[2nd EAI ACADEMY Lecture 4] Lee Dong-ryul

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4KPI8FlhQs

- Date and Time: August 20, 2021, 6:00 PM

- Speaker: Lee Dong-ryul, Director of EAI China Research Center, Professor at Dongduk Women's University

Reading List

1. "The Legacy and Evolution of the Chinese Communist Party's Diplomacy Over 100 Years: Focusing on Diplomatic Goals, Discourse, and Perceptions and Strategies of the International System," *Journal of Chinese Political Science* 45(1) (2021).

2. [EAI Special Report] US-China Competition 2050 ③ Values and Norms - Competition Between Political Systems and Ideologies.

3. "Current Status, Prospects, and Challenges of Korea-China Relations in 2020," *2020 China Policy Report*, Korea National Diplomatic Academy, 2021.

Speaker Introduction

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

Video Transcript

Today, we will discuss China's diplomacy. Specifically, the diplomacy of the Xi Jinping administration toward the US and the future of the Korean Peninsula. As you know, this year marks the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. Therefore, I will first explain the evolution of Chinese diplomacy over the past 70 years, though not exhaustively, and then discuss how China's diplomacy has changed during the Xi Jinping era. Following that, I will discuss Korea-China relations. While there are various aspects to Korea-China relations, today I intend to delve deeper into the issue of mutual perception between the two countries. This is because, as you can feel firsthand, negative sentiments among South Koreans toward China are more widespread than ever before.

I believe it would be helpful to explain the prospects for understanding Korea-China relations. First, let's examine how Chinese diplomacy has evolved. While it's a complex topic, given China's status as a major power, we can broadly categorize its diplomatic evolution into about five periods. Focusing on China's domestic context, we can divide it into pre-reform and opening-up, the reform and opening-up period, the post-reform and opening-up period, and the Xi Jinping era. In terms of leadership changes, China has had leaders like Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping. However, from a broader perspective, we can divide the post-reform and opening-up era into two phases. The first phase includes Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin, and the second phase includes Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping. It might be more appropriate to consider the Xi Jinping era as a distinct post-reform and opening-up period. In terms of the international geopolitical context, the Cold War was a significant factor. From China's perspective, the end of the Cold War was a major challenge. It's important to note that about ten years after the initiation of reform and opening-up in 1978, a major event occurred.

This was the end of the Cold War. For China, the end of the Cold War, coupled with the Gulf War, presented a critical juncture. The Soviet Union's collapse, in particular, was a significant challenge for China. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Gulf War provided China with an opportunity to reassess its global strategy. The period following the end of the Cold War, particularly after the 9/11 attacks, marked a shift in China's approach to international relations, moving towards greater engagement and influence.

The end of the Cold War was a period of profound change for China. Its foreign policy shifted from a focus on survival and security to actively seeking a greater role in international affairs. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent geopolitical shifts presented both challenges and opportunities for China. It was during this period that China began to emphasize its economic development as a key foreign policy objective. The end of the Cold War also coincided with the rise of globalization, which provided China with new avenues for economic growth and international engagement. China's foreign policy during this era was characterized by a cautious approach, seeking to avoid confrontation while gradually expanding its influence.

A significant aspect of China's foreign policy during this period was its anti-hegemony stance. While this may seem counterintuitive, it stemmed from China's security concerns. The primary threat to China's security was perceived to be hegemony, particularly from the United States. In the 1950s, China faced direct military confrontation with the US in the Korean War. However, by the 1960s, Sino-Soviet relations began to deteriorate, leading to ideological and political disputes. This shift in the geopolitical landscape meant that the US, rather than the Soviet Union, became China's primary security concern. Therefore, China's foreign policy evolved from anti-Sovietism to anti-hegemony, encompassing both anti-Soviet and anti-American sentiments.

During the reform and opening-up period, China prioritized economic development. This led to a shift in its foreign policy objectives, with economic growth becoming the primary goal. In this context, China sought to create a stable international environment conducive to its economic expansion. The 1980s witnessed a significant internal challenge for China: the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989. This event posed a severe threat to the legitimacy and stability of the Chinese Communist Party. Internally, China was in a period of introspection and adjustment. However, externally, China also faced significant challenges. In the 1980s, driven by the need for economic development, China gradually began to shift its focus from purely economic priorities to security concerns. This shift continued into the 21st century, becoming a major theme in China's foreign policy. The evolution of China's foreign policy can be understood through these shifts in priorities and objectives.

The evolution of discourse in Chinese foreign policy can be observed in its shifting objectives. Initially, the focus was on national security. During the reform and opening-up period, the primary objective shifted to economic development. However, in the 1980s, as concerns about regime stability grew, national security re-emerged as a key priority. This trend intensified in the 2000s, with the concept of 'great power influence' becoming a central theme. China began to actively pursue a greater role in international affairs, aiming to enhance its global standing and influence.

Correspondingly, China's approach to the international system also began to change. Initially, China advocated for non-alignment and peaceful coexistence. In the 1990s, it moved towards a more active engagement with the international community. By the 2010s, while some characterized China's approach as 'choosing sides,' China began to assert its vision of a new international order centered on a multipolar system. It argued for the establishment of a new framework that would accommodate China's growing influence. Simultaneously, China began to emphasize its role as a responsible major power, advocating for a more proactive approach to global governance. This shift in China's perception of its role in the international system is crucial for understanding the dynamics of its foreign policy.

In the early days of the People's Republic of China, its stance on the international system was characterized by resistance. China viewed the existing international order as a system dominated by great powers, designed to subjugate weaker nations. However, after its entry into the UN in 1971, China's approach began to shift. Despite this shift, in the 1970s and 1980s, China remained primarily focused on domestic issues and internal stability, and thus maintained a relatively low profile in international affairs.

