zone, such as the BRICS countries. However, it is a reality that continental powers centered around China and Russia conflict with maritime powers centered around the United States. The continental powers are expanding their influence, particularly through China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union, while the United States is responding with its ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy’.

  China and Russia are promoting their own civilization discourses, the Community of Common Destiny for Mankind and Eurasianism, respectively, in order to make their global strategies successful. These civilization discourses are often referred to as ‘imperial discourses’ or ‘global discourses’ because they express their perspectives on how the world should be led in terms of civilization. Both of these civilization discourses assert that Chinese or Russian civilization should lead the world instead of Western civilization. Therefore, they are also referred to as ‘21st-century imperialism’, distinguishing them from the ideological conflicts of the Cold War era.

  President Hu Jintao proposed building a Community of Common Destiny for Mankind in his report to the 18th Party Convention in 2012. Subsequently, building a Community of Common Destiny for Mankind became a key project under President Xi Jinping's administration. The reason Xi Jinping’s government implemented the Community of Common Destiny for Mankind project is to support the Belt and Road Initiative. If the theory of the Community of Common Destiny for Mankind is to support China's global economic project, the Belt and Road Initiative, an understanding of modern international politics should be naturally preceded. Additionally, since there are many similarities between the Community of Common Destiny for Mankind and Eurasianism in terms of objectives and content, it is necessary to examine them.

  Therefore, Panel 1 of the forum examined the international strategies and governance policies of countries such as the United States, China, and Russia. Panel 2 examined China’s Community of Common Destiny for Mankind, while Panel 3 delved into Russia’s Eurasianism and its relevance to international strategies.

Typical academic conferences revolve around specific topics for discussion. However, it is necessary to pursue interdisciplinary research because the civilization projects currently being undertaken by China and Russia are closely related to their respective global strategies. Therefore, the <2023 NAHF Forum> attempted interdisciplinary research on a global scale crossing academic boundaries

Global Experts Discussing World Civilizations

  Once the objectives, directions, and content of the forum were determined, efforts were made to look for the best experts, both domestic and international. However, it was not easy to find experts who could comprehensively discuss the relationship between international politics and civilization theory from a global perspective. We read numerous research papers by scholars from both domestic and international backgrounds and reviewed their suitability for our forum in order to find the best experts. After the speakers were determined, we sent emails to scholars we had never met before, explaining our purpose and requesting their participation in the forum. Scholars who sympathized with our purpose accepted the invitation.

  For this forum, a total of twenty-nine experts from eight countries, including Korea, the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Sweden, participated in presentations and discussions. The overall discussions were moderated by Yoon Youngkwan, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Professor Kim Heungkyu

of Ajou University. Two international politics experts did not limit the discussion merely to civilization theory but anchored it in its relevance to international politics.

  The title of this forum is “The Dawn of the New Cold War Era and Clash of Civilizations”. There is a controversy regarding whether the current situation falls within a new Cold War. This forum was not intended to have a full discussion on that controversy. However, several speakers considered the current international order as a situation where continental powers centered around China and Russia conflict with maritime powers centered around the United States and Japan. “Both the United States and China have shown conflicting visions for the structure of national security in the Asia-Pacific region, with China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the United States’ Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy, but severe vulnerabilities within both countries could constitute a hurdle to their willingness to contribute to the structure of national security in the Indo-Pacific region.” said Timothy R. Heath, a researcher. Professor Andrei Lankov analyzed, “The Sino-Russian alliance has a temporary and opportunistic nature due to its vulnerabilities in many different spheres. After Putin’s reign, Russia is likely to choose the West, and the West is likely to choose Russia in order to isolate China.” In response, some panelists predicted that the close relationship between China and Russia would likely continue, given the expected long tenures of Xi Jinping and Putin. Professor Shin Beomsik said, “Russia is building greater Eurasian solidarity with China, India, Iran, and Turkey, and based on this, promoting the formation of a multi-polar and multi-regional order beyond the liberal international order led by the United States.

  It was apparent from the discussion on China’s Community of Common Destiny for Mankind that China is pursuing a two-track policy both domestically and internationally. Research fellows Lee Dongwook and Woo Sungmin from the Foundation have examined the ways in which the Community of Common Destiny for Mankind discourse is presented in the field of Chinese history and history education. Based on their findings, they stated, “Chinese history is being utilized to glorify and legitimize China’s global strategy, and history education emphasizes that ‘the Community of Common Destiny for Mankind must be realized in order to build new international relations through (Xi Jinping’s socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era).’” Thus, it was observed that the concept of the Community of Common Destiny for Mankind is being utilized within China’s domestic sphere to strengthen the rule of the Communist Party and nationalism.

