[9th EAI Academy] ① Young People in the Future: Dreams of 21st Century Korea

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pczos8vXBjc

Video script

Looking at this, you are now in your 'Gugi' period, but I believe it is necessary to begin by discussing how this program was first initiated. The story of 'Gugi' dates back to around 2015 or 2016. However, this was not the very beginning. The first initiative was a public lecture series in 2009 called 'The Youth in History.' For reasons I don't fully recall, there was a relatively large number of people who wanted to attend. Of course, it was not yet when EAI had its own independent building, so it was held in Yeouido. I believe I gave eight lectures, rather than several professors. The series was titled 'The Youth in History.'

But why did I give such a lecture series at that time? It wasn't that the lecture series was held because a book was published. The book 'The Youth in History' was published later, as a suggestion to compile the lectures into a book after the eight public lectures had concluded. So why 'The Youth in History'? Was that the title from the beginning? What you are listening to now is 'The Path for a Future Korea for Future Generations,' but back then, 'The Youth in History' had a somewhat essay-like title, and the title was not originally decided as such. So why did I hold such a lecture series at that time? There were many people in their twenties then, relatively speaking. But the important reason for holding it in Yeouido was that Yeouido is where the National Assembly is located.

So, perhaps the intention was that it would be good for those young members of the National Assembly to pay attention and listen. However, it doesn't seem like many members of the National Assembly came and listened intently. So why did I end up doing something like that at that time? The starting point was much earlier. You are all in your twenties or thirties now, aren't you? I entered university in 1967, so quite some time has passed. It was about 60 years ago. I entered the Department of Diplomacy, so I must have had some interest in international policy. Then, over the past 60 years, haven't I been studying or teaching something related to practical learning or international politics? I started teaching in 1980.

The End of the Cold War and the Unpredictability of International Politics

I have been teaching for about 45 years. So, in the process of studying and teaching international politics for 60 years, what was the most discouraging event? I started studying international politics because it was interesting, and I sometimes taught it, but it was completely unpredictable. If I were to name the single most discouraging event based on experience, it would be a major event. Looking from the mid-1960s to the present in 2025, the biggest event was undoubtedly the end of the Cold War. Although it was before you were born, the official prelude to the end of the Cold War was the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, but the official declaration of the dissolution of the Soviet Union was on Christmas Day in 1991. Gorbachev officially declared that the Soviet Union no longer existed.

Now, Russia remains, but why was that the biggest event? If it was the biggest event since World War II, why was it the biggest event for me personally? Perhaps there will be events of comparable significance for you as well. It's inevitable, as I would have been teaching around that time. I had been teaching for 10 years, and teaching international politics without accurately predicting the end of the Cold War means what? In a word, it's wrong, isn't it? It's wrong for myself, and it's wrong for those I teach. But at that time, did anyone in international politics predict the end of the Cold War?

Almost 100% of international relations scholars were wrong. But generally, those in international relations are, to put it kindly, courageous, and to put it bluntly, shameless. They should have quit, honestly. If you completely failed to predict something in your main field, it causes damage to yourself as an individual, but it also causes damage to the country and the world. Continuing as if the Cold War would go on forever, making all decisions based on that, versus thinking, 'Ah, this is ending. Ah, personally, I need to study this anew.'

I had those thoughts. I particularly felt this way when Gorbachev appeared on TV on the evening of December 25, 1991, and made the official declaration, 'The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is now ending.' But why do I have a special sentiment? Gorbachev's rise to power was in March 1985. It was seven years after he declared, through Perestroika, the reform of the Soviet Union, that it would be reborn as a Soviet Union capable of dominating world politics. But is that such a big problem?

It was in March, and in May 1985, in what is now considered Central Asia, where diplomatic relations did not yet exist, I participated in an international conference in Russia with 26 peace research experts from Asia, organized by the UN University. At that time, as is still the case, the Korean Peninsula was always a contentious region when discussing peace and war research in Asia, so the issue of the Korean Peninsula had to be discussed. However, it was a UN University, and the UN University is in Tokyo.

Given that Christianity is, after all, a peaceful nation, why doesn't Japan have any international organizations? So, finally, they attracted the UN University to Tokyo with a substantial donation. But since it was a UN University, I thought, why not invite representatives from both North and South Korea to a conference? However, from North Korea's perspective, attending a conference in the Soviet Union, their socialist motherland, and not even in Moscow but in Tashkent, they felt it was unfair to invite the 'puppet' South Koreans from their 'fatherland.' But according to UN principles, UN international peace principles, 'we should invite them anyway.' So we went to Tashkent. It wasn't a simple trip. Since there were no diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, it was probably the first time I officially entered for an individual international conference.

Not knowing if they would grant a visa, I was told to wait in Tokyo for a week. Since we didn't have video conferencing, and it was in the middle of the semester, I skipped my lectures and spent a week in Tokyo. Then, about a week before the conference, they finally issued a visa, and I went. Well, that story would take too long, so to get to the point, why am I telling this? Upon arrival, two people came from the North Korean side. North Korea never sends just one person to international conferences; they send two to check each other. So we gathered and spent two weeks together. One week was in Moscow, and one week was in Tashkent for the conference. I'll save the details of the conference for another time. It was May 1st, May Day, Labor Day.