However, after the initiation of reform and opening-up in 1978, China began to actively engage with the international system. This engagement was selective, focusing on economic-related international organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank. China's participation in these organizations was driven by its need to secure economic resources and expertise for its development. Some critics at the time accused China of being a 'free rider,' seeking to maximize benefits while minimizing its commitments. Following the end of the Cold War in 1991, China's international engagement deepened. The collapse of the Soviet Union created a new geopolitical landscape, and China sought to adapt its foreign policy accordingly. This period also saw China beginning to shed its image as a peripheral player and seeking a more central role in global affairs.

In this context, China's international engagement began to diversify. It started challenging existing norms and institutions, advocating for a more inclusive and equitable international order. China began to participate in new multilateral forums and initiatives, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It also played a key role in regional security dialogues and cooperation mechanisms. By the late 1990s, China was actively promoting the idea of a 'responsible great power,' emphasizing its commitment to global peace and stability. The Asian financial crisis of 1997, in particular, provided China with an opportunity to demonstrate its leadership potential. While China did not directly intervene, its stable economic performance and constructive role in regional discussions enhanced its image as a responsible global player. This perception was further solidified by the IMF's response to the crisis, which was seen by some as insufficient. Consequently, China's call for a 'responsible great power' role gained greater traction.

Entering the 21st century, China began to pursue a more proactive and assertive foreign policy. Its objective shifted from merely participating in the international system to actively shaping it. The year 2001 marked a significant turning point with China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). After years of seeking membership, China's entry into the WTO signaled its full integration into the global economy. This was followed by its participation in various multilateral initiatives, including the Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear program. The year 2001 was also marked by the September 11th terrorist attacks in the United States. While the attacks sent shockwaves across the globe, they also presented China with an opportunity. The subsequent global economic slowdown and the US-led War on Terror created a period of instability and uncertainty, which China leveraged to expand its international influence.

The early 21st century witnessed a series of major global events that significantly impacted the international landscape. The Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001, and the global financial crisis of 2008 all presented challenges to the existing international order and signaled a potential shift in global power dynamics. For the United States, these events represented crises and setbacks, while for China, they provided opportunities to consolidate its gains and expand its influence. The period from the late 1990s to the mid-2000s was a crucial time for China's rise, as it navigated these global shifts and strategically positioned itself for greater international engagement.

Consequently, China's international status began to rise, and discourse surrounding its ascent became more prominent. Concepts such as peaceful rise and peaceful development were emphasized. In 2013, with the advent of the Xi Jinping era, China entered the post-reform and opening-up period. This period, spanning over 30 years since the initiation of reform and opening-up, marked a shift from the era of rapid, export-led growth that characterized the Deng Xiaoping and Hu Jintao administrations. This growth had secured the legitimacy and stability of the Chinese Communist Party. However, the side effects of this growth model, such as widening inequality and environmental degradation, became increasingly apparent. Xi Jinping's administration faced the challenge of addressing these issues, as the previous model of prioritizing growth above all else was no longer sustainable. Thus, the Xi Jinping era marked a necessary transition towards a more balanced development approach.

The Xi Jinping era represents a critical juncture in China's rise. While it has been a period of significant global ascent, it is also a time of increasing domestic challenges. Unlike previous periods where growth alone sufficed to legitimize the Party's rule, the current era demands a more nuanced approach. The focus has shifted from solely prioritizing economic growth to addressing the complex social and environmental issues that have arisen as a consequence. This transition is unavoidable. Interestingly, the discourse surrounding China's rise has also evolved. Previous narratives often emphasized China's potential threat to the international order. However, contemporary discourse suggests that China's rise, while significant, does not necessarily pose a threat. Instead, it highlights China's potential to contribute to a new international order.

Compared to previous narratives, which often focused on justifying China's rise, the current discourse emphasizes China's vision for the future international order. Instead of merely asserting that China's rise is not a threat, the discourse now suggests that China aims to actively shape a new international system. This shift in focus is significant. While previous discourse often centered on China's need to integrate into the existing order, the current discourse highlights China's ambition to actively contribute to its transformation. This includes advocating for a more inclusive and equitable international system, where China plays a leading role in shaping global norms and institutions. This proactive approach reflects China's growing confidence and its desire to be recognized as a responsible global power.

This shift in discourse has garnered international attention. As China's global influence grows, its proposals for a new international order are becoming increasingly prominent. China is actively advocating for a transformation of the existing system, proposing alternative models and frameworks. Initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) reflect this ambition. China's assertive stance on reforming the global order is evident in its calls for greater inclusivity and representation for developing countries. While China claims it does not seek to overturn the existing system, its proposals suggest a desire to reshape it in accordance with its growing influence and interests. This ambition to create a new international order, rather than simply integrate into the existing one, is a key aspect of China's evolving foreign policy.

In this context, the US has seen the rise of a government that seeks to strengthen its global leadership, while China is pursuing a more assertive and centralized approach to foreign policy. In summary, China's foreign policy objectives and discourse revolve around the realization of the "China Dream." This dream entails restoring China's historical greatness and reclaiming its rightful place as a leading global power. The core elements of this vision include the establishment of a community of shared future for mankind and a new type of international relations.

The concept of a community of shared future for mankind, as envisioned by China, posits that China's rise will benefit not only China but also its neighboring countries and the international community as a whole. It suggests that China's development will create opportunities for all stakeholders. Similarly, the concept of a new type of international relations emphasizes the importance of mutual respect, fairness, justice, and win-win cooperation. China argues that the traditional international relations, characterized by power politics and zero-sum competition, can lead to conflict and instability. Xi Jinping's administration, in particular, has promoted the idea that China's rise should not be perceived as a threat but rather as an opportunity for global progress. This narrative aims to assuage concerns about China's growing influence and to foster a sense of shared destiny and mutual benefit.

