뉴스레터

On February 7, NAHF held a conference on 'Changing Northeast Asia and Historical Understanding' in the Vista Hall on the 3rd floor of the Future Hall at Pukyong National University, jointly with the 21st Century Political Science Association, the Jeju Peace Institute, and the International Regional Institute of the Pukyong National University. This conference is significant in that it brought social scientists and historians together to explore changes in Northeast Asia and the patterns of those changes. Even in the rapidly changing international order, changes will follow certain patterns. And identifying those patters might help the state establish consistent diplomatic and cultural policies.

In the Dramatic Changes of Historical Understanding

Professor Lee Geun-Woo (Pukyong National University) gave a presentation titled "Changing Northeast Asia and Historical Understanding." He identified conflict and exchange as the forms of relationships among the Northeast Asian countries and pointed out in particular that the conflict was between the continental and the marine powers. He explained that changes in this conflict structure would be triggered by changes in political situations, economic power, and military power, and cultural gaps, of which political situations would be the most important elements of change.

Changes in political situations often resulted from increasing social conflict or changes in climate or military power, to which the rational of territorial expansion has been added since the modern times. Additionally, increases in economic power resulting from national unification or industrial development will be translated into increased military power, destroying the power balance. Since the modern times, there has been significant acceleration of the speed at which economy power is translated into military power. And cultural gaps give rise to wars or dominant-subordinate relationships. The modern Japan, having received the Western culture, had a significant cultural impact on Joseon.

As an example of dramatic changes in historical understanding, professor Lee cited the understanding of Dangun. He argued that in the traditional periods Dangun had been considered less important than Gija and that placing emphasis on Dangun had been a very modern phenomenon. He also pointed out that placing emphasis on the Dangun myth would be in a sense inconsistent with the today's trend of stressing the homogeneity of East Asia. He asserted that in light of the increasing number of multi-cultural families in Korea, it would be necessary to move away from the theory of the single national origin toward the theory of the multiple origins which supports the view that Korea is a society where people from outside has made success.

His arguments were met with opposing as well as consenting views; even though both Korea and China had placed emphasis on Gija in the traditional periods because it was useful to the diplomatic relationship with China, the understanding of Dagun was not a modern invention. It was also pointed out that placing emphasis on Dangun was not necessarily incompatible with the theory of multiple origins.

In Search of 'Dolphin' Diplomacy

Researcher Lee Sung-Woo (Jeju Peace Institute) presented "The Changing Order of Northeast Asia and the Prospect of Korean Foreign Policies" from the perspective of political science. Mr. Lee gave a positive opinion on the recent trend that was critical of the realistic positions and the power transition theory. He then argued that the new model of East Asia would emerge in the form of a stock company. East Asia is one of the world's largest economic growth belt with the dynamic movements of China, Japan, Korea, and the developing countries of the ASEAN. As the international relationship in East Asia would be structured in the form of competition over control among the shareholders of a stock company, Korea's measures would be to increase its shares. This would also require consistent views and evaluations of the U.S. and China.

To these arguments, Director Baek Seung-Joo of the Security Strategy Research Center (Korea Institute for Defense Analyses), while praising the interpretation of the order of Northeast Asia in terms of the interests of shareholders of a stock company instead of power struggle, pointed out that the 'China-US confrontation structure' would become more prominent from the perspective of any theory. Another discussant pointed out that no progress would be made in either Korea-US or Korea-China relations without a breakthrough in inter-Korea relations. It was also pointed out that there was no country that was not engaged in a diplomatic tightrope walk under the supreme power nations. In particular, Researcher Han In-Taek (Jeju Peace Institute) criticized that the rise of Korea, being one of the most important changes in Northeast Asia, had been underestimated. Here is how his argument went; there is a Korean saying that a shrimp gets hurt in a fight between whales. This situation may apply to Korea, except that Korea is perhaps a dolphin, much bigger and stronger than a shrimp although still smaller and weaker than whales. Therefore, Korea needs to come up with the 'dolphin' diplomatic strategy. And while the shareholders' general meeting model may explain economy in terms of share, it can't when it comes to the security issue because a 0.1% share doesn't necessarily mean that it has minor roles.

Diplomacy is an Art, Not a Technique

In "The Characteristics of the US-China Superposition in Northeast Asia: International Order in Northeast Asia after the Death of Kim Jong-il", another presenter professor Lee Hui-Ok (Sungkyunkwan University) pointed out that the power balance of East Asia had been destroyed. Northeast Asia will go through changes as the existing supreme ruler U.S. and the new challenger China make security interactions. And this structure of superposition is likely to become structural rather than circumstantial. Under the circumstances, China would rather increase its shares than break the structure. China is not attractive enough in the international community.

And after the death of Kim Jong-il, China was quick to approach North Korea. China's embracement of North Korea is in the structural context of the international environment of Northeast Asia. China was clear in supporting Putin of Russia and quick to support the Kim Jung-eun system while on the alert against the American strategy to return to East Asia. Professor Lee stated that in this context North Korea wouldn't be able to break through the situation with merit-based ruling and military-first politics alone and that North Korea would have to move toward reform and opening at least to achieve their military-first goal.

Therefore, he pointed out, the Korea-US relationship and the Korea-China relationship are not in a situation where one replaces the other and they require a dynamic approach. And he added that making the inter-Korea relations modern and establishing peace should be the diplomatic principle. To conclude, professor Lee maintains that Korean diplomacy should take a simultaneous approach to both inter-Korea relations and regionalism.

On the Potential of Interdisciplinary Discussion

The joint conference, while paying attention to the structural elements, highlighted the perspective that placed emphasis on the patterns and the perpetrators. There was also a discussion on Korea's identity and appropriate place in the international community. Interdisciplinary discussion allows a glimpse into diverse views but requires continued communication to bridge the gap in concepts and approaches. I can say that this joint conference obtained the small yet fulfilling results of interdisciplinary discussion and raised the need for more in-depth academic work.