So, in Tashkent, 26 peace researchers from Asia, gathered for an international conference hosted by the UN University, were invited to the May Day event, and we went to the venue. I sat in the front row of the podium. Naturally, as it was Korea, I sat with my North and South Korean friends. Looking down from the stage, I saw red flags covering the entire city and a parade unfolding. At that moment, I thought, 'Will I ever have such an opportunity again in my lifetime? To be in Tashkent, holding hands with North Koreans, and looking at red flags on Labor Day, could this happen again?' So, during those two weeks, I wrote a diary for the only time in my life. I'm usually too lazy to write a diary, but that's my story. Then, seven years passed from 1985 until Gorbachev stepped down, and I never thought it would collapse. 'Isn't this reform working?' I thought the Soviet Union would finally become like this. I never thought the Soviet Union would collapse and a completely different world would emerge. That shock affected me a bit more personally. This is because I entered the Soviet Union just two months after Perestroika began.

After returning, the condition at the time was that our government committee would not acknowledge my participation. That was the condition. As a professor at a national university, you would handle it appropriately, but I recall that in principle, I was not supposed to write or speak about my participation. I agreed to the trip on the condition that it would be erased. Although I did erase it, in retrospect, after the Cold War ended, why was I so excited in '85 without realizing it, and why couldn't I see it in '91?

A New Academic Approach to Future Prediction

So, I thought I needed to study differently. It is often said that studying the future in social sciences is not science. In principle, one writes master's and doctoral theses based on the foundations of the present and the past. Since it's unknowable, one can write whatever one pleases. However, I believed that if my predictions about the future did not materialize, something was wrong. So, I decided to change my approach to study. To change the direction of my studies. It is grandly said that scholars and intellectuals are like Minerva's owls, descending to observe when darkness falls. But I would rather be a sparrow at dawn. Rather than studying history from behind, looking at its back, I wanted to look ahead. So, while most people were engrossed in 'Why did the Soviet Union collapse?' and talking about the post-Cold War era, I thought, shouldn't we be looking at this from a more comprehensive perspective of historical change?

Is it not correct to view the issue from the perspective of historical change? I started thinking this way, believing that it would be right to view the world not as a simple change from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era, but as the advent of a new civilization on a civilizational scale. I saw the scale of change as much larger. However, when I spoke about it, no one wanted to listen. What is being discussed today is important. Civilizational change implies that at the actor level, a certain transformation of the modern nation-state is occurring. The stage is also changing; while we might say that in the 19th century international politics was about fighting for war and peace, or prosperity and poverty, and that is certainly true, the stage itself is changing.

The argument is that a much more complex stage is approaching, and that the performance itself, the mode of action, is also changing. I began to talk about these things. There were not many people listening. So, I mainly held seminars with graduate students and published books. Then I had a thought: this is not easy. When we look back at our history, there were periods of great upheaval. What kind of situations did the people who spoke about these things at those times face? Looking back at history, I realized that there were periods of much greater frustration than what I was experiencing. The closest example is the arrival of the West in the 19th century. On one hand, some thought, 'These barbarian-like fellows can be sufficiently repelled under the banner of preserving orthodoxy and rejecting heterodoxy.' Amidst this, there were also groups who said, 'Something is strange about this. It's a change.' I observed them and wondered, what were those people like at that time?

To understand that curiosity, I began to study what happened to the group who saw the inevitability of civilization in the 19th century. However, most of those who advocated for civilizational enlightenment ultimately ended up being accused of collaboration with Japan when they tried to bring Japan in, and few of them survived to the end. Moreover, losers generally have no records. Victory is what leaves records. Therefore, there are few writings. Taking Kim Ok-gyun, perhaps the most representative case, as an example, those whose records remain relatively intact are so because Kim Ok-gyun was less courageous and thus had the opportunity to live a second life. His writings, including 'Seoyugyeonmun' (Travels in the West), are still available, so I looked into 'Seoyugyeonmun'.

As a result, some of you may have read it as supplementary reading, while others may not have, but Kim Ok-gyun's personal beliefs were such that this matter should not be taken lightly. Ultimately, for those who spoke such words, success was extremely difficult to define. Most of them did not live a second life. Kim Ok-gyun, though he survived, found it difficult to hold a high position because the ruling power was not receptive to adopting civilizational enlightenment. Therefore, not only was the fate of individuals unfortunate, but what happened to the nation? The nation, ultimately, it is not easy for a nation to die. Yet, the nation died.

Becoming a colony meant that the Joseon Dynasty, which had maintained its vitality for 500 years, eventually became a colony of Japan. Individuals died untimely deaths, and the nation also died. Seeing all this, I wondered, if an individual were to write about how they wanted to live in 2050, it would be with the expectation of writing something interesting. To be honest, as I read, I found no piece that brought me to tears of profound emotion. Of course, it is difficult. It is difficult to write something that would make me shed tears of profound emotion, but perhaps this also means that there has not been much opportunity to think about it for a long time. However, ultimately, the 'civilizational enlightenment' group of the 19th century

were mostly younger than you. Kim Ok-gyun, who played the most representative role, was thirty-four years old when the Gapsin Coup failed in 1884. It was ten years earlier that young men gathered in Park Gyu-su's study, saying, 'We need to learn about the West.' At that time, they were in their early twenties. So, if you think about it, when looking back at the history of any era, especially when significant change is occurring, perhaps the role of an individual is important in properly sensing it and moving ahead. Similarly, the young people who had such a sense of the issue and the society they belonged to will inevitably play a central role on the stage.

were mostly younger than you. Kim Ok-gyun, who played the most representative role, was around thirty years old when the Gapsin Coup failed in 1883 or 1884. Ten years prior, when young men gathered in Park Gyu-su's study to discuss the need to learn Western scholarship, they were in their early twenties. Looking back at history, especially during times of upheaval, an individual's role in properly sensing and anticipating these changes is crucial. Just as in a drama, young people who possess such a sense of inquiry are bound to play a central role in society.

