[Theory and Practice of International Relations in East Asia]

Q1. What do you think of the current East Asian economic order given the intensified integration and competition among Asian countries?

We are not in a period of business as usual. It’s a period of historic transition, where it appears we are writing the new rules for the global order. That battle plays at the global level, but it’s particularly intense in East Asia.
On the one hand, we have continuing integration—the forces of globalization that bring people together and have led to connectivity and prosperity. On the other hand, those historic forces have begun to undermine the institutional foundation of the East Asian economic order because they have changed the balance of power in a very dramatic way.
The center of that competition is between China and the U.S. It’s not doomed, but it has to be managed. We have to give voice to the new rising powers, and we have to be quite proactive in doing so.

Q2. Some critics believe that the real purpose of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is to counter the Northeast Asia order built by China through its Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). What do you think about successful regional economic communities, including TPP?

In the last few years, there was intense competition around TPP and then again around AIIB. The foundations of the TPP began a lot earlier, around 2007, as a way to advance global trading rules, particularly in cases when WTO negotiations were stuck. After the U.S. came on board in 2008, the TPP became the way, in the words of President Obama, to rewrite the rules of trade of the global economy so that China does not write them. It became a strategic competition. The Chinese were very unhappy by the TPP they took it as a threat and several initiatives were launched: the Shanghai Free Trade Zone (partly linked to TPP) One Belt, One Road and the AIIB.
Today, both battles have settled down. Chinese reformers find TPP to be a useful treaty that China might join in the long term. The U.S. has taken a more pragmatic approach. On the AIIB side, a compromise was reached between the U.S. and China it’s now cooperating with the Japanese-led Asian Development Bank (ADB). As of now we have a more hybridized order, and so far it’s not disrupting the whole system.


Q3. What should be South Korea’s role and strategy in Northeast Asia in terms of Asia’s new order and cooperative leadership?

Korea has a big role to play in East Asian security and economic affairs. It started with the G20 summit in Korea. Korea did more for the G20 summit than many other countries have, so that there would be more deliverables from the summit. At the time of great change, great volatility, a battle for new rules, tensions between Japan, US, China, ASEAN—Korea was at the middle of it all.
Korea is both an emerging country and an OECD country, so it’s in between all the players. Korea has a lot of human capital, too. Now is a time where we need entrepreneurial middle powers like Korea that can nudge the process or incubate new ideas or new networks. It’s easier, in some respects, for Japanese and Chinese to meet in Korea than in the other countries.
The other country that is playing a similar role is Singapore. I see the South Korea and Singapore as the two entrepreneurial middle powers in Asia. They have a huge role to play.


[On Peace]

Q1. How should scholars and researchers contribute to peace promotion?

We’re at a time of historical transition, and we need new ideas, new blueprints, new institutional arrangements, new mechanisms, and new networks. Scholars can help do a lot of that thinking and put new ideas into action.
It is necessary for scholars to not only do theoretical, abstract work, but also to bring this work to policymakers and society and to help operationalize ideas. Scholars have a big role to play, and they also need to be more entrepreneurial—to be academic entrepreneurs. Their role in engaging the next generation—their students—is crucial as well. It’s an exciting time to be a scholar, but there’s a lot of responsibility.


Q2. How can multilateral talks such as the Jeju Forum contribute to peace promotion?

Sometimes when meetings take place in the U.S. or China, there is a lot more attention and competition. Here you find very high quality dialogue between Americans, Chinese, Japanese, ASEAN countries, even a few Europeans, in a way that is very productive and very positive. It’s an honest exchange.
Here, I’ve seen panels with very good new ideas. The Jeju Forum has been helpful in incubating the dialogue and new networks, helping different players—from academia, politics, business, society, and the local Jeju culture and economy. All those players can gather and generate new ideas that is very important for peace in Asia, especially at this time.
Maybe the Jeju Forum, as it grows, could generate score cards or a small report and a set of measurable goals. There’s so much positive energy here, so I wonder how we can turn this energy into real action. It doesn’t have to be too big, just a little output that can grow and serve as a framework to be shared globally.


Q3. If you were an advisor on issues about the Korean peninsula, what areas of Inter-Korean relations would you try to improve?

Inter-Korean relations are delicate right now, in part because there’s so much volatility in North Korea. The consolidation of power of Kim Jong-un has been full of surprises. It has involved Kim Jong-un asserting his authority through lots of provocations, including military, nuclear, and missile tests.
In this context, the whole international community, including South Korea, are puzzled: should we keep engaging, or should we take a hardline position? In the end, there has to be an effort to understand the other side. Any effort to still have some presence in North Korea and to still have dialogue is important. Engaging on issues that are not military, such as the environment or the economy, is very important. Our university has such a program that engages Korea on the environmental and economic side.


Q4. How would a peaceful cooperation organization for multilateral security and cooperation in Northeast Asia be made possible?
It is possible but it takes hard work. It will be possible if first there are enough scholars, think tanks, institutions, and civil society groups who are actively organizing to develop new ideas, new networks, and new positive energy. In history, the inertia of realist thinking can dominate. We need a counter-movement, with efforts to an alternative future.
On one level, we new technologies, but on the other, we still see too many emotional responses between leaders and between countries. We see nationalistic reactions that sometimes lead people to call for conflicts, which I think we should be able to transcend. We just have to invest more resources into building new approaches.


* Prof. Yves TIBERGHIEN is the director of the Institute of Asian Research and a professor at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

Prof. Yves TIBERGHIEN views the current period as one of historic transition, where it appears we are writing the new rules for the global order. That battle plays at the global level, but it’s particularly intense in East Asia. The center of that competition is between China and the United States. As of now we have a more hybridized order, and so far it has not disrupted the whole system. To manage future conflict in the changing order, Prof. TIBERGHIEN recommends proactively encouraging and providing space for the voices of new rising powers.
Korea has a big role to play in East Asian security and economic affairs, says Prof. TIBERGHIEN. South Korea rose to the national stage when it hosted the G20 summit in 2010. As both an emerging country and an OECD country, entrepreneurial middle powers like Korea can nudge the process or incubate new ideas or new networks. In order to counter the inertia of realist thinking, Prof. TIBERGHIEN recommends supporting scholars, think tanks, institutions, and civil society groups who are actively organizing to develop new ideas, new networks, and new positive energy in order to foster trust and cooperation.

* Interviewed on May 27, 2016 (Jeju Forum 2016)
Posted on October 19, 2016