However, a significant shift in China's discourse, as highlighted in the evolution of its foreign policy, is the move from a reactive stance to a proactive one. Previously, China's foreign policy was largely reactive, responding to international criticism and seeking to justify its actions. Now, China is actively proposing its own vision for the international order, emphasizing concepts such as a community of shared future and a new type of international relations. This proactive approach is exemplified by initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). China is not merely seeking to integrate into the existing global governance system but is actively advocating for its reform and transformation. This shift reflects China's growing confidence and its ambition to play a leading role in shaping the future of global governance.

The ambition to reform global governance became particularly evident after the 2008 US-led global financial crisis. This crisis led to the expansion of the G7 to the G20, signaling a shift towards a more inclusive international financial system. China saw this as an opportunity to advocate for greater representation of emerging economies, including itself, in global decision-making processes. While the G7 had historically been dominated by developed nations, the G20 aimed to incorporate the voices of a broader range of countries. This shift reflected a growing recognition of the need for a more representative and equitable global governance structure. China actively participated in these discussions, advocating for reforms that would enhance the role of developing countries in the international financial system.

Another critical aspect of China's foreign policy is its emphasis on maintaining the stability of its socialist system. Since the reform and opening-up period, China has been the only major country to successfully pursue economic growth while upholding a socialist system. This unique position has been crucial for the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China. Consequently, China emphasizes the importance of national sovereignty and the right of each country to choose its own development path. This concept is often presented as a cornerstone of China's foreign policy.

This emphasis on sovereignty and development is intertwined with China's pursuit of national interests. While concepts like the Belt and Road Initiative and the community of shared future aim to foster global cooperation, they also serve China's strategic objectives. When conflicts arise between national interests and global development, China tends to prioritize its own interests. The irony is that while China has become a global superpower comparable to the United States, it still insists on prioritizing its sovereignty and security. This is in stark contrast to the United States, which does not primarily define its core mission as protecting sovereignty and security. China, on the other hand, presents a complex picture: on one hand, it exhibits the characteristics of an emerging power, but on the other hand, its actions are often interpreted as expansionist. This duality reflects the intricate nature of China's foreign policy.

The assertion of sovereignty and security as core national interests is particularly paradoxical given China's growing global influence. While the US frames its global engagement around maintaining international security and stability, China's emphasis on sovereignty and security is perceived by some as a means to consolidate its domestic power and pursue its national interests. This perceived contradiction highlights the complex interplay between China's domestic political imperatives and its international ambitions. While China's rise is undeniable, its approach to global affairs remains a subject of ongoing debate and interpretation.

Regarding changes in China's diplomacy, two core aspects remain constant: diplomacy aimed at promoting China's development and upholding the legitimacy of the Communist Party. However, there have been significant shifts in China's approach. First, China is actively promoting its vision for a new international order, challenging the existing one. Second, it is proposing alternative models and norms, such as a "community of shared future" and a "new type of international relations." These initiatives aim to reshape the global landscape in accordance with China's growing influence and interests. The result of these changes is a growing perception within the international community that China's rise poses a threat, despite China's claims that its rise is not a threat and that it seeks to create a new international order based on shared values. This has led to an increase in negative perceptions of China's growing influence.

However, domestically, these narratives resonate strongly, fostering a sense of national pride and unity. This phenomenon is particularly noteworthy given the significant domestic challenges China faces. Why is China pursuing such an assertive and proactive foreign policy? There are two main perspectives on this question. One perspective suggests that China's confidence has grown since experiencing events like the 9/11 attacks and the Trump administration, leading to a desire to surpass the US sooner than originally planned. The opposing view argues that China's assertive foreign policy stems from internal instability. In the era of rapid growth, economic development alone was sufficient to legitimize the Party's rule. However, with declining growth rates, the Party faces a legitimacy crisis. This crisis compels the Party to seek alternative means to maintain its rule, leading to a more assertive foreign policy.

In an era of low growth, political reform would be necessary to stabilize the system. This was expected to be a smooth transition, but the opposite has occurred. The outcome has been a reversal of expectations. This situation raises questions about how to interpret these developments. If the regime faces instability, and high growth is no longer achievable, how can the Party maintain popular support? The "China Dream" narrative offers a potential answer: by promising a future where China becomes a global power by 2050. This narrative, rooted in China's growth trajectory, resonates with the public and may be a key factor in the current assertive foreign policy. From a domestic political perspective, the second explanation seems more plausible.

This implies that the regime's instability may be driving its assertive foreign policy. If high growth is not possible, then the Party must find alternative ways to mobilize popular support and legitimize its rule. The "China Dream" narrative offers a vision of a future where China achieves global prominence by 2050. This narrative, based on past growth patterns, is compelling to the Chinese public and may explain the current assertive foreign policy. From a domestic political standpoint, the second explanation appears more convincing. The "China Dream" narrative serves as a powerful tool for mobilizing national sentiment and consolidating the Party's legitimacy in an era of economic uncertainty.

The pursuit of the "second centenary goal"—becoming a strong socialist modern country by 2049—is driven by the ambition to surpass the United States. This ambitious goal reflects China's desire to achieve global leadership and reshape the international order. The question is why this acceleration? The current era, often referred to as the "new era" under Xi Jinping, is characterized by instability and uncertainty. While rapid growth was the norm in previous eras, the current period demands a more balanced approach, focusing on sustainable development and addressing social inequalities. The emphasis has shifted from prioritizing economic growth to improving people's living standards. However, political reform remains neglected, and the concentration of power under Xi Jinping has led to a suppression of dissent and a reinforcement of the Party's dominance. This approach, coupled with the mobilization of nationalism and the "China Dream" narrative, aims to consolidate public support and maintain the Party's legitimacy.