Korea's Future Amidst Historical Upheaval

In times of historical upheaval, it is not the older generation but your generation that is most important. Whether Korea, the Korean Peninsula, and Asia can stand at the center of the world stage in 30 years depends on how we view and anticipate the present. To this end, we will examine periods of historical turbulence, most recently around King Jeongjo in the 18th century.

During King Jeongjo's reign, as the nation faced difficulties, new groups emerged seeking breakthroughs. Park Ji-won and Dasan Jeong Yak-yong are examples. In the 19th century, we have Park Gyu-su and Yu Gil-jun. During the colonial period, even though the nation was lost, Kim Yang-su and Min Se-an, who survived spiritually and created an opportunity for revival, can be mentioned. The same applies after liberation.

The selection of figures after liberation is inherently subjective. In my view, Lee Yong (Dongju) is a figure who relatively accurately understood and predicted Korea's position and direction after liberation. Furthermore, I believe the study group that led the preparation for the emergence of a new civilization, rather than mere post-Cold War transition, since the early 1990s, is also important. For personal convenience, the last photograph on the far right is of myself, making a total of eight individuals selected. If you were to use 'server' for yourselves,

it would be the ninth chapter. How is the future unfolding, and within it, how should I, the nation, Asia, the world, and indeed the universe, prepare? It is absolutely necessary to train for a broad and long-term perspective, rather than teaching only narrow disciplines like diplomacy in universities. To this end, the reason for selecting eight young individuals is that it was a period of transition from a traditional order to a modern one.

This is a transformation incomparable to the Cold War. At that time, the West did not recognize us as human beings; they viewed us as barbarians or beasts. The conflicts between North and South Korea or the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War were conflicts between human beings, and thus relatively less severe. The young people of that era were mostly from yangban families, and although the nation was declining, they had the intellect to pass the state examinations. When these individuals contemplated civilization, some experienced tragic or

unremarkable lives. Of course, it is best to avoid such periods. However, the changes we are experiencing now, while perhaps not as severe as those, are comparable. It is not a simple change but a revolution, a complete transformation. For example, if the world order shifts from being US-centric to China-centric,

If Chinese, which I studied as the second most important language after English, becomes a common language, people who are not prepared for it will have difficulty playing important roles. The opposite is also true. Seeing Trump's actions, I decided it was better to invest in China and studied Chinese, but even at 50, the US still dominates and English is used.

I invested all my time in language studying in China, but the areas where I could utilize it were limited. An individual's life is likely to be unhappy, subjectively or objectively. The same applies to a nation. An individual's destiny changes depending on whether they judge where the future world order is heading and move accordingly. For example, if one judges that a China-centric world order is coming and distances themselves from the US, but that order ultimately does not materialize, the individual must bear responsibility.

the fate of 50 million people. Especially if North Korea chooses Russia, but Russia proves insignificant, they must secure China or the US; a choice of Russia cannot simply be apologized for. This is because it could lead the fate of 20 million people into a 'march of suffering.' While the intricacies of future Korean diplomacy can be self-taught through GPT or Wikipedia, more importantly,

it is important to have opportunities to ponder simpler, yet larger issues. Where is the world heading, and accurately reading what will happen to myself, Korea, North Korea, the Korean Peninsula, and the fates of Trump and Xi Jinping within it will become a very important aspect by the age of 50. I believe a transformation from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era, and into complex international politics, is occurring, and I began studying this 30 years ago. At the time, my friends asked what would happen if it didn't work out, but

I replied that I was studying because it appeared so. Although there was resistance to using the word 'complex,' nowadays terms like 'complex crisis' and 'complex response' are frequently used. Those who prepare first can always stand at the center, and it is important for a nation to look ahead and prepare for the world.

Cyclical Changes and Dynamics of World Order

Looking back over the past two thousand years, no single country has consistently occupied the same position. Between the BC/AD millennia, India was the most dominant, followed by China, Western Europe, and the Middle East. The US had virtually no presence beyond its indigenous peoples; who could have predicted it would become the center of world order a millennium later? Looking a thousand years ahead, particular attention should be paid to changes in China, Western Europe, and the US, which are close to us. China's peak was between the 1700s and 1820s, during the Qing Dynasty.

At that time, the Qing Dynasty's share of global GDP was similar to that of the US today. The West began to gain dominance after the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800s. China's share fell from 30% to 5%, while Western Europe's rose. Subsequently, as Western Europe began to decline, the US rose to prominence, a trend that continued until around 2010. From the perspective of those studying this, one interesting area of research is

although I did not major in international politics, I studied philosophy and other subjects through undergraduate and master's degrees. At the time, the 'Long Cycle' theory by scholar George Modelski, who was at Seattle, had merit. From the 16th century, one country seized hegemony in 100-year cycles, and after 100 years, the next leader changed through war. The order was Portugal, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and the US.

