[EAI 온라인 세미나] 코로나19와 신세계 질서 2. 코로나 이후 아태 지역 질서: 승자없는 미중경쟁, 중견국 연대, 다자주의 해법

분류: 멀티미디어
발행일: 2020년 6월 22일
관련 프로젝트: 미중경쟁과 한국의 전략

편집자 주

YouTube 링크 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ISuzALd920

f2e34dd1a320d063

.a_wrap {font-size:16px; font-family:Nanum Gothic, Sans-serif, Arial; line-height:26px;}

동아시아연구원(EAI)은 [코로나19와 신세계 질서] 온라인 세미나 시리즈의 두 번째 회의로 “코로나 이후 아태 지역 질서”를 개최하였습니다. 본 회의에서 University of California, Berkeley의 T.J. Pempel 교수, Princeton University의 G. John Ikenberry 교수, Australian National University의 Evelyn Goh 교수, 서울대학교의 전재성 교수(EAI 소장)는 COVID-19와 미중 경쟁의 새로운 국면, 대선 이후 미국의 아태 전략, 그리고 중견국의 역할 등 아태 신질서의 미래에 관해 논의하였습니다.

일시: 2020년 6월 19일(금), 9:00–10:40 (KST)
발표자: T.J. Pempel (Jack M. Forcey Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley), G. John Ikenberry (Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University), Evelyn Goh (Shedden Professor of Strategic Policy Studies, Australian National University), 전재성 (EAI 국가안보연구센터 소장; 서울대 외교학과 교수)
사회자: 이숙종 (EAI 시니어 펠로우; 성균관대 행정학과 교수)

코로나 사태 속 미중 경쟁의 승자는?

무역, 기술 등 다양한 분야에서 지속적으로 심화되어온 미중 간 전략 경쟁은 코로나 19 사태로 인하여 더욱 악화되는 모습을 보이고 있다. 코로나19가 전세계적으로 유행하고 있는 가운데 미국과 중국 양국 모두 경제적, 정치적으로 큰 타격을 받았다. 미국은 과거 9.11 테러와 2008년 금융위기와 같은 글로벌 위기를 맞이하였을 때 다자주의와 동맹관계를 중요시 하며 패권적 리더십을 유지한 바 있으나, 이번 코로나19 사태라는 글로벌 위기를 일방주의로 대처하면서 지도적 역할을 축소하였으며, 패권적 리더십 쇠퇴를 가속화 하고 있다.
존 아이켄베리 교수는 코로나19 대응 실패와 더불어 조지 플로이드(George Floyd) 사건으로 인하여 미국이 국내적으로 분열되는 모습을 보이고 있으며, 미국이 마주한 위기에 대응할 능력이 없는 것으로 평가한다. T.J. 펨펠 교수는 코로나19 사태에 성공적으로 대처하고 있는 아시아 국가들이 미국 항공사를 제외한 채 국가 간 제한적 여행 자유화 조치인 ‘트레블 버블 (travel bubble)’을 검토하고 있듯이, 미국의 아시아 내 위상이 저하되고 있다고 말한다. 존 아이켄베리 교수는 향후 동아시아에서는 미국이 신뢰도가 하락하는 가운데 동맹을 선도하고 중국이 아시아 내 경제를 선도하며 두 개의 지도국가가 공존할 것이라고 전망한다.
한편 국내 방역 성공 및 코로나19를 적극 활용한 역내 영향력 증진, 홍콩에 대한 지배력 강화 등의 성과를 이루어낸 중국 역시 미중 경쟁 속 진정한 승자로 보기는 어렵다. 전재성 교수는 중국은 코로나19 사태 속에서 국제사회에 보건 관련 공공재를 제공할 수 있었으며 물질과 힘을 동원하여 경쟁에 임하고 있지만, 보유한 물적자원을 통해 새로운 국제 질서를 제시할 준비가 되어 있지 않으며, 현재 전세계적 전염병의 위기는 중국에게 기회였음이 분명하나 잠재적 패권국으로서의 지위를 국제사회에 알리기에는 시기적으로 이르다고 주장한다. 결국 우리는 어떤 국가가 패권국의 지위를 가지는가에 대한 고민이 아닌 강대국이 국제사회에서 어떠한 역할을 맡을 것인가에 대한 고민을 해야 한다.

미국 대선, 위축된 미국의 아시아 역내 역할 회복제 될까?

존 아이켄베리 교수는 2020년 11월 3일 미국 대선은 미국 역사상 링컨(1860년) 당선 이래 가장 중요한 사건 중 하나로 기억될 것이라 평가한다. 향후 미국의 새로운 행정부가 자국중심주의에 기반한 역할과 국제관계 전반을 압도하는 패권국의 역할 사이에서 국제사회 내 자국의 역할을 어떻게 규정할지는 중요한 문제이다. 특히 트럼프 대통령이 재선에 성공할 경우, 공공재에 기반한 미국의 기반을 되돌리기까지는 한 세대(generation)가 걸릴 것으로 예상한다. 바이든은 트럼프의 정치적 신념에 대비되는 사람으로 다자주의적 미국을 상징한다. 트럼프의 행적을 모두 지울 수는 없지만 바이든 행정부는 미국을 트럼프 이전의 시대로 되돌리기 위하여 노력할 것이다.
T.J. 펨펠 교수는 바이든 행정부가 현재의 트럼프 행정부보다 동아시아 역내 다자간 접근법에 보다 수용적일 것이라는 의견에 동의한다. 특히, 아시아지역의 중요성을 강조하며, 다차원적, 경제적, 외교적, 교육적 지역 정책을 강조함으로써 오바마 행정부의 아시아 정책과 유사한 정책을 펼칠 가능성이 높다. 그러나 현재 미국이 직면한 문제는 단순히 민주당이 대선에서 승리했을 때 해결될 수 있는 “트럼프 문제(Trump problem)”가 아니다. T.J. 펨펠 교수는 현재 미국의 상황이 트럼프 개인의 문제라기보다는 공화당 내 극단성의 논리적 산물로 보면서 미국의 공화당이 금권정치(plutocracy)와 포퓰리즘(populism)을 상징하는 정당이 되었다고 주장한다. 공화당은 상위 1-2%의 부유층에 대한 세금 감면과 규제 완화를 시행하면서도 복음주의 기독교 신자들에 대한 복지 정책을 시행하며 反다자주의(a la carte multilateralism)적 의제에 힘을 싣고 있다. 이런 가운데, 미국의 단일 대전략이라는 것은 존재하지 않으며, 공화당과 민주당의 정책이 개별적으로 질문되어야 한다고 제언한다. 또한 전체를 아우르는 “미국의 단일 대전략”이라는 것이 사실상 상실되었으며, 이러한 상황은 결국 미국 외교 정책에 제약을 줄 것으로 본다.
어떠한 후보가 당선이 될지 여부와 상관없이 국내 경제 회복은 미국의 주요 정책 어젠다가 될 것이다. 존 아이켄베리 교수는 바이든의 최우선 과제는 미국 동맹 강화 및 대중국 정책에 이어 여전히 미국 경제 회복이라고 진단한다. 국제 연합(international coalition) 구축과 국제 사회 리더의 역할 담당을 위하여 이를 지속하는데 도움을 줄 수 있는 미국 내 분열 문제 및 경제적 능력 재건에 대한 해결법을 모색하는 것이 중요하다. 에블린 고 교수는 존 아이켄베리 교수의 의견에 동의하는데, 미국이 중국과 아태 지역에서 기술 민족주의 경쟁 (techno nationalist competition)을 하기 위해서는 미국 국내 경제를 회복해야 하며, 지속적으로 첨단 신기술을 개발해야 한다고 주장한다.
외교정책적 측면에서 T.J. 펨펠 교수는 미국의 대중국 강경 정책이 트럼프 행정부의 선거 책략이자 대아시아 외교에서 보여준 거의 유일한 전략이라고 설명한다. 존 아이켄베리 교수는 바이든이 당선되더라도 중국 견제는 유지될 것이며, 미국의 자유민주주의 원칙과 중국의 강경한 권위주의 간 이념 경쟁이 전개될 것이라고 주장한다. 바이든은 인권, 민주주의, 언론의 자유, 개인의 권리 등 의제를 부각시키며, 동맹체제를 재건하고 미국 주도의 파트너십 쇄신을 시도할 것이다. 존 아이켄베리 교수는 한국과 호주를 포함한 자유민주주의 국가간 연합체가 자유주의, 다자주의 질서 회복에 나서야 한다고 주장한다.
에블린 고 교수는 중국은 역내 국가들 포섭을 위해 많은 노력을 경주하고 있으나 성공하지 못하고 있는 반면, 역내 국가들은 미국의 리더쉽을 요청하고 있으나 미국은 자국중심주의와 일방주의에 빠져있는 “불편한 현실(uncomfortable situation)”을 지적한다. 미국의 차기 행정부는 일차적으로 국내 경제 회복을 이루어야 하며, 둘째, 동아시아 국가들이 미국과는 다르게 영원히 중국의 그늘에서 벗어날 수 없다는 점을 인지해야 하고, 끝으로 미중 간에 과거 냉전기 위기관리 메커니즘을 마련하는 노력을 기울여야 한다고 주장한다.
전재성 교수는 미국의 새로운 행정부가 자국중심주의에 기반한 역할과 패권국의 역할 사이에서 국제사회 내 자국의 역할을 어떻게 규정할 지가 중요하다고 논의했다. 근본적으로 변화하는 21세기 세계질서에서 하나의 국가가 패권의 역할을 도맡을 수 없는 상황임이 확실해졌다. 미국은 더이상 기존의 패권 역할이 아닌, 모든 국가들이 함께 지구거버넌스를 추구하는데 필요한 메타 거버넌스(meta-governance)의 역할을 하도록 새로운 역할 규정을 하는 것이 중요하다.