The era of rapid growth is over, and China now faces the challenge of achieving sustainable development. This shift has led to increased attention on people's livelihoods and well-being. However, political reform continues to be neglected, and the concentration of power under Xi Jinping has exacerbated existing social and economic inequalities. The resolution of these structural issues requires political reform, which the current leadership appears unwilling to undertake. Instead, the focus is on strengthening the Party's influence, consolidating power, and suppressing dissent through nationalistic rhetoric and the "China Dream" narrative. This approach has created a complex situation where political consolidation is prioritized over economic reform, and nationalistic sentiment is mobilized to maintain the Party's legitimacy. China is currently in a transitional phase, characterized by a blend of political authoritarianism, economic pragmatism, and nationalistic fervor.

This transitional phase presents significant challenges. Can the Communist Party's rule be sustained through popular mobilization without genuine political reform? This remains a crucial question for the Xi Jinping era. In terms of foreign policy, China faces the imperative to continue its economic growth to achieve its second centenary goal of becoming a leading global power. Currently, China's GDP is approximately 70% of that of the US, a remarkable historical achievement. However, significant challenges remain, including income inequality and the need for stable international relations. China must expand its international influence, secure its territorial integrity, and maintain stable relations with other countries. These three objectives are interconnected and mutually reinforcing.

Simultaneously, China must address growing public expectations and expand its international influence. Furthermore, it must assert its sovereignty and territorial claims without alienating other countries. These three objectives are intrinsically linked. The question is how China can achieve these goals, particularly in its relationship with the United States. The US approach has shifted, with a growing sentiment among the American public and policymakers to counter China's influence. Moreover, China faces significant geopolitical challenges due to its location. With 14 bordering countries, China is surrounded by a complex geopolitical landscape. While some of these countries are allies, many are rivals or potential adversaries. This complex neighborhood presents both opportunities and challenges for China's foreign policy.

China's geopolitical environment is characterized by a high concentration of military power. Among its 14 neighbors, many are either rivals or potential adversaries. While China has some allies, such as North Korea and Pakistan, its relationships with major powers like Russia, India, and Vietnam are complex and have historically been marked by conflict. For example, China has engaged in border disputes and wars with Russia, India, and Vietnam. This complex web of relationships requires careful navigation to avoid escalating tensions and to foster regional stability. The geopolitical realities surrounding China necessitate a nuanced and strategic approach to its foreign policy, balancing its national interests with the need for regional peace and cooperation.

Recent events, such as the Taliban's takeover in Afghanistan and the ongoing territorial disputes in the South China Sea, highlight the fragility of the regional security landscape. China's growing military power and its assertive foreign policy have heightened concerns among its neighbors. While China claims to pursue peaceful development, its actions are often perceived as threatening. This perception is amplified by the fact that China's traditional allies are few, and its relationships with major regional powers are often strained. The encirclement of China by a network of US alliances and partnerships further exacerbates these concerns. India, in particular, represents a significant challenge to China's regional ambitions, given their complex relationship and ongoing border disputes.

The concept of China being "encircled" by US alliances and partnerships is a recurring theme in discussions of its foreign policy. While China's expansionist ambitions may seem recent, they have historical roots dating back to its reform and opening-up period. China's eastward expansion into the Indian Ocean, particularly through the Belt and Road Initiative, has raised concerns about its growing influence in the region. This expansion, coupled with its assertive stance on territorial claims, has created a sense of unease among its neighbors. The need to manage these complex regional dynamics and ensure its security interests are paramount for China's foreign policy.

Furthermore, China faces internal challenges related to national integration, particularly concerning Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang. The unification of Taiwan remains a key objective, while the status of Tibet and Xinjiang continues to be a source of contention. The Chinese government's efforts to promote national unity and ethnic assimilation in these regions have drawn international criticism. While China frames these issues as matters of national sovereignty, they remain sensitive and contentious. The dual challenge of managing internal dissent and asserting national interests externally requires a delicate balancing act. The rise of nationalism, while potentially serving as a tool for consolidating domestic support, also carries the risk of escalating tensions and fueling regional instability.

The effectiveness of nationalism as a tool for consolidating domestic support is evident in the rising levels of national pride among Chinese citizens. According to surveys, a significant majority of Chinese people express strong pride in their national identity. This surge in national pride is often attributed to China's rapid economic growth and its increasing international influence. While this sentiment can be a source of national unity, it also carries the risk of fueling jingoism and antagonism towards other countries. The strong sense of national pride among Chinese citizens has implications for Korea-China relations, potentially contributing to a more assertive and nationalistic stance in bilateral interactions.

Despite these challenges, China's foreign policy plays a crucial role in its overall national strategy. The pursuit of economic growth remains a primary objective, essential for maintaining the legitimacy of the Communist Party. However, the Party's legitimacy is increasingly contingent on its ability to demonstrate national strength and project an image of national rejuvenation. This involves not only achieving economic prosperity but also asserting China's rightful place on the global stage. The "China Dream" narrative, which envisions a strong and prosperous China by 2050, serves as a rallying cry for national unity and ambition. However, the extent to which China can achieve this vision and transcend its current challenges remains uncertain.