When traveling in Europe these days, visiting Portugal or the Netherlands, it might be difficult to grasp that these places were once world order superpowers. In the 16th century, Spain was larger, but in terms of circumnavigating the globe, Portugal dominated the era. The Netherlands, which dominated the 17th century, still has people who are fundamentally global today.

When I took a taxi in Amsterdam, I was surprised when the driver asked in which language I would like to converse. The readiness to converse in various languages such as German and French, in addition to English, signifies preparedness to engage on the global stage. This might be a remnant of the 17th-century superpower era, a way of life where Dutch people do not live by saying, 'I will only do Dutch.' In that sense, the Netherlands still plays an important role.

There is a reason for the 100-year cycle. When wars occur, they generally follow four phases. The first is the reconstruction of the world order centered around the victorious powers. This is why the US led the world order in 1945. The US had to manage alliances, economic order, trade, and labor. However, in international politics, problems always arise because there is no world government.

The main victorious power, while structuring the order, tends to derive private benefits in the process of producing public goods. Consequently, other countries become dissatisfied and challenge the excessive benefits being taken, even while acknowledging the necessity of structuring the order. This is reflected in elections in domestic politics, but in international politics, it is often not apparent until war breaks out. In the Cold War order, the Soviet Union challenged the US order but lost, and then China attempted to play that role. If the leading power is a sophisticated leader, they will try to maintain order by accommodating dissatisfaction, even if it exists.

However, when dissatisfaction grows, as in Trump's trade negotiations, if it is judged that it cannot be resolved through words, the only option is to build strength. The third phase is a period of military competition, which eventually leads to war. This has been the history thus far. Keeping these four phases in mind, let us examine the current order we are experiencing.

Understanding the Complex World Order of the 21st Century

We will examine the current order from three perspectives. First, who is the protagonist? Who is the central figure? This is very important. To become a protagonist in history, you must keenly observe who is gaining power and act accordingly. Second, where is the stage? The outcome varies depending on the stage on which one operates. Especially given the speed at which AI is emerging these days, it will be difficult to survive in 20 years without understanding AI.

Isn't that possible? Therefore, it is a time when we must pay close attention to the stage. Third, the mode of action itself might be changing. Groups, individuals, or nations that act in accordance with that mode of action will inevitably be special. Let's start with the actors. Since modernity has not completely disappeared, the first priority for those who live by military spending is the issue of life and death. You probably haven't seen such statistics often. This is because, when teaching international politics, imperial international politics is generally taught by focusing on three aspects.

However, from the perspective of a middle power like South Korea, there are few opportunities to study imperial international politics. Therefore, we study relationships like Korea-US, Korea-Japan, Korea-China, and inter-Korean relations. The global powers that lead the world order typically handle how to navigate within the overall global structure. 'Why are you trying to do that yet?' Because of this, if you were to gather all the professors teaching domestic and international policy and ask them the total global military expenditure for a year, less than 5% would likely get it right. Even those specializing in military affairs, when asked about this, would think about the military balance between North and South Korea, or between the US and China, to that extent. So, if you look at this table, at the very bottom, the annual military spending is $2.2 trillion. If I were the world president and this wasn't the case, would it be necessary to know that? It's better not to think that way. Roughly understanding how the world works is definitely important for living the next generation.

What portion of that does the US account for? As you can see, out of $2.2 trillion, the US accounts for $1 trillion, listed as $997 billion. So, roughly, that's close to 40%. They spend a tremendous amount. The US and China are in contention, but how much are they contending? China spends about $300 billion, Russia $10 billion, Germany $990 billion, India $90 billion, the UK $80 billion, Japan $55 billion, Saudi Arabia $47 billion. A few things to consider immediately: when we talk about international politics, you are familiar with the Korean Peninsula and the surrounding four major powers, but thinking about international politics that way carries a high risk of failure. Where are the surrounding four major powers? Looking at Russia, which has greatly increased its spending due to the war with Ukraine, it's $150 billion.

Then we have $150 billion, $300 billion, and $1 trillion. Japan spends $55 billion; should we call this the surrounding four major powers? If you view international politics that way, you will fail. How do we position the US and China? China understands this much better than we do. China has no intention of fighting the US right now, because they know better than anyone. Currently, the gap is more than 3 to 1. Therefore, they shouldn't fight then. Isn't it necessary to fight when the timing is right, to be able to land a preemptive strike, at least when they are somewhat close? We simply think romantically. We try to be good to both the US and China. It's not that simple; China itself doesn't approach it that way.

Therefore, what I find incredibly regrettable and poignant is North Korea's alignment with Russia. While this may have partial effects in the short term—young people of your age going there, shedding blood, and receiving reciprocal military or economic benefits—Russia lacks the power. Russia, which is not one of the four major powers but rather a strong power slightly below a superpower, has a military expenditure not significantly different from the combined military spending of South Korea and Japan. So, how can China, the second great power, not be displeased by this? If they anger China and do not consider utilizing the US, which still has overwhelming superiority, by any means, and expect to gain everything through Russia, that is not the choice of a wise leader.

