[EAI ACADEMY Lecture 7] Ha Young-sun

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmMqCyKf3UE

■ Ha Young-sun: Chairman of EAI, Professor Emeritus at Seoul National University. He served as a senior advisor to the Inter-Korean Summit Preparation Committee and a member of the Presidential National Security Advisory Council. He holds bachelor's and master's degrees in Diplomacy from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. in International Politics from the University of Washington. He was a professor in the Department of Diplomacy at Seoul National University (1980-2012) and a visiting fellow at Princeton University's Center for International Studies and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. His recent books and edited volumes include "The Geopolitics of Love: War and Peace" (2019), "A Correct View of Korean Diplomatic History: Tradition and Modernity" (2019), "The Competition to Build the Asia-Pacific Order between the US and China" (2017), "The Korean Peninsula and the Four Major Powers in 1972, 2014" (2015), "Ha Young-sun's International Politics Columns 1991-2011" (2012), "Complex Geopolitics" (2012), and "North Korea 2032: A Co-evolutionary Strategy for Advancement."

Video Transcript

May I ask a question? I enjoyed your lecture very much. I am currently studying constructivism in international politics. While listening to your explanation of 'Bokap-pa' (complex approach), I felt it had significant similarities to Wendt's concept of 'super-elvin' that he expressed concern about. I would like to ask if there is any connection between the two. Given the limited time, perhaps we should move on.

Summary of questions related to constructivism. What are your thoughts on the seminar? As a student who doesn't have much time to attend seminars, I felt it was an opportunity to learn in various ways. Especially, without COVID-19, it was a time to broaden my perspective beyond the prejudices of certain countries or ethnic groups. I found the session on China particularly engaging. I also realized that I might have been thinking too simplistically about North Korea, or approaching it too easily.

Thank you for the seminar. Regarding my thoughts, I asked a question earlier. While attending EAI, I became very interested in concepts like 'Bokap-pa' (complex approach) as a student of international politics. I agree that there are significant overlaps between my understanding of 'Bokap-pa' and your explanation. However, in the subsequent lectures, it seemed that the paradigm or methodology of 'Bokap-pa' was not actively attempted. Instead, it appeared to be merely appended as a conclusion, a form of pluralistic methodology applied to existing practical approaches. This was somewhat disappointing.

I was a bit disappointed. Yes. Kim Jin-soo, your microphone is not working. There was a question earlier about why Korea has no dreams. My name is Kim Jae-ho. Hello. I have a question. You presented the 'dreams of the world' for the 21st century, showing the dreams of various countries. Given that 20% of the 21st century has already passed (it's 2020), to what extent do you think these dreams for each country have been realized?

Furthermore, what do you think is the best path forward for the Korean Peninsula? And this is something I've been personally curious about: when I read your books and recommended readings, most of the theories of international politics are based on Western thought or history. I recall reading an article once, though I can't remember the source, that China is trying to change the world order from a chessboard to a Go board.

In that context, Korea has adapted to the order established by China for 2,000 years and has now adapted well to the Western-established order, becoming a developed nation. So, in this situation where the two worlds are clashing, is there a possibility for Korea to harmonize these worldviews and move forward, or should we speak in broad terms? Regarding your question about constructivism, which you emailed about at length previously, it's a relatively new concept for those who haven't studied international politics. Constructivism began to gain traction in the West around the late 1980s, so it's been about thirty years. The idea that there are complex factors, which is different from what I think, is indeed a common aspect. The person who famously represents this is often called Wendt.

As a student, the initial question in international politics is whether actors, such as states and the systems that influence them, are what truly exert influence. It's not possible to think of this in a dichotomous way. The system, to some extent, shapes the actors, and the actors, in turn, shape the system. In that sense, it is complex. However, in another sense, when considering the importance of the internal versus the external, the idea of looking at the internal aspects is, to some extent, acceptable.

Wendt's perspective, however, is that the internal aspects are ultimately viewed through a Western lens. It's an attempt to trace the inner world of humans or the inner world of actors like states using the quantitative methods employed in natural sciences. I think about it a bit differently. When I showed the picture earlier, the one drawn by a Chinese person with a bright half and a dark half, if the internal aspects determined everything, then everyone looking at the bright full moon should see it as bright. But in this book, and in the drawing, their inner worlds are depicted as very dark.