This suggests that China's rise may be relative rather than absolute. While China has benefited from the relative decline of US influence and the global power vacuum, it is now entering an era of intensified competition with the US. China's ambition to establish itself as a global leader requires it to develop universally appealing norms and standards that resonate with a broader international audience. The question is whether China can create values and norms that transcend those promoted by the US and offer a compelling alternative. The concepts of a "community of shared future" and a "new type of international relations" are attempts to articulate such an alternative vision. However, these concepts are rooted in China's unique perspective and may not be universally embraced. They reflect a China-centric worldview, where China's rise is seen as a positive force for global development.

These efforts aim to project an image of China as a benevolent global power. While some interpret these initiatives as attempts to establish a new international order, others see them as a means for China to assert its influence and secure its interests. The core message is that China's rise is not a threat but rather an opportunity for the world to embrace a new international order shaped by China. This narrative suggests that China's ambitions extend beyond merely integrating into the existing system; it seeks to fundamentally reshape it. This perspective highlights the complexity of China's foreign policy and the ongoing debate about its intentions and capabilities as a global leader.

The question of whether China is ready to assume the role of a global leader remains open. If China aspires to be a global leader, it must move beyond its current narrative of prioritizing sovereignty and security. Furthermore, its economic development strategy needs to be more sustainable and inclusive. While China's economic growth has been remarkable, it has also created significant challenges, including widening inequality and environmental degradation. To achieve its global ambitions, China must address these issues and demonstrate a genuine commitment to global cooperation and shared prosperity. The debate over whether China seeks to fundamentally reform the international order continues, with China denying such intentions while its actions suggest otherwise. The process of change has been gradual, from passive participation to active leadership.

The future direction of China's discourse on the international order remains uncertain. While China has moved from passive participation to active leadership, its proposed alternatives, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), have yet to demonstrate significant differentiation from existing institutions like the World Bank. The AIIB, while potentially offering a complementary approach, has not yet presented a fundamentally distinct vision. Its focus on benchmarking against existing institutions and promoting cooperation with them suggests a strategy of gradual integration and influence rather than outright disruption. This approach reflects China's pragmatic approach to global governance, seeking to leverage existing structures while gradually shaping them to its own advantage.

The core of China's vision appears to be the establishment of a new international order based on mutual respect and non-conflict, rather than direct confrontation with the US. This approach emphasizes coexistence and cooperation, particularly in economic matters. China's commitment to prioritizing economic growth, even at the expense of immediate geopolitical gains, suggests a long-term strategy. However, a crucial element of this strategy is the safeguarding of its core interests: sovereignty, security, and development. If these interests are threatened, China's approach may shift towards more assertive actions. The issues of Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang, which directly involve China's sovereignty, are paramount. China's response to these issues underscores its determination to protect its national integrity, even if it means challenging the existing international order.

The assertion of sovereignty and security as non-negotiable interests is central to China's foreign policy. These issues are particularly sensitive in the context of Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang, where territorial integrity and national sovereignty are at stake. The Chinese Communist Party's legitimacy hinges on its ability to safeguard these core interests. However, maintaining economic growth, which has been the primary source of the Party's legitimacy, is becoming increasingly challenging. This precarious situation necessitates a delicate balancing act: asserting national interests while ensuring domestic stability and continued economic prosperity. The challenge lies in navigating these complex dynamics without compromising the Party's rule or alienating its citizens.

The pursuit of sovereignty and security is closely intertwined with China's determination to protect its national interests. Any perceived threat to these interests, whether from external actors or internal dissent, could trigger a more assertive response. The US, recognizing this, is strategically adjusting its approach towards China. The shift in US policy, from engagement to competition, reflects a growing awareness of China's assertive foreign policy and its potential implications for regional and global stability. The US is now focusing on strengthening its alliances and partnerships to counter China's growing influence.

The US approach to China has evolved significantly. Previously, the US focused on integrating China into the international system and promoting democratic values. However, recent administrations have shifted towards a more competitive stance, viewing China as a strategic rival. This shift reflects a growing concern about China's authoritarian model and its challenge to the liberal international order. The US is now grappling with how to effectively counter China's growing influence, both economically and strategically. The question is whether the US can successfully contain China's rise or whether it will be forced to accommodate a new global order shaped by China. The US strategy now focuses on strengthening alliances, countering China's technological advancements, and promoting democratic values globally.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) represents a new model for international cooperation, distinct from the export-led growth of the past. While previous models focused on exporting goods and services, the BRI emphasizes investment and infrastructure development in partner countries. This shift reflects China's evolving economic strategy and its desire to foster greater global integration. The BRI aims to create a more interconnected world, with China at its center. This initiative is seen as a key component of China's broader strategy to enhance its global influence and reshape the international economic order. The success of the BRI hinges on its ability to foster mutual benefit and sustainable development for all participating countries.

Currently, on the surface, there is talk of raising the stakes in the mid-US-China competition, but in reality, the conflict is much fiercer. We must acknowledge that the issue of China's growth, which is more fundamental than the issues of the US and China, is becoming a major problem. This can be sustained and we can learn methods to manage it. This is a battle for survival, so it is not a matter of choosing sides. Therefore, we can examine the strategic implications. In that regard, we are trying to... We are trying to achieve this by announcing the national anthem and instead receiving US support to induce internal regime stability and public support.

However, in my opinion, the US is fundamentally addressing issues that are shaking the Chinese leadership and regime. China's reform and opening-up policy, which began in the 1990s, has led to intense competition and conflict with the US. While the US has been particularly tough, especially since the 2010s, there has been a degree of management. The conflict is being managed to some extent, and the US is not seeking to escalate it. This is because if the conflict expands domestically and leads to a backlash, China's growth will be hindered.

A strong stance is difficult to maintain indefinitely. Therefore, a firm attitude is being taken. However, interestingly, as the US intensifies its pressure on China, the Chinese Communist Party's support increases. This is to maintain the regime. However, the issue of national identity, which is different from the issue of national unity, becomes more prominent as tensions rise. This is a common phenomenon. Therefore, to understand this, China is preparing its own countermeasures, which are essentially a strategic alliance.