시험대에 오른 자유민주주의 체제

존 아이켄베리 교수는 글로벌 팬데믹 속 미중 경쟁이 민주주의와 권위주의 정부 간의 대결 구도에서 진행되고 있는 측면이 있지만 이분적으로 단정짓기에는 사안이 단순하지 않다고 지적하였다. 민주주의 정부를 가진 국가들 중에서도 미국과 브라질, 영국과 같이 방역에 고전하는 국가가 있는 반면에 한국과 뉴질랜드와 같이 성공한 사례를 제시하는 국가가 있듯이, 같은 민주 정부를 가진 국가라 하더라도 다양한 형태의 정부를 운영하고 있으며 이에 따라 전염병의 대응 방식 또한 다르게 나타나고 있다. 반면, 중국과 같은 권위주의(authoritarianism) 정권이 전염병과 같은 위기 시 특정 사안에 대해 신속히 대응할 수 있는 모습을 보았지만 그렇다고 해서 민주주의 정부가 권위주의 정권에 뒤쳐진다는 것이 아니다. 중국과 같은 권위주의 정권은 문제 해결에 신속함을 보여주지만 위기 시 언론과 정보의 흐름을 저지하고 국가를 폐쇄하는 조치 또한 가능하다. 물론 이러한 조치는 건강하지 못하기 때문에 결국에는 법의 지배 아래 열린 체제와 시민사회를 보유하고 언론과 정보의 공유가 보장된 다원화된 정부가 공감을 얻을 것이다. 선거제를 보유한 민주주의 국가들은 사회악을 합법적으로 제거하여 다시 시작할 수 있다. 이러한 국가들에서는 지도자가 마음에 들지 않으면 선거를 통해 교체할 수 있다. 지금까지도 이러한 국가들이 국가의 정당성과 지속성을 과시한 바 있다. 물론 최근 많은 민주주의 정부가 방역 과정에서 미흡함을 보이기는 했지만, 장기적으로는 민주주의 정부의 200년 넘는 세월 동안의 성공 사례는 체제의 건재함을 보여주는 데 유리한 요인으로 작용할 것이다.
전재성 교수는 소위 말하는 자유주의 국제질서는 미국에 의해서 형성된 것이 아니라 미국의 동맹국들과 기타 중견국들의 지지로 형성된 것이라고 보았다. 이들 국가는 예측불가하고 다자적 합의가 부재한 지정학적 경쟁 상태가 정의하는 무질서와 노골적인 힘의 정치보다 미국의 리더십을 중심으로 한 질서를 선호했다. 미국이 리더십을 유지하기 위해 가장 중요한 점은 중견국에 공동 설계자 역할을 허용할 것인지 아닌지 여부이다. 이것은 단순한 팔로우십(followship)을 넘어선 것으로 글로벌, 그리고 지역 수준에서 포용적이고 지속가능한 아키텍처를 구축해야만 미국이 아시아 내 중견국들의 지지를 얻을 수 있을 것이다.
자유주의 국제질서는 안보위협에 대처하기 위한 명확한 전략과 동맹국 지원 프로그램, 미래에 대한 확고한 이념적 비전을 담은 패키지(package)였다. 미중 간 경쟁 구도가 지역을 분열시키면서 지역 질서는 보복성 성격이 짙어질 가능성이 커졌다. 경제전쟁과 지경학적 강요를 방지하기 위해 어떻게 다자적 메커니즘을 설정할 것인지가 자유주의 질서를 유지하는 데 매우 중요하다. 미국은 지경학적 강요와 보복과 같은 자유주의적이지 않은 행동에 어떻게 대비할 것인지 동맹과 전략 파트너들과 협의할 필요가 있다.

미중 전략 경쟁 속 다자주의의 필요성

2003년 사스(Severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS)나 2009년 돼지인플루엔자 발병 당시 미국과 중국은 동아시아 지역에서 다자주의적 접근을 바탕으로 협력하였다. 그러나 이번 코로나 19 사태에서는 미국과 중국이 자국의 이익을 위해 팬데믹을 무기화(weaponize)하고 있다. 코로나19 사태로 미국의 패권적 리더십 쇠퇴가 가속화되고 있는 가운데 미국에서는 장기적으로는 다자주의 협력을 재구축하는 노력에 대항하는 움직임(counter movement)이 촉발될 가능성이 있다.
T.J. 펨펠 교수는 트럼프 대통령이 코로나19 사태에 대응하며 글로벌 자유주의 질서와 아-태 경제협력, 동맹 간 안보협력에 대해 영향력을 행사하려고 한다고 평가하였다. 아시아 국가들은 내재된 중상주의(embedded mercantilism)에서 벗어나 30년 넘게 안보 긴장을 완화하면서 긴밀한 경제협력과 다자주의, 그리고 시장 개방성 확대를 추진하고 있는 반면, 미국 내에서는 일방주의의 고집, 미국 최우선 정책, 외국인 혐오, 민족주의가 나타나고 있으며, 아시아 문제에 대한 다자주의적 접근법에 대해 반감을 드러내고 있다고 진단하였다.
전재성 교수 역시 미국이 코로나19 사태에 대처하며 일방주의(unilateralism)로 돌아서고 다자주의를 불신하는 등 지도적 역할을 축소하였다고 보았다. 탈냉전 시기 9.11 테러, 2008년 금융위기, 코로나19 사태를 겪으며 10년에 한 번씩 위기가 있어 왔다. 미국은 9.11 테러와 2008년 금융위기에 대처하며 동맹의 역할이 매우 중요한 유지연합(coalition of the willing)과 G20을 주도하였다. 이와는 대조적으로 트럼프 행정부는 세 번째 글로벌 위기인 코로나19 사태에 대처하면서 세계보건기구(World Health Organization, WHO)에 대한 비난을 이어오다 마침내 탈퇴를 선언하며 중국에 책임을 넘기는 것으로 대응했다.
미국은 앞으로 직면할 위기에 대처하기 위해 메타거버넌스(meta-governance)의 역할을 맡아 국제 공공재의 종합적 공급 메커니즘을 구축하고 다자주의를 장려하며 공동 리더십으로 중국을 설득할 필요가 있다.

격화되는 미중 경쟁 구도 속 아태지역 중견국의 역할

존 아이켄베리 교수는 미국과 중국 두 강대국과의 상호의존성으로 인해 아태 지역이 특정 강대국에 의해 압도되지는 않을 것이며 두 국가의 영향력이 공존하는 상황이 지속될 것이라는 전망 속에서 이러한 ‘이중 패권(dual hegemony)’ 상태가 한국, 일본, 아세안, 호주, 인도 등 중견국들에 지렛대를 제공하여 역내 균형 정치에 영향력을 행사하게 할 수 있다고 보았다.
T.J. 펨펠 교수는 한국, 일본, 호주 등 역내 중견국들이 포괄적･점진적 환태평양경제동반자협정 (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP), 역내포괄적경제동반자협정(Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, RCEP) 등 경제협정 체결과 인프라 투자 및 개발을 통하여 역내 영향력을 강화하고 있는 상황 속에서 민주주의와 개방된 시장경제의 가치에 기반한 역내 국가들을 단합할 수 있는 틀로서 '자유롭고 개방된 인도·태평양 전략(Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy, FOIP)' 담론이 지속되고 있음에 주목하였다.
에블린 고 교수는 미중경쟁을 완화할 대안을 제3의 강대국이나 국가연합이 아닌 다양한 행위자와 대화창구가 공존하는 다원적 지역 환경에서 찾을 수 있다고 말한다. 이러한 측면에서 에블린 고 교수는 한국, 호주, 일본, 인도네시아 등 역내 중견국들이 다양한 국가들과 실질적 분야에서 상호협력 추구, 제도적 틀과 역량 구축, 국내적 안정 추구 및 경제적 잠재력 도모, 인접 지역의 안정 여부 주시 등의 역할을 수행할 수 있다고 보았다.
한국은 믹타(MIKTA) 및 여타 중견국 협의체에 활발히 참여하는 등 중견국 외교에 적극적인 자세를 보이고 있다. 존 아이켄베리 교수는 한국이 경제, 지속가능한 발전, 환경, 안보 등의 분야에서 협력을 주도할 수 있으며, 코로나 대응 모범 국가로서 자유 민주주의 국가들 간 협력을 주도할 수 있는 잠재력을 가지고 있다고 보았다. ■

