EAI ACADEMY Lecture 4: Lee Dong-ryul

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTvUnWewdj8

■ Author: Lee Dong-ryul, Director of EAI China Research Center. Professor at Dongdeok Women's University. He earned a Ph.D. in Political Science from the School of International Studies at Peking University and served as the President of the Association for Modern Chinese Studies. He is currently a policy advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His main research areas include China's foreign relations, Chinese nationalism, and minority issues. Recent publications include "China's Strategy and Role in the Denuclearization and Peace Process on the Korean Peninsula," "The Evolution and Current Implications of Chinese Diplomatic Discourse Since the 1990s," "A Geoeconomic Approach to the Geopolitical Dilemmas of the Xi Jinping Administration's 'Maritime Power' Vision," "Deciphering China’s Security Intentions in Northeast Asia: A View from South Korea," and "Territorial Disputes of China" (co-authored).

Video Transcript

I have a question. Yes, quickly, the first question is, how can we maintain the ROK-U.S. alliance for security while being friendly to China? Yes. Uh, the ROK-U.S. alliance, as I mentioned earlier, was not a strategy we pursued. It became the best choice we could make as we proceeded. The method we can employ is to thoroughly uphold the role of the ROK-U.S. alliance, ensuring it does not become overly extended. The current issue is that the ROK-U.S. alliance is expanding its role beyond a bilateral alliance to a regional and global alliance.

There are U.S. desires and expectations. For example, there are concerns that the THAAD issue might lead to an extension of the missile defense (MD) system. Therefore, while adjustments are needed in ROK-China relations and the ROK-U.S. alliance needs to be realistic and integrated, the role of the ROK-U.S. alliance also needs to be adjusted for the times. I believe efforts are being made in this regard. Secondly, Singapore, as a country adjacent to the Strait of Malacca, has a much larger geographical advantage and strategic importance.

Ah, I see. Yes, that's actually what I was planning to discuss in my closing remarks. Yes. Yes. The point is, as I mentioned earlier, my personal view was that China is a weaker power, but in reality, although Korea is in a very important geopolitical position, it faces significant structural constraints in exerting influence as a middle power. First, its geopolitical location at the nexus of maritime and continental powers, and second, the reality of division. If the division were resolved, and furthermore, if the North Korean issue were resolved, it would become a global issue, not just a Korean Peninsula issue.

Therefore, it is a reality that it is very difficult for Korea to navigate the pressure between the U.S. and China freely. Nevertheless, efforts are needed to overcome this, and the foundation for that, I believe, is domestic consensus, which is crucial. However, even domestically, it has become a subject of political contention. It becomes a subject of political debate under successive progressive and conservative governments, and it is framed as a choice between pro-U.S. or pro-China sentiment, thereby inviting U.S.-China competition onto the Korean Peninsula ourselves. If we can at least avoid that, and buy time to develop our own strategic value, then when the bipolarity of the world becomes multipolar, it might lead to a better situation.

Third, the third question. Yes, the second one. Yes, they are competing to enhance their respective influence, aren't they? Yes. The U.S. has its own strategy, such as its Indo-Pacific strategy, and China also has its demands. Yes, it will only intensify. Yes. So, Korea's current position is... it's not that we can maintain an ambiguous stance. We have internal conflicts within the alliance. Therefore, strategic ambiguity should make it difficult for the other party to judge, but we are too transparent internally. So, I jokingly thought that perhaps we could present our internal conflicts as intentional strategic ambiguity. Or, by simply allowing the existing conflict between progressives and conservatives regarding pro-China and pro-U.S. stances, if we cannot change the structural problems, then within that framework, based on our national interest, at any time.

we can participate in choices desired by the U.S. if it benefits our national interest, and participate in choices desired by China if it benefits our national interest. This possibility should be kept open. However, due to various circumstances, it is very difficult for us to maintain a balance between the U.S. and China. Given the critical importance of security issues, the ROK-U.S. alliance takes precedence. Therefore, from my perspective as a China scholar, I believe we should avoid actively participating in anti-China orders, organizations, or systems led by the U.S. that aim to contain China. We need to buy time. Yes. The fourth question.

Yes, the issue of nationalism. Nationalism is something I am also interested in and like. Uh, the issue of Hong Kong. Yes. Regarding nationalism, while I acknowledged the possibility of ethnic nationalism earlier, in reality, China is already dominated by the Han-centric Communist Party, and the population is 93% Han. Therefore, it is strongly Han-centric. Furthermore, what is currently referred to as nationalism is actually Chinese nationalism, and its core content is Han-centrism. Therefore, issues concerning ethnic minorities are not a major concern for China's political integration.

Yes, the Hong Kong issue. The Hong Kong issue is not so much about Hong Kong itself as it is about China's concern that the Hong Kong issue will become a U.S.-China issue. We are already in an era where we must be vigilant. Yes. My camera skills are not great, so I apologize. Shall we proceed to the fifth question? There are six questions. My apologies. The perception of Korea towards China, as much as China's perception of Korea... Yes, that's correct. Yes. When I initially started this course, the background for wanting to understand China objectively was also due to the fact that perceptions of China in Korean society have recently deteriorated significantly.

Yes, there are many issues with China, of course, but it cannot be resolved through emotions alone. Currently, many people, on YouTube and elsewhere, are excessively criticizing or attacking China based on false information or without objective facts. When we criticize or engage with China, it is most effective when based on facts and objectivity. Otherwise, it can provoke the other party and escalate emotions. This is currently happening. China is well aware that our perception of China is very negative, and consequently, China also has a very negative perception of Korea. Given our geographical proximity, ROK-China relations are inseparable, and economically, China still offers many opportunities for us. Furthermore, its role in issues concerning the Korean Peninsula and North Korea remains important.

Therefore, to prevent things from escalating to extreme levels, realism is very important. In interstate relations, there are conflicts and disputes, and various developments occur. However, when conflicts or disputes arise, there should be channels for resolution and communication, and relationships can be strengthened through this process. Unfortunately, ROK-China relations currently lack adequate communication mechanisms. If public sentiment continues to worsen, it may be very difficult to restore these relations.

Therefore, I believe it is necessary for the media and opinion leaders to view China more calmly, objectively, and without emotional bias. I hope this perception spreads to the younger generation, and I have actively participated and engaged with this intention. However, I feel a sense of awakening. It seems I have answered all the questions. Yes. Ah, I have actually lectured on this topic during my sabbatical, but I have never done it on camera before. This is my first time lecturing on camera, and I feel personally dissatisfied. However, if there are any other questions, I will strive to do better and explain things more carefully and clearly. Yes. Thank you for your time and effort.

Uh, uh.