The only way to attract countries to the international community is through economic means. However, the current situation is not conducive to such efforts. The US is pursuing economic policies to consolidate its own bloc. Therefore, the post-COVID-19 era presents a critical juncture. China is trying to avoid this, while the US, under Trump's administration, has been pursuing aggressive policies. In this context, can a full-scale economic war be waged?

Conversely, if the conflict continues, it could be seen as a victory for China. Both sides are provoking competition by focusing on domestic issues. The core issue in the global review is that the narratives are different. Therefore, if they believe that efforts to enhance their own narratives will weaken the other side and undermine their regimes, they may choose to de-escalate the conflict. Furthermore, building alliances is not easy, as there is a lack of legitimacy and support. Therefore, the focus may shift to issues that benefit the global powers, such as the US's security concerns and its alliance with South Korea. This could lead to a reassessment of the US-China relationship.

The goal is to restore trust, but it appears to be a difficult task. The US is trying to create a bloc by breaking down existing alliances. China is also trying to create its own bloc. If such blocs are formed, it could lead to a new Cold War. Therefore, it is important to interpret the US-China competition with caution, as it is not simply a matter of ideological conflict.

Regarding Korea-China relations, it's the 20th anniversary of diplomatic ties. Looking back at the 29 years of Korea-China relations, it seems there's a perception of abnormal progress, leaving behind a future with unusual characteristics. The relationship has seen remarkable growth, especially economically, but this growth is not reflected in the mutual understanding and trust. The relationship has been driven by the pursuit of national interests, and particularly in 2012, the Korea-China relationship was described as a "strategic cooperative partnership" with great fanfare.

The Korea-China relationship, or rather the relationship between the US, South Korea, and China, has grown significantly. However, has the Korea-China relationship truly developed commensurately? Conflicts have arisen, and this rapid development has been undermined. While national interests can be both beneficial and detrimental, the relationship needs to be robust enough to coordinate and overcome challenges. Despite 20 years of rapid development, the Korea-China relationship can deteriorate overnight.

From the beginning, there have been numerous strategic 'different dreams.' The Korea-China relationship, as you know, was established on August 24, 1992. At that time, we essentially acknowledged and tolerated the US-ROK alliance while establishing diplomatic ties with China. However, the current situation makes it difficult to maintain this mutual acknowledgment and tolerance. The North Korean issue and the US-China relationship are major points of contention.

What is the meaning of the past 29 years of Korea-China relations? In other words, it signifies China's rapid growth. The relationship has faced challenges, and differences in understanding and perspective have emerged, particularly regarding the North Korean issue. Crucially, the relationship has moved beyond a bilateral dynamic. China has become a global power, and its view of the relationship with South Korea is now influenced by its broader foreign policy. The relationship has evolved from one of mutual benefit to one where China's strategic interests take precedence. This shift has impacted how China perceives its relationship with South Korea. While we have seen progress in exchanges and cooperation, the relationship is not solely defined by bilateral interactions. It is also shaped by China's global strategy and its relationship with the US. The rapid development of the Korea-China relationship has been influenced by these external factors. The relationship has been elevated, but this elevation has also brought new complexities. The perception of the relationship has changed, and it is no longer solely a bilateral matter.

The relationship has become more complex, with strategic considerations taking precedence. The reason for discussing this is to understand the complexities of the Korea-China relationship. While the relationship has only existed for 29 years, the historical context is much longer. The historical issues are not entirely positive, and we teach our children about the importance of the US alliance while also acknowledging China's influence. The current situation, where the relationship has improved, should not be viewed in isolation. It is important to consider the broader historical and geopolitical context.

This has led to a robust relationship. Geographically, we are close, which is important. However, there is a tendency to believe we understand each other well due to our long history, similar cultures, and shared experiences. This assumption of deep understanding can be misleading. The reality is that there are significant differences and nuances that are often overlooked.

A stable relationship is necessary. The history of Korea-China relations since normalization can be broadly divided into four stages. In the early stages, there was a significant time lag in diplomatic exchanges. Initially, South Korea took the lead, but China's influence grew over time. While the relationship has evolved, there have been periods of stagnation and missed opportunities.

Since normalization in 1992, the relationship has progressed through various stages, including the establishment of a "strategic cooperative partnership" in 2008. Each stage has been marked by new developments and a deepening of ties. High-level summits and exchanges have played a crucial role in elevating the relationship. The decision to upgrade the relationship in 2008, following extensive consultations, was a significant step forward.

The relationship has been elevated. However, there are important nuances to consider. The designations of "strategic partner" in 1998 and "strategic cooperative partner" in 2008 were influenced by the US factor. In 1998, the US-ROK alliance was strengthened, and China's rise was evident. A similar pattern emerged in 2008. The elevation of the Korea-China relationship has been driven by strategic considerations, with its value being enhanced by the US factor. The relationship has developed not only within a bilateral framework but also within the context of China's broader strategic interests and its relationship with the US.

This reduces the meaning of the evaluation of China-Korea relations, or is it a concern for the village? The biggest difference between a strategic partner and a companion is that while companions are included in growth, what is the problem of whether or not to cooperate strategically? But this is a companion, and it is a strategic partnership. In 2008, as soon as we declared a strategic partnership, an incident occurred, and China-Korea relations were in crisis due to strategic issues. It was during the Millennium Fox incident.