■ T.J. 펨펠 (T.J.Pempel)_캘리포니아 주립 버클리대학교 (University of California at Berkeley) 잭.M.포르시 정치학과 교수 (Jack M. Forcey Professor of Political Science). 미국 컬럼비아 대학교 (Columbia University)에서 박사학위를 취득하였다. 그는 미일 친선위원회 (Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission)의 위원이자 동북아시아 협력 대화 (Northeast Asian Cooperation Dialogue)의 활발한 참가자이며, 2002년부터 2006년까지 버클리대학교의 동아시아학회장과(Institute of East Asian Studies) 유일한 아시아학 교수 (Il Han New Chair of Asian Studies)를 역임하였으며, 워싱턴 대학교 (University of Washington)에서 잭슨 국제관계학부의 보잉 국제관계학과 교수 (Boeing Professor of International Studies in the Jackson School of International Studies)직을 겸임하였다. 주요 연구는 아시아와 국제금융, 그리고 안보 양극성의 쇠퇴 등이다. 저서로는 Remapping East Asia: The Construction of a Region; Regime Shift: Comparative Dynamics of the Japanese Political Economy (both by Cornell University Press); Security Cooperation in Northeast Asia and The Economic-Security Nexus in Northeast Asia (both by Routledge) 등이 있고, 1997-98 아시아 경제위기와 2008-09 세계 경제위기 당시 아시아의 경험을 다룬 Two Crises; Different Outcomes (Cornell University Press)를 편집하였다. 2021년에는 Region of Regimes: Prosperity and Plunder in the Asia-Pacific 을 출판할 예정이며, 이외 120개 가량의 논문과 기고문 등을 집필하였다.

■ 존 아이켄베리 (G. John Ikenberry)_프린스턴 대학교 (Princeton University) 알버트 지 밀뱅크 정치외교학과 교수 (Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs). 미국 시카고 대학교 (University of Chicago)에서 정치학 박사학위를 취득하였다. 프린스턴의 국제안보연구센터 (Center for International Security Studies)의 공동 센터장이자 미국 예술 과학 아카데미 (American Academy of Arts and Sciences)의 펠로우로 재직 중이고, 경희대학교의 Global Eminence Scholar이다. 저서로는 A World Safe for Democracy: Liberal Internationalism and the Crises of Global Order (Yale, 2020), Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American System (Princeton, 2011), Crisis of American Foreign Policy: Wilsonianism in the 21st Century (Princeton 2009) 등이 있다. 저서 중 After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton, 2001)는 2002년 미국 정치학회 (American Political Science Association)에서 최우수 국제역사/정치 도서로 선정되어 슈뢰더-저비스상을 수상하였다. 이외 130개 이상의 논문과 기고문 등을 작성하였으며, 옥스포드 대학교의 배일리얼 컬리지 (Baliol College, Oxford)에서 72대 이스트먼 방문교수(72nd Eastman Visiting Professor)로 재직하였다. 특히, 최근에 이루어진 국제관계학 (IR) 학자들의 설문조사에서, 아이켄베리 교수는 최근 20년간 최고의 연구성과를 낸 국제관계학 학자들 중 10위, 그리고 최근 5년간 가장 흥미로운 연구성과를 낸 국제관계학 학자들 중 8위에 선정되었다.

■ 에블린 고 (Evelyn Goh)_호주국립대학교 (Austrailian National University) 쉐든 전략정책학 교수 (Shedden Professor of Strategic Policy Studies). 영국 옥스포드 대학교에서 국제관계학 박사학위를 취득하였다. 그녀는 전략국방연구센터 (Strategic and Defence Studies Centre)의 연구부장이자 아시아안보연구개발네트워크 (Graduate Research and Development Network on Asian Security (GRADNAS))의 의장으로 재임중이며, 런던 로얄 홀로웨이 대학교 (Royal Holloway University), 옥스포드 대학교, 그리고 싱가포르 라자랏남 국제대학원 (Rajaratnam School of International Studies)에서 교수직을 역임한 바 있다. 그녀는 The Struggle for Order: Hegemony, Hierarchy and Transition in Post-Cold War East Asia (Oxford University Press, 2013); ‘Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia: Analyzing Regional Security Strategies’, International Security 32:3 (Winter 2007/8):113-57; and Constructing the US Rapprochement with China, 1961-1974 (Cambridge University Press, 2004) 등을 저술 한 바 있으며, Rising China’s Influence in Developing Asia (Oxford University Press, 2016) 을 편집하였다. 가장 최근에는 Re-thinking Sino-Japanese Alienation: History Problems and Historical Opportunities (Oxford University Press, 2020)을 발간하였다.

■ 전재성_ EAI 국가안보연구센터 소장, 서울대학교 교수. 미국 노스웨스턴대학교에서 정치학 박사학위를 취득하였으며, 외교부 및 통일부 정책자문위원으로 활동하고 있다. 주요 연구 분야는 국제정치이론, 국제관계사, 한미동맹 및 한반도 연구 등이다. 주요 저서 및 편저로는 《남북간 전쟁 위협과 평화》(공저), 《정치는 도덕적인가》, 《동아시아 국제정치: 역사에서 이론으로》 등이 있다.

■ 이숙종_EAI 시니어펠로우·이사, 성균관대학교 교수. 미국 하버드대학교(Harvard University)에서 사회학 박사학위를 취득하였으며, 세종연구소 연구위원, 미국 브루킹스연구소 객원 연구원, 존스홉킨스대학교 교수강사, 현대일본학회 회장, 외교부 정책자문위원, EAI 원장 등을 역임하였다. 최근 편저에는, Transforming Global Governance with Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea’s Role in the 21st Century (편), Public Diplomacy and Soft Power in East Asia (공편), 《세계화 제2막: 한국형 세계화와 새 구상》(공편), 《2017 대통령의 성공조건》(공편) 등이 있다.

언론보도

"트럼프 재선하면 미국이 제 역할 찾는 데 한 세대 더 걸릴 것"

■ 담당 및 편집: 백진경 EAI 연구원

문의: 02 2277 1683 (내선 209) j.baek@eai.or.kr

[EAI 라운드테이블]은 국내외 주요 사안에 대해 전문가들이 한 자리에 모여 의견을 개진하고 정책적 제언을 발표한 내용을 독자들에게 생생하게 전달하고자 기획된 대담록입니다. 인용할 때에는 반드시 출처를 밝혀주시기 바랍니다. EAI는 어떠한 정파적 이해와도 무관한 독립 연구기관입니다. EAI가 발행하는 보고서와 저널 및 단행본에 실린 주장과 의견은 EAI와는 무관하며 오로지 저자 개인의 견해임을 밝힙니다.

영상 스크립트

hi and welcome to East Asia Institute a webinar you host your zone president of EA I it is my pleasure to welcome all of you to today's seminar that discusses order transformation in the asia-pacific great power competition and middle power roles in the region I'm very pleased to report that at this moment some 300 people are connected and from 13 different countries that includes not just you know asia-pacific but also the countries like in Austria porch wall and and Kenya so thank you so much for joining us and also we feature

for great scholars TJ temple of UC Berkeley Eva Linko of Australian National University Chesham Chan of Seoul National University and John ikenberry of Princeton University our presentation will last for about 100 minutes and this webinar will be recorded and we'll be sure to share it on our YouTube channel and the web site before we begin I have an acknowledgement this virtual seminar series has been and will be supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs South Korea and des L which is a financial

support group for the e aí I would like to thank you for your support with that I'm pleased to hand it over to today's moderator sukjong Lee who is a song young man University professor and a senior fellow of EA I actually my predecessor of she served as the president of EA for the past decade and she is the leading expert in democratic cooperation in Asia East Asia Internet relations and public opinion survey this is so germ from Seoul Korea and first of all I like to congratulate the president Sonia were hosting this

excellent and very timely webinar in this month's already four great speakers are mentioned so I we're not going to repeat the great achievement and then however because I had to show them in individually let me call their name our first speaker is Professor TJ temple who is the jack Marissa foresee professor of political science in UC Berkeley welcome professor temple are you doing very nicely like ever ruby's bellick yeah it's it's very international living on the scholar because we all read the here it's very

stuck on Asian regionalism now second speaker is again internationally well-known scholar in high field professor John ikenberry who is the Albert Milbank professor of politics and international affairs in Princeton University professor I can very high grade bookshelf oh okay and our service speaker is Professor a billing code who is the shaitaan' professor of strategic policy studies at the Australian National University come on enabling hi thank you so Tom thank you very much our last speaker is

