뉴스레터

Professor Tim Winter received his doctorate degree in sociology from the University of Manchester, UK. He is currently a scholar with a keen interest in heritage diplomacy, geocultural politics, and related fields, and he is affiliated with the National University of Singapore. Recently, he published 『The Silk Road: Connecting Histories and Futures 』 (Oxford University Press, 2022), in which he examined how nations today remember the Silk Road and how they bring it into political matters. In August of this year, he participated in the NAHF forum at the invitation of the foundation, where he presented a fascinating paper titled ‘Geocultural politics; civilization, internationalism, and world ordering across Eurasia,’ which received great attention.

Interviewee: Professor Tim Winter, National University of Singapore

Interviewer: Lee Yoo-pyo, a Research Fellow at the Korea-China Relations Institute, Foundation

Q. Professor, as far as I know, you originally conducted research in areas such as ‘Culture’, ‘Heritage’, and ‘Tourism.’ What sparked your interest in this field?

A. I have had a longstanding interest in the ‘utility of history’ and how the past is communicated to the public. Twenty years ago, I received a doctorate degree on the subject of Cambodia from the University of Manchester, UK. At that time, Cambodia was accelerating its economic development after experiencing severe violence and isolation. A key driver behind this development was tourism. For Cambodia, cultural heritage served as a language for reclaiming identity and dignity. Here, I was fascinated by the political relationships forming around the flow of new capital into this country and the processes of recovery and reconstruction. Such experience sparked my interest in subjects like ‘culture’, ‘heritage’, and ‘tourism’.

Q. About 10 years ago, the keyword ‘Diplomacy’ began to appear frequently in your research, and recently, a new keyword ‘Geocultural’ has emerged. I believe this reflects a shift in your academic interests. Can you tell me what particular reasons there are?

A. Yes, I became interested in ‘diplomacy’ while working in Cambodia. At that time, there was no theoretical language to explain what I was trying to observe and understand. Over the next few years, I developed the concept of ‘heritage diplomacy’ in order to describe what happens when nations and organizations collaborate on their past cultures. I believe this concept offers an analytical framework that may help understand the complexities of cooperation and aid related to 20th-century geopolitics and civilizational thought.

Additionally, I needed theoretical language to explain culture, cultural power, and the use of history at the international level. In this quest, I introduced the concept of Geocultural. As an example of the Silk Road, it is a product of the historical imagination developed around ‘terms’ such as Europe and Asia, the Buddhist world, Silla, the Mediterranean, and the United Kingdom. It is a product of the romantic depiction of long and complex historical processes that have spanned continents and oceans for thousands of years. Therefore, I observe that the Silk Road is a ‘geocultural’ form that connects the past, present, and future in a very specific way. I was fascinated by the fact that institutions like UNESCO paid attention to Korea’s unified Silla period after the end of the Cold War. This reflected the UN’s efforts to promote dialogue among Northeast Asian countries, emphasizing the deep history of East Asian civilizations connected to South Asia and the Arab world by focusing on Silla.

Q. You mentioned that you were fascinated by Silla. Have you ever visited Korea before?

A. Yes, I visited Korea in 2018 when I participated in the held in Gyeongju. During that visit, I had the opportunity to explore the Gyeongju National Museum and Bulguksa Temple as well. At the same time, I also attended an international academic conference organized by the World Silk-road Universities Network (SUN). The World Silk-road Universities Network was established in Gyeongju in 2015 with the aim of restoring the ‘Silk Road Spirit’, a symbol of the interaction between Eastern and Western civilizations, and contributing to future world peace and the advancement of human civilization. It is a solidarity of universities from countries located around the Silk Road, promoting various exchanges in academia, education, and culture related to the Silk Road. The fact that the Korean city of Gyeongju became a hub for international cultural diplomacy after the end of the Cold War attracted my attention.

Q. You have published a book titled 『The Silk Road: Connecting Histories and Futures 』. It seems to be a study on the relevance of China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ and the Silk Road. Could you provide more details about it?

A. In this book, I claimed that the Silk Road has, in essence, become one of the major geocultural and geostrategic concepts of the modern era. That is to say, the Silk Road is about bringing certain ideas and narratives about the past and the future, which demonstrates how the past and the future are mutually reconstructing each other. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is precisely the manifestation of the ‘revival’ of the Silk Road for the 21st century. The imagination of the Silk Road has helped Chinese institutions and Chinese people envision and design a future that encompasses both the oceans and continents.