Therefore, the strategic relationship was not strengthened. Did we not follow the path of economic cooperation, but rather political alliances? It did not. As a result, when problems arose, they were merely patched up and could recur. When issues like the Northeast Project arose, if we had fiercely debated and resolved the issues, things might have been different, but instead, we resorted to superficial measures. As a result, it appeared to be progressing on the surface, but in reality, problems were accumulating. The government of Park Geun-hye entered office, and the

This is a revised edition of Land 2. Why was the revised edition and the new edition not released? Why are there two? At that time, President Xi Jinping and President Park Geun-hye were two years behind schedule. I was so happy that I didn't need all two years. The communication issues between the two leaders were resolved. However, even though the relationship between the two leaders did not worsen, all communication channels were cut off. The next shark... why did it become like this? It was because of THAAD. The THAAD deployment actually had a debt problem. The Park Geun-hye administration had a policy of engaging with China in relation to the North Korean nuclear issue and unification, and had considered deploying fighter jets to Korea.

That's a misunderstanding. Jin Bing, I'm the same. I visited China three times as the third country. I studied Chinese like reading a book. I thought President Park Geun-hye's administration was particularly considerate of President Xi Jinping. The goal was for the Park Geun-hye administration to pursue a policy of appeasement towards North Korea, but also to avoid alienating the United States and China. However, by embracing China's opposition to the withdrawal of troops from the Korean Peninsula, while somewhat appeasing the United States, it became a different situation.

There are those who supported the leaders of the Goryeo Dynasty and kept all strategies. For the sake of the 200,000,000 people, it was sacrificed because of the threat from the North. Since the establishment of diplomatic relations, Korea has had a strategy of extending its defense policy. However, to ultimately denuclearize North Korea or choose another path, if China were brought to Korea's side, North Korea would have no choice but to surrender. This was an important objective. China, on its part, did not fully grasp the situation, but as the conflict with North Korea intensified, it became increasingly important to maintain good relations with Korea. China thought that Korea would not join the US-led alliance against China, and that even if Korea did not defect from the alliance, it would at least not side with the US against China.

Korea, located in Northeast Asia, became a strategic priority for both sides. However, this was increasingly exposed. A key example is the THAAD deployment issue. It is difficult to divide this issue. The THAAD deployment in Korea, in the context of Sino-Korean relations, was not just an incident itself, but rather exposed that the Sino-Korean relationship had already moved beyond a bilateral level and was unfolding within the context of a US-China rivalry. Is it correct to say that the Sino-Korean relationship can be restored just because the THAAD issue is resolved? I believe the THAAD deployment demonstrated that the Sino-Korean relationship had moved beyond the level of bilateral intimacy and entered a new phase.

Yes, there were periods. Yes, but why is the focus on China weakening? It is believed that the risk of war with North Korea, based on China's expectations, is an important factor. The North Korean nuclear issue goes beyond the Korean Peninsula and is a global issue. Therefore, we have the capacity to deal with it. However, it is not enough. In the civilian sector, there is significant trade. However, in terms of political and security cooperation, it is only 10% to 15%. If we consider North Korea's perspective, it is...

This is our mistake. What is the important issue now? It's a bit dangerous, isn't it? Who has the most friends in the region? The importance of lying down is crucial. It is important to maintain stability on the Korean Peninsula, especially for the strategic competition that has crossed the continent. If so, is it correct to maintain the current policy and pursue a strategy of stability on the Korean Peninsula? That's a good idea.

Therefore, the maximum benefit for China is that it does not have to break off relations with North Korea. The minimum benefit is that Korea does not defect from the US-China alliance or become militarily aligned with China. China has drawn lessons from various social and emotional factors. Therefore, China wants to prevent Korea from becoming a forward base for the US targeting China. It wants to prevent Korea from becoming a forward base for US offensives against China.

Why didn't China feel threatened by the THAAD deployment in the past? I believe it's because Korea began to actively participate in the US-led anti-China alliance. China couldn't ignore it. It was a red line for China, and it was a position that could not be compromised. This is because it is strategically located. This is a difficult situation globally, but ideally...

To what extent? It means that the US intervention in the Korean Peninsula, which is striving for self-determination, has been strengthened. It is not possible to prevent this. It is a situation where the US is interfering. Why did President Moon Jae-in repeatedly meet with Chinese officials in 2018? The relationship deteriorated three times. However, there is a slight difference. Korea's understanding has deteriorated.

Specifically, Korea's understanding has deteriorated. China's understanding has also deteriorated, but the level of deterioration is different. There are many reasons for this. First, there is the misunderstanding that China is not seeking to develop its relationship with Korea. Second, there is the asymmetrical relationship between Korea and China. Twenty years ago, China was the one seeking to learn from Korea's development model.

A country like that, which cannot avoid conflict with Korea and wishes to maintain friendly relations with China, has changed its attitude towards Korea. The issue of China's interest in Korea is declining because of the conflict. The issue of THAAD has been temporarily overlooked. However, this is precisely the reason why China is increasingly isolating Korea. While China is becoming more isolated, Korea is embracing democracy and justice through various means.

The voices of the citizens have become very loud. However, these factors are being interpreted differently. Therefore, the conclusion is that the conflict is due to the fundamental differences between the two systems, which are structural issues. The explanation provided by the expert is that the conflict between China and Korea is not due to THAAD, but rather due to these structural issues. China does not want to be seen as hostile to the US, and the US does not want to be seen as hostile to China.

In Korea, the perception of China is similar to that of the Philippines or Vietnam at the time. However, the percentage of Koreans who are negative towards China is higher. This is a reality. Even if there is no actual incident, the perception of China is negative. The perception of China has deteriorated significantly since 2010. This is not an unrelated development. The Korean military, which was previously focused on defense, is now more likely to be targeted by China. This is due to the asymmetrical nature of the relationship.