Professor Sanjay Sanjay Singh Chang who is a professor of political science and international relations at Seoul National University and also he is sharing the national security research centers of East Asia Institute thank you so much thank you yeah I'm very honored and to moderate discussion with you all Reis colors and because we have a lounge of discussion under the big team so each speaker may have about three to four minutes but don't try to speak four minutes is strange maybe it's good to speak about three minutes and then I

will give you a very short follow-up questions and then we have many attendees from the all of the words to hear the opinions of great scholars like you so we'll have a Q&A session at the end but the attendees participants audience you don't have to wait until the end of the this webinar you can just you know write up whatever questions you have okay so without further ado let us start our first round of discussion on us-china strategic competition a meet copied 19 well already the us-china strategic

competition has been rising before the pandemic right and then there was a lot of competition in terms of trade and also technology like artificial intelligence big data and many things and it seems like this copied in nineteen had accelerated strategic competition between g2 the US and China well I think I'm observing all these competition into several angles in terms of the pandemics itself the US was hit hard its worst and that is leading to the political unrest especially after the killing of Georgia Floyd in China

flattened Kobe the 19th quite successfully and the our Chinese are raring rallying around the Xi Jinping what this national pride and if you look at the economic things I think Chinese economy was hit harder compared to US economy if we look at the first quarter of this year's economic performance if you look at the diplomatic war that the America is condemning China for being responsible for this pandemic the disseminations and they even is saying that they're gonna sue China to get the compensation of course it's not possible

because of sovereign nations in the indemnity oh and China is reacting to USA with very assertive and aggressive worth warrior diplomacy and with the mask diplomacy and has bri and whatever you call two Middle Eastern African countries so all these things we like to hear your assessment whether a Frieza losing and economically politically even diplomatically and then whether he is copy the nineteen it's gonna accelerate it decoupling between the USA and in China so let me invite professor Kemper

forest for comparison of the two countries to the Cova nineteen with their responses to the SARS epidemic in 2003 and the swine flu in 2009 in both of these cases the United States provided considerable help to China the Chinese and us cooperation was extensive it extended to building up China's health facilities in cooperation with the United States both countries cooperated across all of East Asia for a truly multilateral approach what we've seen with Koba 19 of course is two countries that have essentially

weaponized the pandemic for their own national interests interestingly enough in my view while China was very slow to respond at the local level in dealing with this soon after the national government became involved the Chinese response was essentially national government control it was based on science and technology and it was also oriented toward dealing globally and regionally with the crisis so China managed to mobilize 40,000 troops to shut down these parts of the city extended huge supplies of medical

equipment to the rest of the world it erected two large temporary hospitals to cope with a crisis it imposed strict social distancing rules cooperated with World Health Organization and the United States in sharing the sequence the genetic sequence of cope at 19 and agreed to w-h-o request to sendin investigators to China in contrast the Trump administration ignored the virus for a good eight weeks while Trump himself was out holding campaign rallies and denying that the crisis was anything more than an

extended version of the flu when the shutdown actually began the effort was made to paint the Chinese response as inadequate and that China was the one behind this and the United States essentially ignored the outbreak and the warnings of science and as a consequence of this and a consequence of its anti-government policies the Trump administration had decimated the country's scientific healthcare and diplomatic apparatus rundown stockpiles of protective equipment disdained technical expertise all as part of a

coordinated assault on state effectiveness that relied exclusively on the states to deal with the virus and basically refused available testing from the whe show insisted that states lead the response encourage citizens to so-called liber8 state capitals from CDC inspired shutdowns and of course sought to brand the virus as the Kobin instead of the koban 19 virus the Brandon is the Wuhan virus and to paint China as enemy so in all of these ways the responses of the two countries were quite different and not surprisingly he

confirmed cases in China are up Li 83,000 with fewer than 5,000 deaths in comparison to the United States with over 2 million cases and nearly a hundred over a hundred and seventeen thousand deaths so in all of these cases the US has been suffering they've now run up with three trillion dollar enhancement to its national debt all of which it seems to me makes it clear which country is benefiting from their responses to the crisis and it seems to be one way to look at this is the very interesting proposal that a number of

Asian governments have now had with regard to air transport they would like to create a safe bubble or a kovat bubble in which they would allow transportation and air travel among those countries in Asia that have dealt with the crisis but absolutely none of them would allow u.s. planes into or out of the countries so it seems to me that going forward China is clearly a country to have benefited the most from this crisis and its response to it whereas the United States has been clearly a failure Thank

You professor pimple so you are suggesting China has benefited from this pandemic a crisis however some people are thinking if you look at the August on markets in the USA and also the potential to grow in American government akina American dollars and it is a huge financial influence so do you think the in the long term maybe by the end of this year and next year how do we compare economy recovery between USA and China right now I guess my quick response would be to say that the United States is enjoying a stock market

recovery and we've seen something close to a v-shaped recovery in the stock market but the real economy is suffering something in the order of 40 million lost jobs numerous retail establishments will never open again we're looking at 20% plus unemployment and that's the real economy and it seems to me that going forward this is not going to change dramatically until we get some version of a vaccine or a very good antiviral and to the best of my knowledge this is not likely to happen for at least a year China having

controlled the virus to a much greater extent has I think the capacity to keep its economy going much more effectively than the United States will at this point so my sense is that the United States economy is going to be in a much worse position than that of China despite the fact that they can print dollars and that you know they have a great deal of financial leverage in the world but I think the long-run impetus of this is to enhance the power of China reduce the power of the United States okay and then let me by the professor I

can very purpose I can very has been known to be a strong advocate for the international the liberal international orders I'm sure he has many things to say okay professor I can't bear it thank you very much well it's great to be here and to see my friends on the screen and join this discussion let me just say a little bit about how I think the overall us-china relationship may be impacted by the Kohan virus and in the broader kind of global context and make three points number one even without the

virus us-chinese relations are entering a period of winter really an ongoing increase in rivalry competition enmity and it's likely to occur it to continue for some time and that's partly because there are deep reasons why US and China are are butting heads and will increasingly over the next decade one is simply at the power transition that we're all aware of the the the fact that in East Asia we are moving over the course of several decades from a an older hegemonic configuration of order with the u.s. at the lead to a more

bipolar more balance of power system and it's even more complicated than that in that China is kind of the center of the region economically and the u.s. remains very important in terms of security alliances and then also making that underlying relationship even more fraud is that increasingly China is partly because of the virus but even before this under President Xi stepping forward and articulating a more Chinese anti-liberal anti Western anti-democratic vision of the future so what that all means is

that the relationship and the competition is becoming more ideological it's not just great powers that are competing because of power and interest there is there's increase in a sense that the two countries representative or models and that I think maybe we'll talk a little bit about that later on but there are implications that that has that I think we're just beginning to to try to think about my second point is is this simply that the Cova hood virus that pandemic is illuminating and accelerating these trends and so we are

seeing it before our eyes in real-time a continuation of of a kind of return to nationalism nationalist populism anti global is calls for strategic decoupling and all of this in the context of strategic rivalry among great powers so I think we're going to see more of that more walls more decoupling more movement away from the kind of high age of interdependence that we've lived through through the 1990s and into the last decade then finally my third point would be and this is relevant to TJ's point

about the u.s. performance in this crisis and it has been quite miserable and I think the United States in in some sense the first time since 1945 this global crisis is a crisis where the United States not step forward and said we are a global leader and we are going to organize a coalition of states to tackle this problem and that's new and that I think tells the world something about the future and about the uncertainties of American power and leadership and therefore it will have not just implications for how each of our

countries separately are together tackle the a virus but how countries think about their long-term strategic relationships and how much you tie it to the United States what is the value and and certainty of alliances and then finally I'll just end by saying there is a little bit of a silver lining here and that is that people are are now I think having more explicit and sweeping discussions about international order regional order and international order so there's more on the table and there's operative fluidity if you will to

diplomacy and possibilities now in the short run that means more nationalism more anti globalism more enmity but in the longer term like in the 1930s and 40s there will inevitably be I I believe through the study of patterns of history be a counter movement by internationalists in different countries that see the ultimate solution to these problems of modernity such as the virus that can only be solved by International Cooperation can I ask a follow-up questions you mentioned about this sweet international order maybe it can be

disordered and then you said there will be more alternative efforts will align up and some people are talking about the divide all over Europe but in Asia we didn't have like a European solidarity not to the parity of European Union so can a ssin countries can do something and this coming fluid or disorder author in our region well I think the answer is yes I think that there's a real opportunity here for countries what would I think maybe we're going to talk about later on middle countries and their possibilities for cooperation to

create alignments that can be useful in solving problems that are regional and global I think that's there's a real upside potential there for South Korea Japan Australia countries kind of in-between China the United States to to to play a role and I think it's partly because in my view I don't think China's doing very well either so I don't I'm not pleased with the United States response and there may be there will be an election the u.s. I think will rebound politically from this but I think neither country is really showing

great leadership and so I think there really is an opportunity for countries to - to both work together inside of this system but also to use their collective leverage to tilt and bargain with the two superpowers - to both create coalition's of the Willing and to put pressure on them to step forward in new ways thank you I can bury and then let's invite professor Hinkle from Australia evening three points as well to follow on from what TJ and and John have said to begin with I think I you know follow up with John's point about