Even in your personal choices, like choosing a company to join, that's different. Of course, going to a startup with the hope of hitting it big is a different perspective. From this perspective, even if the current state is unfavorable, where can I go and potentially achieve great success? Can we break through by cooperating with smaller nations in the Global South, Latin America, or the Middle East? The problem is that the possibility of this not happening as hoped is very high. So, will looking at other data make it better?

Following military expenditure, we have economic data. GDP is similar. As for GDP, South Korea, relative to the globe, is perhaps... If you ask international political scientists about global military spending, 99 out of 100 will be wrong. However, if you ask economists or business people, more than half will likely get it right. This is because our business has grown to that extent. It's also possible that you've heard some of this before. As you can see, the global GDP forecast for this year is generally around $113 to $114 trillion.

Of this, the US accounts for $30 trillion. This is better than military spending. We simply know that US-China relations are changing, and China's economy is growing, but we don't know how it's changing. Looking at this, it has grown enormously from around $19 trillion. However, if you consider your life to be at stake, you shouldn't just vaguely think it has grown; you must know accurately. In the early 2000s, China's GDP was $1 trillion. Per capita income was around $1,000. It's just over $1 trillion now. It was similar to ours.

We are still around 10th, maybe 13th in ranking, aren't we? Our GDP is $1.7 trillion, not even 10% of China's. But in just 20 years, when we were comparable then. Their total GDP was a bit higher, but their population was 1 billion, while ours was 40-50 million. Now, if you divide it into individual countries, the EU, with its 27 member states, is roughly the size of China. $30 trillion for China, $20 trillion for the EU, totaling $50 trillion already. So, you need to have that basic data in mind when thinking, rather than dealing with things purely conceptually or emotionally.

However, the more complex issue is that the stage is changing, as I will explain further. Everything is changing rapidly. In fact, your jobs will be dramatically transformed in the next 10 years. It's said that more than half will disappear. Disappearance is a priority. For example, a significant number of tasks performed by lawyers can be handled by AI. Therefore, advanced technology is crucial. In the 21st-century order, where does advanced technology reside? That will determine the next 30 years. Thus, if you do not personally equip yourself with advanced technology, and think, 'Oh, I just want to live in harmony with nature,'

Advancements in Cutting-Edge Technology and Future Society

and if you don't need to earn a lot of money, just enough to maintain a minimum standard of living, then there's no problem. But if you want to play a central role on the stage, you must pay close attention to the stage. Among the six or seven cutting-edge technologies, AI is currently the hottest topic. While the term 'Artificial Intelligence' itself emerged in the 1950s, AI has also experienced ups and downs, facing several 'winters.' However, most forecasts and expectations suggest that this winter will not come easily this time. Of course, people like me would advise against overly optimistic expectations.

It is clear that AI cannot replace everything humans do. Although predicting AI data is very difficult, and amidst hundreds of reports and studies on AI published daily in recent years because it has become profitable, a plausible one is from McKinsey Consulting Group at the beginning of this year. The six items at the bottom are indices: capital power (how much money is invested), talent (how much human resources are available), IP (Intellectual Property), production volume, and data (how much data is possessed, as current efforts rely on data).

Yes, how much data is possessed. And as you know, since these tasks require enormous energy, the energy sector. And computing power. Using these six data points, it appears that the US and China are leading, but the US has a relative advantage. The EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE follow, with Saudi Arabia being in the next tier. Perhaps the inequality in the international order is deepening. It's possible that a divide between those who know and those who don't is emerging. At least, this is something to keep in mind, whether from an individual's perspective.

Furthermore, the stage is changing, which I will elaborate on further. Everything is changing rapidly. In fact, your professions will undergo a radical transformation in the next 10 years. It is said that more than half will disappear. Disappearance is a priority. For instance, a significant number of tasks performed by lawyers can be handled by AI. Therefore, the field of advanced technology is extremely important. In the 21st-century order, where does advanced technology reside? That will determine the next 30 years. Thus, if you do not personally equip yourself with advanced technology, and think, 'Oh, I just want to live in harmony with nature,'

So now, whatever profession you choose, it is inevitable to some extent to freely utilize things like AI or AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). If you study social sciences, even if you study introductory social sciences, I don't really agree that whoever relies on it for everything will win. The reason is that if the rational aspect of calculation is an important part of human beings, then in my view, human beings have an equally important part in terms of emotion and spirituality.

Then, can't ChatGPT take over these things? Will it make pastors lose their jobs and make them quit in areas like emotion or spirituality, and also in arts? I don't think so. However, the calculating part will be replaced by AI at a very rapid pace. So, we need to work with that in mind. From an individual's perspective or a nation's perspective, this is not a very recent statistic, but there is a term called 'think tank'.

Changes in the Knowledge Ecosystem and Actors

Well, EAI is also one of them, and we also use the term think tank, but this is a kind of vote for the top 20 think tanks in the world. A considerable number of related experts, professors, and researchers from research institutes voted. They ranked them worldwide. In humanities and social sciences, especially international politics and diplomacy, when they voted, 10 out of the 20 selected were from the United States. So, they still have a significant part of knowledge power that they possess more than others.

