The following is the text of an interview between Ryu Kun Il, chief editorial writer of the Chosun Ilbo and Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard University conducted on December 10 at Harvard.
What do you thing 2002 has in store generally?
Well, where is the world headed in 2002? I think first of all, the world is headed toward a continued economic downturn. I suspect by the end of the year, the United States and perhaps other countries will be coming out of the recession, which has affected all the major continents, but that will take a while. Secondly, I think the relations between the US, the West and the Muslim world will continue to be very difficult. It will take some time, I think, to complete the destruction of the Al Qaeda network around the world. And the reconstruction of Afghanistan certainly will go on for many years. And it is possible that the United States will attempt to eliminate Saddam Hussein.
You mean another war?
Yes. That will create great problems for the entire world as well as for countries like Russia.
Is this a question of the doomsday scenario or a brave new world?
Neither. I think as I say, there will be continued instability and there will undoubtedly be continued terrorism of one sort or another. Local wars will continue. And that is not a brave new world. It is also not doomsday. I don¡¯t think there will be a global war.
So will there be a new world order or world disorder?
Well, I think it will be continued world disorder. I don¡¯t think there is going to be any new world order, rather I think the sort of disorder that we¡¯ve had over the past few years will continue, with local conflict. I think it is very unlikely that there will be any resolution in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, as the positions of both participants in that conflict have hardened. And the Israelis are renewing their military actions in the areas of the West Bank and Gaza that were formerly under Palestinian hold. The Palestinian attacks on the Israelis and perhaps most importantly Arafat's loss of authority while Hamas has gained the upper hand seems to indicate that the Palestinian position overall has been moved from demanding the creation of an independent Palestinian state, almost to demanding the abolition of the Israeli state. There are more and more saying we want Israeli out of this part of the world. They will never achieve that but their demands have escalated.
Worldwide there is a depletion of resources and fears of an ecological crisis, what is your perception on these?
Well, I would say that there are ecological problems, while resources may be scarce either for physical reasons, or for political reasons. And in most cases, its from some form of politics, or corruption or incompetence. Food does not get distributed to people as it should. There is certainly plenty of oil and gas in the world. We have seen at the moment the price of oil has declined very considerably because Russia is maintaining a high level of production. That probably will change. Russia probably will decrease production of oil and the price of oil will go back up, but it is still very low. So I don¡¯t think, unless there is a new war in the Middle East with Iraq, I don¡¯t think the price of oil will escalate. Probably the resource issue in the next several years, which will create problems and conflict, is water. The conflict over water in the Middle East is a big issue between Israel and the Palestinians, also with regard to Syria, and Turkey, and in Iraq. The question of water is becoming more and more important.
After the end of the Cold War the US appears to be treating the world with benign neglect, or isolationism. It has not intervened for any noble reason. Do you thing the recent war in Afghanistan has changed this position?
Well, I disagree with the premise. At the end of the Cold War, at the beginning of the 1990s, America very explicitly, under the Clinton administration had an ideological world view of promoting democracy and this wasn¡¯t a general measure, nor a result of the shifting balance in domestic politics. Because quite clearly it has been people who are more on the liberal side of politics who wanted to promote human rights and democracy in other countries, but during the Cold war they were restricted because the overriding goal was to compact Communism and that often meant necessary compromises because the US doesn¡¯t cooperate with dictatorships. Near the end of the Cold War, that was no longer necessary and so the promotion of democracy and human rights became very central to the Clinton administration policy and President Clinton was significantly influenced by the so-called democratic peace, which gives an additional reason for promoting democracy. One can promote democracy because one believes in freedom. The President believed in freedom and human rights, that government should be responsible to their people. According to the democratic peacekeepers, democracies do not fight wars with democracies. If more countries in the world become democratic, the probability of war will decline. Democracy is not only good for liberty, it is also good for peace. And many people believe that. I think we are now moving into a somewhat different situation. But I don¡¯t think denial, neglect, or isolationism describes American policy during the Clinton administration.
Do you see the future as a kind of Jihad vs. McWorld as some commentators have described the parallel development of globalization with a degree of increased tribalism?
Well, I think the tendencies are very real and I don¡¯t think they are necessarily antagonistic. I think they interact with each other and a lot of the tribalism that we see in the world today is a reaction against globalization. If you didn¡¯t have globalization, you wouldn¡¯t have this tribalism to this extent. And so they feed on each other in that sense.
Do you see the need for a new configuration of international politics following the September 11 terrorist attacks?