China's greater economic role in the region as compared to the USS security role I guess I I would put those two things together a bit more and think about that economic security Nexus in relation to both their roles and the u.s. is not just the military power of in the world or in Asia its hegemony is absolutely underpinned by economic power and and its vital role in the international economy as we go forward in the post you know dealing with coal bit for me the most important aspect of the competition between the US and China

is actually the question of how covered will affect the relative and absolute economic recovery capacities and economic reforms necessary in both economies in the u.s. case being a military power and being committed to projection elsewhere in the world absolutely depends upon a continuing economic capacity at home in the United States this is important both socially as well as economically to keep the ability to commit to other parts of the world China on the other hand of course is not just an economic power

particularly in Asia anymore all those of us in Asia know this you know and we've seen it with kovat right China is absolutely essential to both creating security and insecurity in the region it is also absolutely essential for ensuring that we can actually have security in the region so I think the two things are bit sort of more tied up than that this segues into my second point which you know sukjong and her very useful preparatory questions asked you know which country do we see is winning this virus accelerated

competition and I see a very curious sort of uncomfortable tie between the US and China right now I don't think either is doing well just as John said we see China pouring effort treasure and might into the contest but it cannot yet win the supporters that it wants not least in its own region in contrast the US has desperate supporters not just in this region but everywhere else in the world just yelling for its leadership but Washington often doesn't even seem to be aware that there is actually a game

afoot so when there's very uncomfortable tuition of that sort of asymmetry on both sides the third point I'd made to keep this conversation going in to push it forward a little bit more I think is this question of what are the alternatives if we have this rather uncomfortable competition in a tie between the US and China are there alternative forces that can unite the world alleviate this contest and I'd say we should probably give up the idea that old-fashioned realist idea that the world cycles

through a succession of great power hegeman's that pass the baton on from one to the other I don't think we're going to see a third party great power or even a grouping of states rising as an alternative force to us-china competition at least I hope not because this type of scenario is usually accompanied by systemic war and this again exactly how the United States found itself unwillingly a global power in 1945 so I think we should look instead more openly to everyone I think the alternative forces that can

alleviate these destructive dynamics will be found I think in a mixture of actors and avenues transnational economic channels coalition's of like-minded governments different coalition's or different like-minded governments with different things alliances among civil society activists from different parts of the world students young people global policy entrepreneurs intellectuals etc I think it's going to be that sort of pluralist forces that will offer alleviation for this contest thank you Elina can I ask this follow-up questions

we've been talking a lot about decoupling of the DJ and China and there is a very skeptical perception from the the market whether is it possible from the forum individual phone respected so politically the the President Trump can say a lot about decoupling but in the market it is very difficult for business to follow the kind of a political discourse second if decoupling is really happening who is winning with losing because China is more dependent on trading with the USA rather than the other way around but at

the same time the domestic demand inside China is replacing the export demand as well so from your perspective if whether decoupling is possible and it is possible and who will have a more economic at this mister Vantage um I think be coupling as always possible most things are possible it's a matter of how much cost you are able and willing to bear so if you look at the debate amongst economists right now it seems to be a sort of idea that we might get you know the confluence of two dynamics going on here one is the

necessary rethinking about things like supply chains in the corporate world we're necessarily going to see a shortening of supply chains particularly in the Asian region where this is possible where you know regional economies have a certain degree of centralized control that that allow governments to very effectively put forward keraton mistakes that can reorient eight corporations and businesses choices in a short amount of time so we'll see the changing and shortening of supply chains anyway that

coupled with the impetus shall we call that I call it that for decoupling between the us-led and Chinese nets economy you know international economies may create its own dynamics certainly in this part of the world that I think will lead us to what at least a more plural economic order if not an absolute be coupled one so I think we will find individual economies including Korea Australia and other economies in the region you know seeking more diverse options for how they produce which consumers

they want to aim for so there's certainly going to be that claw realization and whether or not we end up with a binary decoupling we'll have to see but I think the realization is definitely on the cards Thank You Emily and professor Cheng Jun you waited long but I'm sure you it was very insightful assessment about this competition please thank you I agree to the view that copied 19 crisis was a excellent to the already existing us-china rivalry but what I observed me what is interesting is that the decrease of

multilateral options for American strategic thinking when he go back to the unipolar history we just started in 1991 if we count the breakup of the former Soviet Union now we have 13th anniversary of post-cold war which is unipolarity and there was a great debate about sustainability of Unicode already and during that period I think we had three crises in every every decade actually in the first one 9/11 second 2008 economic recession now called it crisis for the former two crises United States try to multilateral options such

as the Coalition of the Willing or to training with the help of alliances but now we have very much unilateral options for United States not just the States but also for China all the countries the thing is that I think American strategic thinkers think that multilateral options are not that much beneficial to American interests so the question is is any polarity and multilateralism compatible as time goes by because too much burden is on the American side so even though we have the China originated virus but if we think the

virus originated for example in European Ally I think United States response was the same much in your lateral response so how can receive this multilateral options from this international order the second point is that this is a relative loss game because as many competitions a relative came China is trying to gain more influence in many countries these material powers such as you know medical equipment isn't one but I think China is not ready to use its material power for its diplomatic influence because even though China is

providing international security-related I mean health-related collective goods but still there is a lot of conditions for China to augment this influence so it's London is not really like in such a collective goods it's a kind of semi in a public goods or club goods so the chance is there because United States is withdrawing from the status of global leadership but it's truly for China to prepare to present yourself as quite ready as a very candidate third point is the Bastille I think there are a lot of

opinions both inside China and the United States to emphasize the benefits of mutual cooperation if you read articles and newspapers from China for example there are many people who think that the cooperation with nightsticks is too important so from domestic interests President Xi and President Trump says that the responsibility is on the other side but I think we have to emphasize underlying trance that mutual cooperation is too important and that hope for the future my follow-up questions to Professor xx

sang it says during this pandemic America it's not only USA and I was a many European countries label the Chinese responded the authoritarian model but Hoshi logged on and also punishing the whistleblowers and so forth so relating to this to the etiological communication professor I can various mentioned it seems like China is not gaining them match it and this Chinese model of flattening copy the 90s I'd like to hear your opinion on this and second one is who's gonna rescue he wanted a car order do you have

a high expectation to in European countries and then shoot it went the European continent to sustain the multilateral international order yes so the cognate crisis was presented in two aspects first one is model competition between Chinese model and so-called democratic model and the competition about the hegemonic status or the leadership there could be some criticism against how China dealt with the crisis especially inside United States there was a Pew Research poll a couple of weeks ago and the Americans do

not think that Chinese response was affected we have the trade-off between his efficiency and human rights that's in some sense inevitable I think more importantly is how China United States tried to build a global consensus to deal with this virus crisis in that sense you're both China guys it didn't succeed that much so rather than criticize the individual countries response to the crisis I think how these two great powers dealt with the crisis from the international level is more important the second norm based

order I think there is still a loop because now we have a decline phase of United States hegemony maybe we'll bounce back and there was a severe competition between US and China but if you look at for example the shangri-la addressed by the US Secretary of Defense last year there was a face of norm-based competition so competition is fine or conflict is inevitable the thing is that how we manage the conflict based on the norms and that norms is not just made by United States we call the order us-led a

liberal international order but there was a role for the followers shifts so there are many countries and participants so how we can make this order more inclusive by allowing more countries participate in this competition so I think not just between United States and China as you said in European countries is very important in a nation the third party countries will be also important Thank You professor Chang thank you okay let's move on to the second big copy that is the post-election US strategy and the next