So, will the dark reality determine the world, or will the bright, moon-like world determine it? Or is it a combination of the two? The key difference is that the inner world that Wendt interprets is likely very modern and scientific, while my interpretation of the inner world is perhaps more Eastern. This is likely the main difference. Regarding your question about where Korea should go, it's very difficult for me to answer. I spoke about it for about 30 minutes, and if you ask me again, it's like asking me to give the lecture again, or that you didn't understand what I said.

My point is that my approach is bound to become a Korean model. As I mentioned in the first lecture, the post-COVID-19 world order is now a major topic of debate in international relations, and even the US lacks confidence. The idea that COVID-19 was unexpected is amusing. The US is presenting its model, but what about China's model? Can China be the protagonist with that model? That model also lacks persuasiveness. Therefore, what I condensed into 30 minutes – that actors should be redefined, the stage should be reconfigured, and complex roles should be played within it – is a message to the other human beings and also to myself. From the perspective of the virus, depending on how this side moves, the other side has no choice but to choose how to establish relationships with humans. The symbiotic relationship, as mentioned earlier, is ultimately created as the virus reproduces itself and establishes its relationship with humans.

I explained it as much as I could, but I understand it's difficult to fully grasp. I recommend rereading the final chapter of "The History of the World" or "The Geopolitics of Love." However, if that material is not familiar to you, I don't strongly recommend forcing yourself to do it. It's best to start with what you can understand well. Unfamiliarity means you haven't thought about it much, or there's a part that doesn't resonate with you. Of course, reaching this point over seven sessions requires considerable patience, but such effort is necessary. Lastly, my lectures in the first and seventh sessions are not about dividing East and West into two and advocating for one side. If you want to embrace even the virus with affinity, you must offer something that Americans, Europeans, Chinese, and Russians would all find worth listening to.

There is no reason why Koreans cannot do this. Looking back, no one can do it now. In my view, international politics is entering a period of great confusion, especially after experiencing the pandemic. Paradoxically, China claims to have more experiential knowledge than others – it has experienced the tributary system, the international order, and reform and opening up. Therefore, it claims that the new civilization of the 21st century will emerge from China. However, it is extremely difficult for China to truly understand the historical experiences we have gone through. We have experienced much more complex lives. Despite being a large country, major powers have faced considerable ups and downs, yet they have survived to this day without their vectors disappearing. Perhaps, it is possible to articulate narratives that can encompass all of these experiences.

What is it? It's not about advocating for one side, East or West. That's why, despite the limited time, I wanted to have a meeting with those who have had unconventional thoughts throughout history. Looking at the present, 20 years later, I would say most are failing. Like the US, where the next president may or may not be elected. If things continue this way, the US's relative role will diminish compared to Obama's speeches. China, although it has progressed rapidly so far, faces challenges in its domestic politics and ecological issues related to coexistence. Therefore, the claim that China is at the center of a new civilization in the 21st century is, in my view, completely mistaken.

Where is the dream? It's neither in the US nor China. Since there's no clear path, we shouldn't be the first to set the direction. Yes. So, the outcome in 20 years – we have relatively lagged behind, which is a problem. We can no longer afford to just watch the North Korean issue. Fortunately, those who were supposed to lead are still faltering and deviating from the path, not showing significant achievements. Therefore, even now, if we come to our senses and find a new way to lead and cooperate with major powers like the US and China, who are relatively larger than us, that might be the dramatic path for future Korean world politics or the politics of dreams. There's no need to worry, even if some of you are bewildered.

As I mentioned earlier, not many people are leading the way. Therefore, starting now, with a larger scale, and offering a practical tip: when you take international relations courses at university, you should diligently learn what your professors teach, as that is a component. And when you study abroad in the US or China, you should absorb their knowledge. The choice of what to absorb from East and West is your responsibility. As a commemoration of attending EAI for seven sessions, I believe it's necessary to cultivate a dream on a larger scale, and to make realistic efforts. As I said in the first session, rather than making a sudden life change, it's important to steadily nurture your dreams by gradually expanding them from what you are currently doing.

I have covered a lot, and I will conclude here.