  However, its external message has conflicting aspects and focuses on promoting a ‘peaceful’ image of China. After comparing the ‘peace’ diplomacy of Mao Zedong and Xi Jinping, the author pointed out, “the Community of Common Destiny for Mankind superficially represents ‘peace’, but its actual content exhibits a clear tendency toward the ‘bloc-ization of values.’” Lee Yoo-pyo, a research fellow from the Foundation analyzed the Chinese film and stated, “the film emphasizes humanism, communal heroism, and global solidarity, which are meant to effectively convey the ideologies of ‘peace’ and ‘coexistence’ inherent to the Community of Common Destiny for Mankind, in order to dispel the China threat theory.” Professor Tim Winter pointed out, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative employs historical narratives and culture to describe a ‘common history’ in order to realize its strategic objectives.” Professor Lee Wong-hwi predicted, “China’s global governance strategy would face challenges in gaining worldwide acceptance due to its Chinese exceptionalism lacking universality.

  As the international environment evolved, Russia’s Eurasianism was also undergoing an expansion in concept and a transformation in its role. Professor Lee Moon-young said, “The appeal of imperial discourse in Russia to the Russian people is related to collective traumas, such as the country’s descent into second-class status and severe economic difficulties since the regime transition. Thus, the imperial discourse is reproduced in the memory circuits of the politics despite the shared perception that the Soviet Union’s resurrection is impossible.” Professor Mark Bassin stated, “Since the Russo-Ukrainian War, a new spatial or geographical imagination of Russia, Greater Eurasianism, has been concretized, and since Putin called for a ‘Greater Eurasia Partnership’ in 2017, the narrative of Greater Eurasia has primarily revolved around China and Russia.” Hence, it follows that the difference between traditional Eurasianism and Greater Eurasianism depends on whether they include China or not. Professor Choi Jinseok explained, “The ‘universal empire’ mentioned by Aleksandr Dugin is a ‘global empire’ that aims to establish a defense line against maritime powers by forming a core of solidarity with multiple countries in remote regions of Eurasia. The new empire that Russia seeks to build is ultimately a global empire.” Professor Mikhail Suslov stated, “The ‘Russian World Project,’ which began in 2014, intentionally encouraged ambiguous imagination of Russia’s territoriality. This allowed for interpretations of irredentism, such as reclaiming eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula as part of Russian civilization.” Professor Ra Seungdo explained, “To promote the ‘Russian World Project,’ Russia has produced films depicting the activities of Russian soldiers in Syria and the Central African Republic in the 2010s, aiming to legitimize Russia’s military presence and emphasize Russia’s moral superiority over the West in the war against terrorism.”

What is the task left to us?

  The Community of Common Destiny for Mankind pursued by China and Greater Eurasianism advanced by Russia are very similar in content and purpose. Firstly, whereas traditional empires sought to build their empires through the efforts of a single nation, today they aim to build a ‘global empire’ through solidarity with other nations. Therefore, they insist that many nations should form a community through extensive integration. Naturally, the leader of this community is either China or Russia. They claim to deserve it because they have a superior ‘civilization’ and emphasize their messianic mission.

  In addition to these two countries, similar projects are underway in other countries such as India, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, and Mongolia. India, for instance, portrays itself as the ‘teacher of the world (vishwaguru)’ and is carrying out Project Mausam. Moreover, India is also pursuing a ‘Cotton Route’, similar to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, while Indonesia is developing the ‘Spice Route.’ In the process in which countries with imperial experiences integrate the world by recreating ‘shared historical memories,’ middle-range powers such as Korea have become embroiled in disputes over history and culture with civilized countries in various regions.

  Since the Xi Jinping government, historical and cultural conflicts between Korea and China have expanded to encompass Korean history as a whole and disputes over originality of culture. The expansion of the scope of disputes and the intensification of the campaigns are related to the Xi Jinping government’s project to build a Community of Common Destiny for Mankind. The ideological background of the Community of Common Destiny for Mankind is rooted in Marxism and Tianxia philosophy. Tianxia philosophy is reflected in international politics as the Tianxia Order, which is concretized through tribute and investiture. The pursuit of China's Community of Common Destiny for Mankind project has heated up historical and cultural disputes with Korea. It is necessary in the future to analyze the imperial discourses that are developing in various Eurasian countries and to study the impact of these imperial discourses on historical and cultural conflicts over countries. Based on this, Eurasian countries would need to confront the common problems they face and seek solutions together.