American government Asia policy I know is we have a election in actually American election on November 3rd November 3rd and then there is a lot of saying Blaney I think that Joe Biden is likely to be likely who knows and then there is a different assessment about the next administration's a people are saying whoever gets elected the America will be very busy they are going to concentrated that they are resources domestically auto-recovery so they're there within the American position to engage internationally already present

from had decided to withdraw nine thousand and five hundred American soldiers stationed in Germany and the friends 20 ties has been written so Asia is watching with the great anxiety present from has already pushed Korea and Japan their conventional ally is over the cost of stationing American armies in these countries so however if you look at the recent tensions in our region we had auto crash which in India and in China killing more than 20 Indian soldiers and in South Korea is in over the several days the North Korea blew up

the liaison office in custom and they are going to rebuild her eyes DMZ areas there are many tensions rising up in the asia-pacific can Asian countries trust the continuous American commitment for the peace and security of asia-pacific region and we've seen the President Obama the rebalancing strategy and present rompers the in in the Pacific strategies but yester Anja's sound like team might progressive people to to share your your your ideas on this question okay keeping with everybody else's commentaries and sticking to

three points I have basically three points that I want to make but the first point I want to make is that Trump's behavior in Asia with regard to unilateralism xenophobia America first anti-science etc etc has largely pulled the United States out of the kinds of multilateral organizations and multilateral engagement that I think Asia lunk came to depend on in terms of relying on US leadership and of course China is now being painted as the enemy and this represents a striking contrast to I think long-standing US policy of

trying both to engage and at the same time to contain or to hedge against China's rise the Trump administration is painting China as an existential threat this was true in a pen speech in 2018 in the national security strategy announcement in the efforts to reel able the Cova 19 virus as the Wuhan virus so I would see this as essentially an electoral ploy by the Trump administration to paint China as the bad guy with a black hat and our cowboy movies in a way that have since the United States from engagement with China

and more complex way but I think it's also important to recognize that the it's not just been China that has been subject to Trump's attacks the tariffs or is of course fell on Japan and Korea with steel and aluminum tariffs well before they hit China and Korea and Japan were pressed for renegotiating their trade deals with the United States and as you said both countries are being pressed very heavily to triple or quadruple or quintuple there are financial contributions to the United States for the stationing of American

troops in our countries and the United States has in effect ignored its allies and disdained its allies while embracing dictators across the East Asia whether it's Kim Johan or Xi Jinping or Rodrigo Duterte or general Kryon chan-ocha in Thailand all of this essentially has pulled us out of multilateral approaches and pulled it out of a multi-dimensional approach to foreign policy if there's any strategy at all to the Trump administration's foreign policy with Asia it has been the advancement of military confrontations with China but

that's really only one facet of what's interesting about the region the second point I want to make though and I think this is important is that this is not just a trump problem that will be solved by the next election if it went to the Democrats I think the United States over the last 25 years has seen the evolution of the Republican Party in a direction that's made it impossible for anyone to talk meaningfully about the United States as having an overarching grand strategy behind which most politicians from both parties can night

instead what we've had is a Republican Party that has pulled very heavily in a direction of a combination of plutocracy and populism plutocracy for the top one or two percent of the American rich who benefit from tax cuts and deregulation along with gaining the voting support of people who are evangelical Christians who are United around social issues who are interested in in opposition to dealing with anything that challenges fossil fuels and replaces them with alternative sources of energy and the

consequence of this is that the Republican Party as a whole has been singularly devoted to cutting the size of government cutting the size of expertise opposing multilateralism except in what George Bush once referred to as a lot a la carte multilateralism and basically the end of this has been also a reduction dramatically in the economic profile of the United States so the United States has been suffering dramatically in terms of its overall competitiveness around the globe the United States now ranks 10th globally in

its economic competitiveness the United States has weakened its science and technology lead it's falling behind in many areas behind China and behind other advanced countries we have a very weak infrastructure and I think in many ways we've seen the decline in the US appeal of higher educational institutions for Asians wanting to come to study more of them are going to Australia New Zealand to Western Europe etc and all of this I think is to take the United States much more fundamentally out of a

multi-pronged engagement with Asia so American engagement with Asia it seems to me has to be thought of as something more than simply a military presence there and I would simply point out that right now the Pentagon over the last three or four years has run a series of tabletop exercises involving various scenarios of conflict with China the United States military now has a perfect record it is not one one of those controversies China wins all so the United States within Asia militarily is in a much

weaker position to provide the kind of assistance that I think many of its allies would really like so to get to the heart of your question about a Biden administration it does seem to me that we would likely see a swing back to something analogous to what the Obama administration was trying to do in Asia which is to say to give a higher priority which is to say that to make it a more multi-dimensional a more economically and diplomatically and educationally focused policy with Asia one in which the TPP was very central to

this and in which that would provide for what evylyn go was talking about as a pluralistic engagement of twelve different countries that don't ordinarily fall into the same category with one another but to engage them on writing rules of trade and investment that would pose a challenge to China but would also hold out a carrot to China if character if China wanted to be engaged with the rest of the region economically we have a very strong incentive to change some of its mercantilist policies at home in a way that would move it much

more close to the goals and the patterns of the TPP so I think a Biden administration would be much more receptive to the kind of multilateral approaches that are being taken in East Asia East Asian Institute's the East Asian the East Asian summit Chiang Mai the the APEC enhancing APEC and engaging with Asia in ways that would bolster the voices of its Asian allies many of whom have interests that are congruent with that of the United States but not necessarily overlapping a hundred percent but I guess the last point that

I would make in this regard as I would anticipate that a Biden administration would not necessarily see China as a country solely to be confronted but as one that needs to be dealt with in a mix of managerial diplomacy that would involve cooperation on the kinds of things that led to the Iran nuclear deal cooperation on Somali piracy on global warming things of this sort on a pandemic and there are bases for US and China to cooperate that would make the United States approach much more favorable to that of other countries in

Asia because I think the last thing countries in Asia want to see is a bifurcated fight between our schism between China and the United States with us doing security China doing economics and the country is being forced to make a choice between their economic interests in their security interest us have the capacity to play both roles in the region I would hope that the find administration would not only deal with its domestic economy by boosting science boosting technology moving into higher tech providing for a more advanced

economy that the United States could then use to engage with Asia but also keeping the military presence alive in ways that would reassure its Asian allies Thanks thank you can tell we don't have much time left I will move to our second speaker I promise I can very and you can address the same questions but I particularly like to hear from you your comments about Professor penpals saying that the America doesn't have a grand strategy to asia-pacific region mainly because of all this domestic political constraints I'd like to hear

your opinion on that please go ahead thank you very much well I'll make three points first of all on the election I do think this is a very important election one of the most important in my lifetime some people have said since 1860 which of course was the election of Abraham Lincoln which initiated the the War Between the States this is and and Maeda it was decisive in shaping how America would look for the next decades and decades and I think that's true in this case as well maybe not quite as existential but in this case

there really will be two different Americas that will be in front of the American voters and I do think if Trump had a second term America first would would truly upend in a you know in a way that would take a generation to return to put back together an American foundation for doing well and doing good in the world I do think that that NATO could unravel truly in a second term and I think the Alliance's in East Asia would follow and become increasingly more formal less real hedging and and this kind of eight

what would be eight years of a self harm of jeopardizing and undermining the an American created order would be both shocking damaging and difficult to reverse I think that Biden rejects all of what Trump believes in and he's a multilateral us he's he's clearly somebody who would try to steer the u.s.

back there's a question of how far back you can go no one can erase the memory of a Trump even if he only has one term but it does matter for Trump II and foreign policy to be repudiated which could happen there's a kind of dialectical dynamic and world politics we're in this national populist phase but we're probably going to in that phase with strong consensus in major parts of the world that it wasn't very successful so there will be a kind of possibility for leadership swinging back the second point is about Biden and I I

think that when it comes to Asia policy it's not that there will be a kind of an end to trumpian focus on criticizing China I think China will be seen as a challenger and this in this sense I think TJ and I maybe disagree a little bit I think if you were to ask those who are going to be foreign policy leaders and a Biden administration they would say that top three priorities are focus on the American economy and make it more productive and make it more prosperous for working people focusing on inequality building up an economy

that can sustain an internationalist coalition what the world is being destabilized by an America that's that's by bipolar and unstable and so that domestic dynamic is externalizing itself to the world and until it gets put back in place the US can't really be an effective global leader and the world itself will not be a settled place but I do think even if Biden is successful it will be the economy secondly it will be rebuild the alliances and the third will be a certain counterpoint to China and

as I said I think there is a pretty bunch of bipartisan consensus in Washington foreign policy community which I'm to some extent a minority outsider in my current views there's there is a my majority view that that china is increasingly a challenge and that that goes with that that the engagement strategy pursued by every American and president since the end of the Cold War Republican and Democrat has not worked so Biden's foreign policy is going to proceed on the premise I would argue that that we can't do things to

draw China into our world and make it more open and accountable that we're going to have to live with a China that's increasingly proposing an alternative future with a non demo kradic non-liberal form of capitalism so engagement failed and if you look at the Kurt Campbell and Jake Sullivan their Foreign Affairs article from last fall it was entitled competition without catastrophe and it was an argument for pretty assertive competition creating a multilateral structure around China so that the rule makers on international

cooperation on regulatory rules on all these different the infrastructure of international relations is is developed by like-minded liberal democracies not all of them like America but but emphasizing principles of international relations and governance transparency openness free flow of information and so forth so I do think we're going to swing back to a more ideological competition with China because I think China is eager for that and I think that it doesn't have to be all bad I think the US did some of the greatest things that

did both in the world and domestically when it saw a competitive ideological challenger Soviet Communism Nazi fascism Imperial Germany in each of these three cases Woodrow Wilson FDR and post-war American presidents brought their principles out of America and to the world because they saw that there was an alternative that was out there threatening liberal democracy finally if I have a couple more minutes or in another minute I just say that I think that there are some counter forces that are going to limit the competition

between US and China there are some pressures that go the other direction and I'll just mention three very quickly one is simply that China to the extent it is hot and assertive as a rising power it is going to alienate its neighbors we call this the problem of self encirclement but that rising states inevitably face countries on their neighborhood worried about more Chinese power second the United States cannot be a hot aggressing power either because frontline allies don't want to have to choose between China in the United