This is the important negative perception. The second is that Korea's easily emphasized respect for each other is guaranteed, but they do not respect each other. There is no problem for Koreans and Chinese to know each other. In the early days of diplomatic relations between China and Korea, Koreans thought of China as they do now. Nowadays, they don't think of China, but rather of intervening in domestic affairs. The interesting thing is how we should think about this. Let's look at the negative aspects.

and view it as politically unstable. Isn't that interesting? Even Chinese people under the current regime consider political instability. However, there is a difference in perception of the regime. We believe that China is very advanced and that the current regime does not have a problem. Instead, they see it as unstable. This difference in perception of the fundamental system makes a difference. Another factor was the United States.

Korea is much closer to the US than to China. I heard that some people can change their minds. This is how they perceive China. Recently, China's influence has increased three times. What's interesting here is that, from our perspective, the focus was on Korea. Korea's status has become a focal point. When asked about the most important country to China, the answer was Korea. I was surprised because I didn't expect it to be Korea.

South America and Africa are important countries for economic reasons. However, they are not as important as China. While they are important countries, they are not as important as China. When asked about important countries in terms of neighboring countries, the answer was not China. What is the reason? It is because China is the most important country. I am concerned that students are not getting this point. Neighboring countries are important, but are we seeing China as a friend? This is a problem that could lead to a crisis. The perception of China is similar, but the perception of China is particularly bad regarding issues of freedom and human rights.

This is why we celebrate. It has to do with political and economic factors. Fine dust, counterfeit products, and THAAD are not good for China's image. Young people have seen this. So, in a way, I think the focus of future cooperation between Korea and China will be on these issues. If these issues are addressed, negative perceptions between Korea and China may be reduced.

This shows a growing trend. In 2004, according to a survey, China and the US were almost equally viewed. However, the gap has widened, and the perception of China has worsened. Even in a recent survey, China's perception is worse than that of North Korea and Japan. The perception of the US is even worse. Currently, China's perception is about half that of Japan, and it is even worse than that of North Korea.

Why is that? The biggest reason is that they do not respect each other. This is a complaint from Koreans that China does not exist as a developed country. There is also the issue of proximity. Countries that are close neighbors may not always have friendly relations. In fact, the US, which is a friend, is also a neighboring country, and the relationship is similar. The world order is changing rapidly. Look at the US's neighbors.

These are military terms. Even their existence is a threat to us. First, China's economic development and its growth are a result of its past policies. Therefore, the perception is different. China's economic development was a boon to us. It was beneficial to our economy. However, it is seen as a threat. How will the international community perceive China's economic development in the future? The perception is different.

This is a different perspective from the negative perception. Realistically, what will happen in the future? In 2012, it was a summer that changed everything. It's not that we don't know. The perception of China is very negative. However, when asked about the future world leaders, despite the negative perception, realistically, most countries believe that China will be a leading power. It will be a leader. However, Korea is overwhelmingly ahead. In fact, we are much more competitive with China than with the US.

This is a very unique perspective. What is the relationship between Korea and China? In a word, it is an economic relationship. It is an economic and social relationship. There is no political relationship between Korea and China. Even if we say they are competitive, they don't deny it. However, the perception of this relationship has spread widely. What are the reasons for the negative perception of China? It is the perception that democracy, civil society, culture, and product quality are low. This indicates that these are related to daily life.

I think this will become more negative in the future. Korea also needs to address this. In elections, foreign policy issues are often avoided. This is because the opponent may seem acceptable now, but in front of us, we show division and make foreign policy pledges that could be burdensome. This could be a problem. Therefore, political disputes could become foreign policy issues.

China is also at a very important juncture. The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China is approaching. After the congress, power will be consolidated for the next ten years. However, as you know, Xi Jinping is likely to be re-elected. However, whether he will remain in power for a third term is still uncertain. This will lead to instability. China's power has been consolidated. Deng Xiaoping's era was also consolidated.

It has been 50 years since China's reform and opening up. Therefore, it is expected to be implemented. This shows the safety of power consolidation that has not yet been achieved. Last year, I explained this in detail. However, it is important to shorten the explanation. China is at a critical juncture. China is facing complex foreign policy issues.

This is not the case. Is there no room for discussion on this issue? From my perspective, there has been a lack of understanding of China in Korea. Frankly, we should have focused on this. We thought that the alliance between Korea and the US would be maintained, but now it has become an obstacle. This is a problem.

The Korea-China relationship is very close. Economic cooperation is important. Policies to reduce risks and efforts to improve them are underway. I believe it is important for businesses to take the lead. Despite the decline in Korea's image and the lack of cooperation between Korea and China, we are still concerned. If we can create a situation where we can improve relations, we can move towards a better relationship. However, this requires effort, which is regrettable.

This is a time when we need to prepare. This is an unavoidable reality. We must accept that China is already a developed country and make efforts accordingly. We need to strengthen our capabilities and our understanding of China. Our foreign policy has been focused on North Korea, but we need to separate these efforts. We should avoid creating unnecessary disputes and making them into our own issues.

The relationship between China and the US is not friendly. However, if we consider our own interests, we should try to avoid acting rashly. There may be room for this, as I mentioned earlier. The competition between China and the US is taking on a different form. While the competition is fierce, the content of the competition is different, and we need to pay attention to it.

Therefore, there may be room for us. We can find solutions. We need to develop long-term strategies. We need to move beyond short-term diplomacy. How we act will influence many countries to move together. This is evident. If we want to strengthen our position, we need to consider how we deal with China. This will have an impact on other countries. If we get closer to the US, we will have an advantage.

This is a long-term issue. The competition between China and the US will continue and intensify. Personally, I have no complaints. If there is a disagreement, I will express it. Thank you for your hard work.