This imagination has played a significant role in helping China envision the future in a ‘particular’ way. However, this is not limited to China alone. India, Iran, and Turkey all have historical memories of the Silk Road. These historical memories generate their own unique imaginations, and the futures based on these imaginations of the Silk Road differ from one another.

Q. You also mentioned, in this HAHF forum, the geocultural imaginations of countries like India, Iran, and Turkey, apart from China. Could you please provide further explanation on this?

A. As an example of India, they have launched Project Mausam in order to respond to the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road, which is a core component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. This project is for a policy structure for the international cultural sector conceived around the ancient trade routes and cultural corridors of the Indian Ocean. The goal of this project is to have 40 countries as its partners, and the Indian Ministry of Culture is utilizing the expertise of India’s major cultural institutions, including the National Museum, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, and the Archaeological Survey of India.

To briefly mention Iran and Turkey, both countries are located along the Silk Road. While Turkey is located at the western end, Iran is located in the middle. Their historical memories and imaginations related to the Silk Road also differ based on geographical locations. Iran envisions its future based on the memories and imaginations of being the center of the Silk Road in the past, while Turkey envisions its future based on the memories and imaginations of being the gateway to the Silk Road. All of these are examples of utilizing history based on geocultural memories and imaginations.

Q. As you mentioned, India’s Project Mausam may be a counterpart to China’s ‘21st-century Maritime Silk Road’. However, some Chinese media have predicted that ‘Project Mausam’ could become a good partner for China’s Belt and Road Initiative. What do you think?

A. It can be said that it is closer to a competitive composition surrounding ‘cooperation and alliance’ rather than a partner. Both countries are in a rivalry for supremacy in Asia, and these initiatives serve as platforms to promote their civilizational heritage and strengthen regional ties with other countries.

Q. The geocultural struggles among powerful nations are causing historical and cultural conflicts over neighboring countries, including Korea. Is there a way to overcome these conflicts and confrontations for peaceful coexistence? Please tell us if you have any insights that Korean historical and cultural researchers could find useful.

A. That is an important question. I do not have any doubt that Korean scholars have a good understanding of the diplomatic, political, and historical issues that arise in contemporary East Asia. For me, it is crucial to understand how the past is constantly being revised in the present for specific purposes. However, it is possible only through the cooperation of scholars from various disciplines to understand how it happened, why it is important, and to identify its meaning in contemporary, cultural, and political terms. For example, political theorists can offer approaches that go beyond boring arguments about soft power, while historians can provide valuable methods for this.

Eurasia has become the epicenter of nostalgic politics regarding past dynasties, empires, and kingdoms in recent years. It has been possible through populist nationalist movements, diplomatic policies, intergovernmental policy structures, think tank analyses, and popular culture, including digital platforms that reach the broader public. In some ways, this is a set of interconnections that is hard to understand. However, I believe it is crucial to understand how geocultural imaginations of the past circulate within these various domains.

It is indeed a difficult task for smaller nations, such as Korea, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, to determine how they should respond to the policies of these powerful nations. To address this, it is required to understand the current situation and develop a vocabulary for sharing insights from various regions. I propose an approach of comparative analysis. A method of comparative analysis can be said to be very productive when it is premised on mutual respect. During my work in Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere, I examined the experiences of smaller countries. Especially, how global powers with ambitions dealt with and shaped these countries. I have

learned a lot from these experiences.

Q. I would like to hear your thoughts on the NAHF forum. Additionally, please briefly tell us about what research you are planning in the future.

A. I have never been to such a well-organized and intellectually stimulating event for several years. Not only me, but the other participants praised the well-organized forum in all aspects, including the conference venue, the hotels and restaurants, and activities such as visiting DMZ. I will tell people how wonderful Seoul is and how excellent the forum is when I return.

This forum reminded us that we are approaching an international moment in which history is increasingly important and complex, both culturally and politically. These are challenging times for smaller nations. It is also difficult for scholars to interpret phenomena and determine what to advocate in such a situation. I primarily work on geocultural politics and diplomacy, and I believe that certain nations that can claim to be ‘civilized’ today are exploiting it for political purposes. I find the responses of smaller nations to this phenomenon to be an interesting research topic. While I don’t have specific plans yet, I’m opening the possibility to collaborate with Korean scholars on this too. I believe the interesting discussions we had at this forum will be of great help for future research.