1. How do you think the pandemic affect the cooperation among countries?　

(00:04 – 02:26)

Well, I think initially at the early stages of the pandemic; We saw a kind of natural reaction from a lot of countries where they tended to close their borders and stop interactions with other countries. In some cases, you saw trade was halted, or perhaps even just mail between countries regular mail has been interrupted. So, I think the reaction to kind of going to a cocoon to try and protect themselves was one reaction. And we also saw the US withdrawal from the WTO, which is a major institution for dealing with the pandemic. So, that probably wasn’t a very encouraging sign for multilateralism, either or cooperation. But I think one positive note that we could look at is the COVAX project that was initiated by the WTO. And it’s called the CEPI, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation and GAVI, which is also called the Vaccine Alliance. And they gathered governments, global health organizations, manufacturers, scientists in private sector in an effort to try and speed up, accelerate vaccine. And, also to try and find a candidate vaccine that would allow them to distribute 2 billion doses to countries, their frontline health workers, and vulnerable people around the world.Especially, in countries where, perhaps, they don’t have the public health infrastructure to research and develop their own vaccine. So, I think when you see governments and the private sector come together like that there are some discouraging or discouraging/encouraging signs.So, there’s the dark side of domestic politics where we have to protect our own people, but we’ve also seen some cooperation.



2. In your opinion, how can the governments reinvent multilateral cooperation during and after the pandemic to make peace and prosperity in the world?

(02:27 – 04:33)

I don’t know that there is a way to reinvent multilateral cooperation. I think the important thing is for governments to try and agree on the issues that they want to talk about.And, even with COVID, I don’t think we’ve seen a lot of agreement between countries. Definitely, the world recognizes COVID as a threat. But I think the nature of COVID is such that once we have a vaccine or we’ve come up with some therapeutics that allow us to deal with it, and it’s not as dangerous to the at-risk groups. That it will no longer be an issue that motivates countries to come together. So, I think the issue itself that will bring countries together has to be something that requires a long-term vision. And something that all countries agree that it is. It requires their cooperation. So, the obvious one that a lot of people have been bringing up. It is obviously climate change. We, ten, for four decades. We’ve kind of said, oh, well, yes, it could. We agree that, you know, climate change is an issue, but that’s not our issue.

That’s tomorrow’s issue. But tomorrow is coming very quickly, and I think that will be the issue that will bring governments together. I don’t know how they will reinvent multilateralism. I think they’ll probably just try to build on what they have already done. And, I think if you look at most international cooperation and multilateralism, that it tends to follow that. It starts out with the tiny step and then with that as a foundation; it builds upon that.

3. Do you think that governments are still the main players of multilateral cooperation?　What would be the Non-governmental sectors’ role in the post-pandemic cooperative governance?

(04:34 – 07:54)

I think the issue, when we talked about national governments cooperating with each other, they can’t just focus on one issue. If the governments of the world could focus on climate change and that was the only issue they had to deal with, then they could probably come up with a solution to it quite easily. But they have to worry about their national economies they have to worry, if they are from a democratic country, they have to worry about how their constituents feel about what steps they’re taking. And it’s such a difficult task for a government of a country to look at one issue and say, okay, we’re only going to focus on one issue and no other issue matters. So, for that reason, I think governments are very important. Obviously, they’re the ultimate arbiters of whether there is cooperation. But I think that if we look at which parts are or what levels there are, what levels in society can cooperate most easily, definitely the private sector.

I think most companies have a long-term vision for profitability and sustaining their business. So, they’re able to find opportunities and partners in other countries. And work for it like win-win cooperation. Whereas, if we’re talking about climate change, and, for example, if we tell China you are not allowed to use coal-fired electricity generation anymore, that’s a lose for them. So, it is hard for them to sell it. Obviously, they don’t have to sell it to voters, but they still have to look at their national interest and it comes into conflict with things like their energy security policy which makes it difficult for them to just agree to address climate change all at once, whereas companies, when they’re only thinking about the profit motive and how their businesses can come together and do business.