States they want both and if the US looks like it's you either have to be our ally or China's ally they will not want to make that choice from Singapore to Northeast Asia and then finally the problems of interdependence there will be things that China in the United States and everybody else will have to work together on but my final message is simply that the future of multilateralism in my view is partly going to be driven by whether the liberal democracies the g7 or the d10 the democracy 10 which would include

Australia and South Korea can come together in a post trumpet trump era and drive the agenda for rebuilding multilateralism from climate change to arms control to the w-h-o so I think the democracies have to be united and selectively work with China to rebuild that order and I think they're there that they're their stakeholders and constituencies or who are dying to do that thank you we heard very passionate assessment from two great American scholars so now let's turn to Ilene and Tessa but since we

cannot even studied three say 1/3 kitchens from now on I like to add speakers just be more quickly if link can you yes sure um perhaps I can make a yeah just some brief points um let's look at this from the non-us point of view perhaps of a regional point of view what would be a more rational and workable US strategy towards the region regardless of who the next president is and I believe that you know saw the problems in Asia to do with US leadership are going to still be there regardless of who the next president is my suggestions

essentially resolved into two one is obviously as both American speakers have already said absolute priority has to go towards recalling the domestic political economy in the u.s. without that basis Asia has no grounds for expectation of any kind of continued reliability in American engagement or commitment to this region so that economic priority I think from regional points of view is absolutely central secondly a slightly more challenging one if we think about US leadership in the region it seems to me that what the US

will need to do is to have to walk and chew gum in quite a different way we're at a juncture now where I think the next US leadership is going to have to think about how to mesh three issues in leading in the region first of all you know to be able to deal with the idea that we're inevitably going into a kind of regional order in which there is going to be conflict or crises or tensions at the very least with China on a permanent basis this means that we've got to read resurrect some kinds of cold

war crisis manage cold war type crisis management limitation of conflicts type bilateral agreements between the US and China you know at the very least to prepare for greater incidences at sea in the air etc in regional theaters so that's you know stuff that we don't like to think about because apparently the Cold War is over but that's the functional area that's got to be absolutely thought about and resurrected in a clear fashion at the same time though there is still the need to think about how the us-led parts of

the order in the china inclined parts of the order would have to reach some kind of restricted but still functioning exchange this is not the Cold War there is no two separate spheres we are interdependent absolutely so we're going to have some degree of D company or companies for example new rules ways of doing things that still allow countries in the middle to actually have forms of regulated exchange across these two decoupled realms so quite quite new areas of thinking I think on this project at the same time there's got to

be the thought of what John's already referred to which I would paraphrase as how you would achieve us-china cooperation on shared fate issues again you know we've seen very clearly in in 2019 and 2020 that certain things cannot wait and the climate change challenge is one of these obviously pandemics as well so you know its own range of challenges which which are incredibly tough there's two good things going for the u.s. in this region I'll still reinforce eyes again that number one that remains very

very significant regional demand for US leadership in East Asia we often take this for granted it has to be said the significant demand for this secondly the US dollar has to recognize that East Asian states live permanently in China's shadow this really means that US strategic leadership must encompass an element of how to enable States in East Asia to keep supporting US leadership without forcing them to make zero-sum choices easily China I'll stop there thank you okay let's invite lemming Mike

Tyson to respond yes the coming American presidential election is critical I agree in the sense that US should redefine its role as a global leader because we are living in a period where one state cannot produce all the necessary international public goods we define hegemony as the country who can shoulder the burden of producing international public goods but now I think we are entering into the period in which which ammonium is an imposter ability because you're wasting tremendous challenges such as coffee 90s

is just one example the all the problems coming from globalization is climate change refugees all these all these things so even though United States in China achieved something like you know by gamma D or Julie Germany I think it's still fall short of the challenges so there is a theory the internship region theory that they sure make the role can reduce the transaction costs and deal with all the problems coming from the international interactions but I think as a marine growth should change so if

the United States can define its role as something like a meta governance multilateralism Obama said that lead from behind but we have to step up the level of multilateralism can not just go back to the multilateralism that we have in the twentieth century the second thing is that if you look at the survey data of the American public the millennial generation is very much skeptical about the global engagement to the American policy so if that generation becomes the the central post maker generation then I think a Kent

American you know opposed maker sustain that policy of global engagement which will have a tremendous impact upon the other countries allies in Asian countries is wrong third thing if we can have the Democratic administration I think there should be more emphasis on the Alliance that's for sure but if the new administration uses that Elias has countering Chinese influence because we see the older American China of the spectrum went more hawkish then they all of the Asian alliance should have a role

according to some kind of division of labor of countering China which is another problem for likes for South South Korea we have a you know close relations with China in many in many aspects so emphasis on alliances is okay but the role of alliance or alliance system should be different the last question is regional order in the asia-pacific and the role of middle powers I think we already discussed a lot about the order in the region so this time I like to ask 30 seconds you responded to the role of

the middle power in Asia because I like allocated more time for Q&A sessions the South Korea was keen about this and then we were active in niihka with the power Network so however is not easy because always between the USA and in China we are approached by veteran contacts so it's difficult to respond effectively so I like to hear your ma concrete concrete suggestion too little power Tunisia let me invite the purpose people I said 30 or 40 seconds okay I will do my best I would say that a number of Asian

countries have already begun to step up I think the TPP 11 or the CP TPP is one indication of countries attempting a an economic bloc that pulls countries that are looking to looking to cooperate greatly with one another into a into an arrangement that provides a positive incentive for China but also provides a positive incentive for the United States I think we've seen a number of countries like Japan Korea Australia doing a lot more to try and bolster their capacity to create infrastructure and to boost

infrastructure development in the weaker or less economically sophisticated parts of the region particularly Southeast Asia but also Central Asia and I think the third thing that is going on is this discussion of the free and opening go Pacific which has the capacity to be more than simply a military arrangement and to pull together countries that have a commitment to democracy and a commitment to open trading and movement of goods and services across the Pacific my fear is that Japan Australia India and the United States as

the four countries involved in this have very different views of this FOIP and essentially now it's a concept in search of a unifying unifying set of programs but I think there are things going on that the Asian countries are doing for themselves but I think as several people have said we're still crying they're still crying out for an American presence which I hope would come with a with the election in November not quite 30 seconds but best I can do Thank You professor I can very very brief I've

already made the case that there is a role on a lot of upside potential for middle power diplomacy and I think that South Korea has a huge leadership role in this space remember the label global Korea Korea as a rising state that can build coalitions both on the economic side with sustainable development side environment and and security side so I think there's a lot of room there Canada Australia so that's number one number two I think the eye as I just one of my themes tonight has been the the

underperformance of the cooperation among countries that consider themselves liberal democracies so I think there's a lot of room and huge potential upside potential if that energy could be harnessed again and then a to final ideas for regional architecture one is I could imagine a because North Korea is still a dangerous country and likely to become even more so not just in the run-up to the election and we know that that tends to be a very dangerous moment when North Korea sets off missiles but

beyond that the growing danger there is possibility revisit the the five-party talks the countries around North Korea working to create incentives for a more stable Northeast Asia centered on solving problems related to North Korea and then secondly I do think we have a rocky road ahead of us for in us-china relations I think it's baked into the cake it's just going to happen there's nothing to be the old era of of engagement we're a long way from that but I think that there is room for discussion of arms

control based on reciprocity and the building of some kind of strategic forum a dialogue forum for obviously for emergency management of crises but but more generally to exchange ideas to identify areas of cooperation to discuss interests and perspectives I think that's likely to come after the boiling point reaches and there's a little bit of a off the boil now let's talk and so I think there's I think the region could be in the next ten years could be a place where there can be some creative diplomacy tied to many lateral

multilateral institutions thank you let's go to evening and bling uu I in Australia Australia is our centigrade meter power in our region so what's your response thank you I don't speak for Australia I don't speak for any particular country I begin with the observation that you know we have a certain idea of middle powers in our heads and if we look at around the Asian region there's actually two types of little palace right there's the middle Palace who are committed allies Australia Korea amongst them and then