Well, I think international politics after the Cold War changed during the 1990s in two significant ways. First of all as I argued in my book on the clash of civilizations, culture replaced ideology as the important defining element between nations, and as an important factor effecting the alignments and antagonisms of nations. And I think that idea, which was originally in my article in 1993 and my book in 1996, has unfortunately been vindicated by many events, including of course the most recent event, the events of September 11th. And so there is that significant change. The second is the fact that the Cold War world was a bi-polar world with two superpowers. Now there is only one superpower and there are six or eight major regional powers. If you are in a situation where there are only two superpowers, those two superpowers are naturally rivals antagonists. If you¡¯re in a situation where there is one superpower and then a number of major regional powers, those major regional powers are the natural antagonists of the superpower. This is because the superpower, the United States, has global interest and it wants to intervene and affect what is going on in every part of the world, and the major regional powers want to exercise the preeminent influence in their part of the world. And so in this situation, the US and countries like China, or Russia, or India, or Iran, or the EU are naturally antagonistic. Now I think one interesting questions is to what extent will the events of September 11 alter that and now all of these countries I just mentioned are, in one way or another, cooperating with the US. And so there has been formed a coalition against terrorism in varying degrees. European countries are obviously cooperating very actively with the US. Russia has taken extraordinary steps to be helpful. China is doing something. India is doing something. And even Iran is implicitly cooperating with the US. An important question is to what extent will this coalition be maintained after the current terror has disappeared. My guess is that it won¡¯t last for very long. The coalition against terrorism will gradually weaken. Terrorism exists on two levels. There is a global terrorist threat manifested in Al Qaeda, which is really the only global terrorist network. As we know now, it has been operating in 40 or 50 countries. It has tried to carry out, or in some cases it has carried out terrorist attacks in ten countries, not just the United States, but France, and Italy, and Egypt, in Jordan, in Kenya, and Tanzania and so forth. And it is, in a sense, a manifestation of globalization. Its principle enemy is of course, the US, the only global power. The other terrorist groups are almost all local, with limited, local objectives. This is true for Hamas or Hezbollah, the Chechens, the Kashmiris, or the Waegu that China is concerned about. Not to mention the terrorists in Columbia or a variety of other places. These are all local terrorists. And so once the global terrorist group is destroyed or greatly weakened, I think this coalition will dissipate.
Do you think the monopole system led by the US will endure?
I think its more or less a product of the existing power structure. Now eventually that power structure will change. I think over the course of a decade or two, we will move from a world of just a single superpower and several major powers to a multi-power world. There is one superpower, but there are already these several major powers. I think we will move in a direction of the global powers becoming multi-polar. The US will eventually decline in relevance to the other powers and so there will be a greater equality. We¡¯ll have a multi-polar world instead of one with one superpower. This of course depends on not only what happens with US, but the extent to which the European unification continues and how Europe develops a common foreign and political policy, the extent to which Europe develops a military force, a unified military force that can act independently of the United States. It depends upon the extent to which Chinese economic development continues; China has had spectacular economic growth; and its influence in East Asia. And to another extent it depends on what happens in countries like Russia. Russia has been going through a period of decline really, economic decline, demographic decline, and a political decline. But I think they¡¯re beginning to start the process of recovery in Russia. The economy has come back. The economy has been doing very well these past few years. Bismarck once said Russia is never as strong or as weak as it appears. And, during the Cold War, I think we over-emphasized the Russian strength and now we may be thinking of Russia as much weaker than it is. They have 150 million people there. They¡¯re intelligent. They have great resources. Significant power. I think once again, Russia will become a significant actor.
Do you think globalization will bring welfare and peace, or poverty and friction? Some say that without solving the income disparity problem, there will be no peace in the world.
Well, I think the question that is posed here, is the extent to which globalization is increasing economic inequality in the world . Certainly in recent years, economic inequality has increased between nations and also within countries. I don¡¯t know the situation in Japan, but in the US, the gap between rich and poor has increased and I know that¡¯s happened in some European countries and elsewhere. And this would seem to me to be a cause for concern. And the differences among economic development among counties are very specific. The East Asian countries have made major progress and China, the Southeast Asian countries of Malaysia, Thailand have all done very well. The Arab and the African countries, however, have not. And I suspect their political and economic structures may be difficult to change. I think this failure of economic development in the Arab countries is one of the significant reasons for this hostility and this anger and resentment that so many Arabs feel toward the West.
Why do they blame their poverty on America? Has it done anything to exacerbate this
Well, very little. Sure, some things the United States has done have contributed to their problems, but I think as long as they think the United Sates is the primary cause of their poverty, they will never improve. Basically countries develop because they study their problems, see what the problems are, what are the obstacles to development and then change their policies. And you see countries that have attempted to do this. Several Latin American countries have had quite successful development in recent years because they changed their economic policies, moved away from import substitution, liberated their economy, privatized state enterprises, imposed fiscal discipline in one form or another. And the countries following policies like those, they can develop. But again if you look in the Arab world, countries don¡¯t follow those policies.
Can nationalism replace globalization? Some countries are saying they are better going their own way.