They have stronger power than others. There are almost none from the Third World. Brazil is noticeable. If you combine the US and Europe, it's about 70-80%. There are almost none from Asia. China and Japan are included. You could include China, but you need to change your thinking about what an 'actor' is. If you believe people who make somewhat deceptive statements on media or YouTube about so-called international politics, you will inevitably become an actor who can only perform on a stage from the past, unrelated to the changing times. If we consider the stage looking towards the future, I believe actors are also changing at a very rapid pace.

New Foundations for the Complex World Order of the 21st Century

What is the stage like? As mentioned earlier, traditionally, what was the most important stage? Yes, these things are important. It doesn't sound familiar now, does it? What is 'Ye' (禮)? The character 'Ye' originally meant offering sacrifices. 'Ye' (禮) and 'Ye-ui' (禮儀) mean politeness. The character on the left is related to rice, and the one on the right is a sacrificial table. We used the term 'Eastern Land of Etiquette' until the mid-19th century. The superpower until the mid-19th century was the 'Eastern Land of Etiquette.' But the Western 'commoners' came and completely shattered the 'Eastern Land of Etiquette' with the force of 'rich country, strong military.' 'Rich country, strong military' means security power and economic power. Security and economy.

However, in the 21st century, complexity means that security and economy alone are not enough. We need to pay attention to about three things. 1. The 21st century will inevitably be based on technology, information, and knowledge. This forms the foundation of a three-tiered tower. Was technology always the foundation? No. Since the beginning of human existence on Earth, religion was the foundation. Since people knew very little, they asked everything. They would divine whether something was good or bad. Could they survive if they went hunting tomorrow? No.

They divined everything, like with oracle bone inscriptions. Then, in modern times, there was a period when politics formed the entire basis of order. With the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, the economy became the basis of everything. In the 21st century, technology and information, in simple terms, advanced technology, have become the basis of the era. This is the first point to note. However, it would be good if the world moved solely on this basis, but it also brings changes to other areas such as security, cultural ecology, and public governance, so we must prepare anew. Diplomacy will also inevitably become an increasingly important part with the development of artificial intelligence (AI). Until the 20th century, translation was important, but what about cultural ecology?

We pursued a rich country and a strong military through security and prosperity, but as the competition intensified, it eventually led to mutual destruction and the Great Depression, causing economic difficulties and falling into self-contradiction. Of course, there were aspects where being a rich and strong country was resolved in a modern sense. In medieval Europe, there were 500 countries. Medieval people were anxious about their livelihood every day. They worried, 'Who will kill me today?' The state promised to guarantee life and prepare food. With the advent of the modern state, the number of countries in Europe decreased to about ten. Now there are 27 countries, but excluding the small countries in Eastern Europe, there are about ten large countries.

It was reorganized around those countries. However, leaving it to those ten countries led to problems like World War I and World War II, as they fought each other. Furthermore, it began to cause side effects on the Earth itself. Environmental problems, medical issues, climate change, etc., are ultimately side effects stemming from the competitive system of individual modern states. This is the first point. The second is that security and prosperity alone are not enough, and another change has occurred: cultural ecology. Finally, at the very top, there is what is expressed in English as 'global governance.' Since there is no world government, a function to coordinate this must exist, but it is not easy. These three things operate differently from the past. It is difficult to translate the term 'global governance' into Korean, but I translate it as 'Gongchi (共治)'.

meaning 'to rule together.' A lot of time has passed, but the third point, 'the complexity of action,' clearly indicates that action has also changed. The characteristic is that survival depends on the so-called Hobbesian expression of 'the war of all against all.' If the basic principle of modern action was that 'I must kill you to survive,' this has gradually begun to change. What is below is text, and if I ask you to read it, some of you may have seen the old text I wrote, but it is the image of a 'wolf spider.'

I didn't know there were wolf spiders. Wolves are fundamentally the basic formula of modern action, and spiders weave networks, aren't they? Ultimately, in the 21st century, you cannot live only like a wolf; you must live like a spider simultaneously. So, one day I searched for 'wolf' and 'spider' on the internet, and when I clicked on it, I found a spider called 'wolf spider.' So, personally, I was very surprised. Going a little further, when I taught such complexity in the 90s, the secret code for my department of diplomacy was 'dabertop,' and if you said 'wolf spider,' it became a popular password meaning 'you attended the lecture.' This is so-called 'symbiosis.' We often think of life as competition, but there are examples of living without competition. This shows the symbiosis between hummingbirds and flowers. These new changes from competition on the left to symbiosis are all

National Response Strategies and Future Leadership

To summarize the complex changes, the main actors have become more complex, including states, supranational networks, and sub-state networks within states, compared to the past. Security and prosperity are complemented by cultural ecology, and we must pay attention to the main stage and the secondary stage. Too much time has been spent, so how are these changes being responded to by each country? Who is reading these changes first and trying to invest boldly and lead accordingly? We need to pay attention to this. And we need to make efforts, either individually or as the political unit to which I belong, to be at the forefront of this.

US-China Strategic Competition and Future Outlook

As we saw earlier, although the actors have become much more complex, the United States and China remain important. To what extent are they reading these changes, and to what extent are they making desperate efforts to be the protagonists in these new changes? As an example, in the United States, the 'National Security Strategy' (NSS) is the most fundamental document for the US to read where the world is heading and to formulate strategies for where it will go. The NSS is published every four years.