there the middle powers which are in Southeast Asia Indonesia for example which are very different breed and think about these things very differently so mice you know going from there at I give this generic advice to to omit middle powers first of all let's get used to it the region's going to be a very uncomfortable place it already is and it will get more uncomfortable secondly I think we need to learn to think about ourselves as operating in the world without sides even if you are that category of middle power that is

actually in an alliance thirdly we need to think of ourselves as working in a world in which you at some point I'm going to have to make some choices and are going to have to stand up for some values this one obviously is you know targeted at the non-aligned middle powers and I think the world has both these aspects to it which is why it's uncomfortable in general I think that middle powers in in this part of the world can try to do two things let me use an ecosystem analogy when we think about ecosystems in a strategic way we

tend to focus just on the apex predators the great powers let's think about the you know parts of the ecosystem that we pay a lot less attention to which is where middle house operate on the one hand let's think about the activities of bees which as I think most of us know by now bees essential to the survival of any ecosystem because they cross pollinate they you know they do essential services and I think middle powers need to work on that aspect of what they can contribute to the system cross-cutting

collaboration not only with each other and not only with one side Democratic or otherwise but across a variety of other states and axis secondly think about trees trees that individually are you know individual organisms but together make up for us and their own sub ecosystems and these might be what we would think of as the institutional frameworks and capacity that the region might have and of course within these middle powers other non great powers are absolutely essential so I think those are the tools sort of broad areas of

functions that middle powers are going to find much more room for maneuver and much more need for maneuver in this uncomfortable world that we operate in I'll just stop thank you professor I'm sure yes briefly two things I think the us-china rival is just beginning we will have a long series of competition in many areas and middle powers in East Asia what they are afraid of most is retaliation so I think we are having more and more retaliation based order how can we give eight how can we minimize the harm coming from the

retaliation from great powers probably from the United States and Isis is not exerting retaliation but simply withdrawing vapours is that also a Humphrey effect on the other countries so I think there are many like-minded countries and like situated countries in East Asia so we should make a collision of minimizing the harms and possibly or hopefully deterring economic retaliation or to economic you know portioning coercive measures from other countries but I am afraid that those type of economic warfare is expanding in East

Asia in general so how to minimize that it's a short term you know task for million powers the second one is a long term buy more positive one because as I said you know USA China cannot dominate all the multilateralism so we have to actively participate in the designs of multilateralism in Asia but you know both countries are suggesting or defensing many ideas from your side for example economic prosperity network which we don't know very much about is still unclear we don't know what kind of issues are there as you said we're

decoupling issues all those things so I guess that it will be better if we have a prior consultation and cooperation in making those you know architectures of East Asian multilateral institutions then there will be a role of coal architects for East Asian countries as a middle powers here Nam I collected questions from people participating in this webinar I can identify three Christians the let's go for the first one evil sivle diem he has asked the u.s. push to ecological competition with the China

over such as ballet and they push it European countries and all sports edition countries is it working exactly or this kind of touch to line up economical it will continue over the years so who can address this issue DJ you want to do that I'd love to do it if I could get clear on the question your mic was cutting in and out and I'm not sure I really understood the gist of the question okay I think this is one of the difficulties with the us-china relationship and that is the fact that there is this techno nationalist

competition going on particularly around something like 5g the United States's is the US companies are further behind Chinese companies like walkway in the 5g competition and I think this poses a real problem for the United States as do a whole host of advanced technologies whether we're thinking about electric cars whether we're thinking about solar power where they were thinking about artificial intelligence whether we're thinking about facial recognition and this goes to the point that I think I

was making John was making earlier which is to say that the United States if it's going to play in this game needs to get its own domestic economy into a place where it is once again have the cutting edge of many of these new technologies I think on the question of Huawei we've unfortunately seen with this Trump administration and I hate to keep making this sound like this is a course in American democratic domestic politics but the Trump administration basically did not impose sanctions on CTE a

Chinese company that had clearly violated a whole host of sanctions against in dealing with with Iran sanctions against walkway were backed off basically because Trump was doing his best to get Xi Jinping on his side for the election and given by soybeans and wheat but the u.s. is clearly going to be facing a high level competition with China on these new advanced technologies and it seems to me that is an area where the United States is going to have to get its domestic house and its domestic economic

order set up in order to deal more effectively because China is moving ahead on an awful lot of these areas Thank You professor temple and let me ask this question to professor I can marry this is about democracy you talked already about your logical competition or value competition between USA and China Weathers the global pandemic how the democracy is working in this ideological competition whether the many Asian countries they like - they like they respect all these democratic values at the same time they are not talking

openly in criticizing any human right violations by China like a Hong Kong security law and in many shoes yes that's a great question and we are going through a period that will extend into the next year of of seeing how different countries with different kinds of governments cope with this new pandemic and I think unbalanced the what we know is the we'll call it in the national populous states those that have had kind of boastful leaders who don't really haven't built their governments around expertise and and professional civil

service and science-based policy have done very poorly Brazil the United States and and I would say United Kingdom for example and so but some democracies have done quite well including South Korea and New Zealand and other countries so I think there's a lot of a lot of different types of governments that that are more differentiated than simply democracies are non democracies I think in the long term China has an a kind of authoritarian state centered systems or can do certain things very quickly they

can shut things down but they can also shut down news and the flow of information which in the end is not good for any of us so there is there will be certain conclusions drawn that will be critical of both both types I think in the end open systems with civil societies with pluralistic governments where the rule of law where transparency and information flow that in the long term those kinds of governments have have done the best they've been the most legitimate and they've been the most resilient and the other thing about

electoral democracies is you can throw the bad guys out you can start fresh and if a particular American leader can't get along with it with another leader another democracy if you wait two or three years you will have different people in those positions so there is a kind of value there that that I think over two hundred years you can see the see a democratic advantage even though you can also see the their vulnerabilities that are are on display very painfully today thank you Aibileen can I ask this questions we

talked a lot about the weakening global ionizations right and the this could be the nineteen wisp and any also contributed to further weakening globalization however the many countries are trying to help each other so how do you see the relationship between the laconic globalization and possible increasing regionalization or regionalism okay I think Asia is reasonably well placed in this regard Asian economic regionalism particularly has been you know on the rise and has seen increased activism particularly

since the 1997 Asian financial crisis when this region really learned the lesson of self health and the necessity of having regional safety nets in additional in addition to external ones so we're fairly well placed for that having said that though the Asian economic and political and security systems are incredibly open to the rest of the world as well so there's a limit to how much you know regionalism would be able to replace the benefits of you know being globally open for for this region so I think you know to some

extent we will we should expect to see in the coming era strengthening regionalism in particularly in our part of the world but that cannot come at the expense of continually still leveraging access to markets you know supply chains etc in other parts of the world so it's it's going to have to go and tend them and obviously any decline in global openness is going to be bad for Asian producers particularly in the short to medium term so it's going to be a bit of a trade off but I see no option except

that Asian economies particularly must double down on regional on their regional emphasis certain for the short term thank you let me ask professor transistor used have written a lot about the middle power diplomacy of South Korea and also the South Korea's efforts to create a mythical networks but whether always Havas acute issues posed by North Korea whether it be the next phase of South Korea middle party promising in the future well middle power diplomacy does not exclude any particular great power you

know me the powers planet I think is to deal with great power politics itself not any specific great power so we need a active participation and help from great powers for South Korea we are dealing with many security issues for example inter-korean relations but from the great power perspective the development of WMDs and nuclear and missiles from North Korean society is a just a matter of non-proliferation or global nuclear security orders for South Koreans the deep root of that problem is the political one how to deal with

inter-korean relations and find the right place for North Korea in the future the North Korea North East Asia international politics so China denies they should understand the position of those middle powers who are who has been entangled in many different situations actually it's a task of post-colonial one you know sukjong talk about you know Indian Chinese border which is a remnant the legacy of the imperial powers in delineating their borders in a certain fashion so when we middle course deal

with a difficulty good questions I think we have to facilitate a deep understanding from great powers and try to make a some kind of arrangement or regime in which middle powers and great powers can understand each other and go deeply into the essence of the all the problems in the region thank you so much I think the time is running out so we had to end this fascinating webinar and thank you professor temple verse Eikenberry professor ko and professor John for sharing your insightful thinking's

on these very important issues and and audience we have identities at 300 great and and before you leave we would like to ask you to fill out some brief survey audacity to for AI to improve the quality of next webinar and today's webinar will be available on our website Facebook and that Instagram and many SNS stats thank you so much I learned a lot it was very enjoyable and and you are thought leaders in the academia and so I'd like to thank you bravely and then stay safe and stay happy I made this

cope with 19 global crisis thank you very much thank you thank you so very much I my colleagues I done glad you made it yes

← 뒤로 · ← 홈으로 · ← 목록으로