I think it’s easier for them to do. Also, NGOs. Because most NGOs are founded on the idea of dealing with one issue area. Earlier for a government because they’re focused on the broad picture. It’s hard for them to forget everything else and only deal with one area, whereas an NGO usually exists because of that one area. So, they’re able to try and come up with ways to cooperate with each other. The problem is, a lot of times, they don’t have a lot of influence on the policy making of a national government. So, I guess if I had to try and encapsulate what I just said governments are important but I think probably a partnership with NGOs, and perhaps private companies or the private sector may be a more effective way of achieving some sort of cooperation.

4. What do you think is the biggest obstacle to peace building in East Asia? How could we get through this together?

(07:55 – 13:36)

So, I’ve been in Korea for about 18 years, and I’ve taken, I did my Ph.D here in Korea. And one of my professors at Yonsei University was Professor Chung-in Moon, who is one of the main speakers here. He’s much more important than me. I took two of his classes on Northeast Asian international relations and one on Northeast Asian regionalism.

And when I was told that I would be coming and giving a presentation on this topic, I was kind of taken aback because, in his classes we discussed how almost from any theoretical lens of international politics, cooperation in Northeast Asia is, there’s a lot of pessimism about it. There are so many issues that are outstanding that you just, it is hard to ignore. And one thing that I always got whenever we got into a discussion of Northeast Asia is that there is no “EU”. There is no regional organization. And when you hear the pessimism and you hear there is no EU, you know, a lot of people would just say, oh, well, it’s impossible because of the issues that Northeast Asian countries have with each other. But I think earlier, the important thing is for countries to select an issue that they need to cooperate on. They cannot resolve on their own through their own government’s efforts or the efforts of private citizens So, the important thing that I would say is that if we look at cooperation in Northeast Asia,

We have to try and get past the issues of the colonial experience. Obviously, it was not a good thing. Nobody would agree that colonizing another country is good, and country should be sorry for doing that. And if we look to, perhaps, China’s case to the idea where countries came in and had spheres of influence, that was also a negative experience.We can look at World War II and the Korean War where countries of Northeast Asia came into conflict with each other. Men and people died. So, those issues of history, obviously, we should not forget them. But if we want to build a future, we can’t put them before the future. And I know that’s easier said than done. But I really think that is something that is important and needs to be said. In Northeast Asia there’s also territorial issues. There’s the Kuril Northern Territories issue between Russia and Japan. There’s the Dokdo issue. Obviously. There is the Diaoyu/Senkaku issue between Japan and China. And, even on the Korean Peninsula, North and South Korea in their Constitutions, it says that they own the entire Peninsula. So, there’s an issue of sovereignty even on the Korean Peninsula. So, all of these issues in mind, I remember, and again in Professor Moon’s class, him talking about Karl Deutsch.

Karl Deutsch talked about the Atlantic Alliance and how the countries,the NATO members had a “We” feeling. But there is no “We” feeling in Northeast Asia. I don’t see a lot of Koreans cheering for the Japanese soccer team in the world cup. And it’s probably the same in Japan. It’s probably the same in China So, that said, all of those things are cause for pessimism. And if we leave it at that, yes, there can be no EU in Europe. But there can’t be one now. That’s what I would say.There can’t be one right now. So, the problem with thinking of the EU as the ideal is that the EU is a result of something that began after World War II.

Rome was not built in a day. You have to start small. You can’t have the EU tomorrow. If you took a time, but that makes sense. That’s obvious. We shouldn’t be pessimistic just because there are negative problems now and there are issues between the countries. Now, if we start at a very basic level, choose an issue and begin cooperation, we can build on that and eventually get to, perhaps, having a multilateral institution. Probably not the EU.

The EU was founded on democratic principles. But Northeast Asia could easily have something like ASEAN and probably do it better. They have a lot more resources to develop. So, I think there’s cause for optimism, but definitely this idea that Korea. that Northeast Asia now cannot be EU now That’s true. The Northeast Asia now could be like the EU after World War IIwhere they see the merits of cooperation and just start with that first step.