Perhaps next year will be the security work. Without needing to read extensively, the first word has become very popular: 'inflection point.' An inflection point means a turning point. So, what I am talking about now is actually a narrowing down from a thousand-year unit to a hundred-year unit, but I am looking at it on a much shorter timescale. The reason why 2020 is like this is because elections are held, and in the election process, what came out during Biden's term, called 'Kaid,' is critically important.

Because it is an inflection point. Even so, we have hardly talked about such things. Neither the ruling party nor the opposition party has said that we are at a turning point in history. In the midst of such a situation where we are engaged in conflicts that do not allow for such discussions, those who continue to try to be at the center are still looking ahead to the future and talking about how they will lead. Below are the main adversaries, the People's Republic of China (PRC), Russia, etc., and they talk about where they are going. If the US has the 'National Security Strategy,' China has its Party Congress.

The 20th Party Congress is important because Xi Jinping is, in principle, supposed to serve only 10-year terms. He can be re-elected twice at most, but because it is an unusually important time of historical transition, he had to lay the groundwork for one more term and then step down. Therefore, by pushing through somewhat, he was re-elected for a third term at the 20th Party Congress. Why should he be inaugurated for the third time as president? His goal is to set targets by 2050. He aims to achieve them primarily between 2020 and 2035.

He aims to build a 'moderately prosperous, democratic, civilized, harmonious, and beautiful socialist modernized country' by 2035, and then from 2035 to 2050, he aims to achieve a 'comprehensively built socialist modernized country.' When I look at the Chinese people, I often tease them by saying that they talk about such long-term goals because they don't want to commit. It's impossible to memorize. So, they put in all the good words. Around that time, by 2050, China will be at the center of the world stage. Since time is limited,

To put it simply in today's terms, if Donald Trump became president for a second term, there are many things he says, but simply put, it's 'Po.' It's easy English, isn't it? When you listen, it's very clear English. There are only three phrases in his speech: 'America First,' in terms of our actions, 'America First,' 'America peace through strength,' and the third is 'Make America Great Again.' What did he ultimately want to achieve with that?

One of the biggest goals, when I look closely, is to prevent China from becoming a hegemonic power. That is the biggest problem. How will they do it? One is to contain it militarily, and the other is to contain it economically. We are currently in a situation where the tariff negotiations have just ended, and the country is in an uproar, debating whether it was good or bad, but in reality, the bigger fight is the summit. This is because tariffs, even if they go up and down to some extent, are something that can be endured in some form, but security negotiations are much more vulnerable than that. So, what will the other side say militarily?

They tell us, not just us but also the allies, to talk about preventing China's hegemonic power. The media may not understand what this means, but if you listen carefully, it means resetting the comprehensive strategic relationship and the future-oriented strategic relationship to manage China. So, what will they do? It's not just about related matters; in fact, the US has already planned most of it. Just like during the Cold War, when the other side has planned everything, we are shown it and wonder what they have planned, and we watch Japan's moves. Defense strategy, as mentioned earlier, is the 'National Security Strategy' (NSS), and below that, the Department of Defense creates documents like the 'Strategic Defense Review' and the 'Global Force Review,' which reviews forces deployed worldwide.

The US actually does not have that many military personnel. If you combine North and South Korea, Korea, along with China, is second in the world. This is because North Korea claims to have nearly 1 million personnel, and South Korea has 500,000 to 600,000, totaling 1.5 million. They are almost on par with China. The US currently has only about 1.35 million personnel. Of these, about 200,000 are deployed overseas. 100,000 are in Europe, 28,500 are in Korea, 52,000 are in Japan, and about 10,000 are in Guam. So, it's about 100,000 here and 100,000 there. This is expected to be released around August 31st or early September.

Then, when our president visits the US, the framework will already be complete. We are still unaware of how the overseas troop deployments and adjustments will be made, while they have already finalized their plans. How many will be reduced from the 28,500 personnel? And if they reduce them, what does it mean to ask us to pay money for that reduction? This is what they want to say. However, the fundamental difference in thinking is that in the US, they don't ask for money even if they kill someone; rather, if they reduce the number of troops from 28,500 to 10,000, it's as if those 10,000 are there.

We should pay for it. So, it's a matter of calculation. If we reduce our troops, we have to compensate for it, so they should either help us or, at the very least, allow us to strategically use them as a counter-China force if they remain in Korea. This is the gist of their argument. The economic part is similar. 'Teridil' is what we are currently experiencing, and when we talk about 'supply chain,' it's about trying to contain China, especially in advanced technologies like AI. This is why they are talking about 'decoupling' and 'derisking.' They want to operate a mechanism to adjust the overall system so that China cannot catch up.

China's Response Strategy and New International Relations

So, is Xi Jinping just standing by? It is clear that Xi Jinping has been pursuing his own response strategies in diplomacy, economy, technology, norms, and security for the past decade. It is a dangerous judgment to assume that the US and China are 50-50, and it is also very dangerous to assume that the US-China game is a one-sided game. Within those limits, they must respond appropriately, and since the US and China know this precisely, as mentioned earlier,

they are looking ahead to 2050. For example, in terms of diplomacy, they pursue what they call 'new international relations.' However, the term 'new major power relations' here means 'no conflict, no confrontation' – this is what they say to the US. They have no intention of confronting each other. Mutual respect, cooperation, and common prosperity. 'Cooperation' means win-win for mutual benefit. Then, isn't there anything to worry about? So far, China has presented itself as a moderate power, so is there nothing to worry about?

However, China's international relations are divided into major power relations and peripheral relations. In peripheral relations, if core national interests are threatened, they may act decisively in certain cases. In certain cases, they may even use military force. So, in what cases would that happen? China's core interests, as listed there, are domestic security, international security, and socio-economic security. If these are directly threatened, they cannot stand idly by. Among these, representative examples include the Taiwan issue, the South China Sea issue, the East China Sea issue, and the Korean Peninsula issue. The most acute issue among these is the Taiwan issue. Economically, within limits, if you consider global initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, and if you think about the media's perspective, Trump is harassing countries by raising tariffs, etc., but China is helping with the Belt and Road Initiative.

China cannot take everything. In reality, it doesn't work out that way. Whether China is taking everything that the US is losing is another question. Recent global opinion polls show that both countries are unpopular. Trump's popularity is declining, and Xi Jinping's popularity is also declining. We should pay particular attention to the field of deep learning technology; it has become clear that China cannot catch up with LLM models. Although some may think the AI war is over, I believe the situation is not that simple. China will not immediately surrender but will try to find breakthroughs by utilizing its own technology and methods to circumvent the US's encirclement. Deep learning could be a very important small success story, and this aspect is much more complex than expected.

Currently, the tariff negotiations are also proceeding with China extending the talks by 90 days. On one hand, the EU, Japan, and South Korea are demanding lower tariffs than 15%, but realistically, it is difficult in the short term. What should Korea do? As discussed in the three frames mentioned earlier, in the complex relationship between the US and China, nation-building is inevitably a battle to maximize cost-effectiveness. The US emphasizes its Indo-Pacific strategy, but in the overall picture, the ratio is still about 7 to 3. I don't have much time to elaborate, but how should the issue of the president directly confronting Trump be resolved?

Regarding the North Korean nuclear issue, there are various discussions domestically, such as whether we should possess nuclear weapons ourselves or bring back North Korea's tactical nuclear weapons. However, these are all romantic claims. We should utilize them to the maximum extent possible, but we should seek ways to borrow and utilize nuclear weapons. If the Trump administration tries to use the US Forces in Korea to contain China, it should absolutely not be allowed, even partially. From the perspective of European countries' calculations, the US will ultimately find it difficult to gain overall long-term benefits. In other words, there is a high risk of losing money in the long run.

Otherwise, Trump is already distributing money. Recently, the US has been trying to respond to rising unemployment and inflation by paying $600 per month. Ultimately, these methods will inevitably involve attempts to manage the situation appropriately within their limitations. To balance public and private sectors by a specific country requires a very complex mechanism.

Analysis of the BTS Phenomenon and the Young Generation of the 21st Century

A president like Trump cannot decide everything and change policies on a whim every time. Since time is limited, I will skip this and move on to the last point. You might wonder why I am suddenly talking about BTS. While discussing complexity, about 3 or 4 years ago, Representative Lee Hae-chan suggested studying why BTS gained explosive popularity worldwide more than domestically. He asked me what I could do to approach it from a social science perspective, but I replied that I had never sung a song in my life, so I didn't know.

I read about 200 BTS lyrics. I felt that not only the lyrics but also the melody and dance harmonized to have a great impact on fans worldwide, including ARMY. The number of connections alone is calculated to be 70 to 80 million. I chose two songs out of 200: one is 'Fake Love,' and the other is 'Mikrokosmos.' 'Fake Love' is already famous, but 'Mikrokosmos' is relatively less known. Since I need to analyze it socially, I will examine it in detail.

According to interviews with the seven members and testimonies from people around them, RM, in particular, said that 'Fake Love' was the most important song he had sung. Although the interpretation differs slightly, I interpreted this song as singing about the process of finding one's true self by breaking away from a life lived according to others' gazes, at the boundary between fake love and true love. On the other hand, ARMY explained in an interview that this song was a turning point in their lives, leading to another new life. 'Mikrokosmos' shows that there are two ways to love oneself. From Rousseau's perspective, there is the individual loving oneself through self-love and competing to look good to others.

Loving luxury goods, foreign cars, and high-end clothing falls into this category. 'Fake Love' accurately expresses this difference. 'Mikrokosmos,' borrowing Rousseau's expression, suggests that the ultimate combination of love, which is the fundamental form that God bestowed upon humans, is the combination of individual self-love and solidarity from relationships with others, which is necessary for human existence to survive. 'Mikrokosmos' calls for moving towards true love and simultaneously states that something will be achieved when the individual candles of the 7 billion population gather to emit a great light. In other words, it sings about how the individual and the whole can harmonize. Even if only by the lyrics, I don't know how desperately they felt and sang it, but it contains a very important message.

Perception of the Korean Reality in a Period of Upheaval

This is a story that is bound to resonate powerfully with the young generation of the 21st century, who are wandering between the individual and the collective. Therefore, we are undergoing significant changes in these three aspects. However, although I recommended reading this content, I subjectively feel that we are not experiencing a sense of urgency that we are in a period of upheaval. Thank you for your hard work.

■ Ha Young-sun, Chairman of the East Asia Institute, Professor Emeritus at Seoul National University.