Countries can pursue that policy if they want. North Korea is the most extreme case and economically it¡¯s getting worse and worse. And I think other countries have found that they have to be actively engaged in the global economy to succeed economically. Apparently there is vigorous debate going on in Iran at the present times. Here¡¯s a country that has a very intelligent population; they have reached a modest level of development, but it is not making progress now because it is isolated from the world. The Ayatollahs in Iran don¡¯t want foreign investments coming in. They don¡¯t want foreign investment. They say that it¡¯ll corrupt their society. Without foreign investment, how can you have economic progress?
Are the current crises examples of a limit of Western rationalism?
I think first of all one has to make a distinction between westernization and modernization. And I think certainly countries can modernize without westernizing, in terms of their basic values and countries. I think Japan has done that. I think that China and other East Asian countries are doing that. I don¡¯t see that sort of conflict. Modernization and the influence of the west gets localized. A natural consequence of globalization is localization. Every international businessman I have crossed agrees with that, people operating in global corporations. If they want to succeed they have to adapt their operations to the local society and culture, otherwise they will fail.
Do you think it is necessary for a fusion of civilizations, such as the materialism of the West and the spirituality of the East, rather than a collision of civilizations?
I don¡¯t think of the fusion of civilizations, I¡¯m sure that will occur and I don¡¯t think a major war of civilizations will occur. I think what we will have, I hope, is a coexistence of civilizations.
Since the 1997 economic crisis, the five dragons of East Asia fell. How do you assess the efforts of these countries to reform themselves to compete in the world despite anti-globalization protests by peasants, farmers and workers?
Well, I¡¯m modestly optimistic about the countries of East Asia, well, at least Southeast Asia and Korea. I think they can handle their problems well. After all globalization and foreign investments have brought great benefit. I am more concerned about the situation of Japan. Japan has now been stagnant for more than a decade and no government has been able to change that.
Why is that?
I think the current government is at least making major efforts to change that. For one reason or another it has persisted in Japan. The bureaucratic structure, the political interests that are involved and the major political parties have made real reform very difficult.
Do you think Japan's response to September 11 and its expansion of interests will cause problems in East Asia?
Well, Japan basically has internal problems with the economy, and economic reform, and investments. As far as a clash of interest is concerned, I think there are natural places for clash of interests in East Asia, with the rights of China and obviously that will pose problems for Japan. So far, Japan has done reasonably well. If China becomes increasingly assertive in that area, this will cause problems for both Japan and the United States. I think the expansion of the Japanese-American alliance that occurred four years ago was a precaution in case China became more assertive.
There has been some concern in China and Korea whether a new, nationalism militarism and hegemony are re-emerging in Japan.
I don¡¯t see that Japan has the will, or the interest, or the capability to do that. I think because of its economic problems and also because of its demographic problem; the Japanese population is aging significantly. Japan has the oldest population among developed countries and the population is now beginning to shrink so unless something happens, the current population of 126 million will drop to 100 million half way through the century and down to 60-70 million by the end of it. I can understand why nationalism is a cause of concern in Korea, but you have to be more specific when you¡¯re talking about Japanese nationalism. Do you mean in terms of relations between Korea and Japan, the Korean minority in Japan, or the consequences and legacy of colonialism in Korea.
There are some concerns over distortions in Japanese textbooks on the country's past history, saying that they have done no wrong, what is your take on this?
Well, yes, I know that some Japanese say that. However, others challenge this attitude. My impression is that people will dissent from nationalistic viewpoints and in any event it seems to me that it is not helpful for two important countries like Japan and Korea to be heavily influenced by discussing interpretations of history years ago. Certainly there are enough common interests for Japan and Korea to cooperate.
George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin agreed on strategic weapons reduction, but failed to agree on the ABM treaty. Do you think the two countries' relations under these two leaders will follow a different pattern?
Well, that¡¯s a very interesting question. My guess is that on the question of missile defense, first of all I think it has become less important, because the Bush administration has now become concerned about the war on terrorism and I think it will be very difficult for the administration now to push ahead vigorously with missile defense, because people will say the big danger is not somebody shooting missiles at us. It is somebody bringing in anthrax or somebody bringing nuclear materials and setting them off in NYC. It¡¯s not a long-distance threat from missiles, but the terrorists are the threat. Secondly as far as Russia is concerned, I don¡¯t think, there is a real, substantial issue here. There is a symbolic issue in that the ABM treaty reflected the reality of the Cold War when there were two superpowers. Now there is only one superpower and yet the Russians want to maintain the ABM treaty because it implies that they are a superpower too. And one can understand that and I think American policy should try to accommodate that, although it does not reflect the reality. If the US does go ahead with the missile defense that they have talked about, Russia knows fully well, there are no consequence on the balance in strategic weapons between the US and Russia. They will have very significant consequences where China is concerned because the limited form of ballistic missile defense which the US will adopt, if it goes forward at all, will be a significant counter to the limited nuclear forces that China has. We will not be able to deal with the 2000 nuclear weapons that Russia has.
Putin is different from Gorbachev, is Putin's leadership moving toward a new authoritarianism?
You¡¯re right, he is. Under his leadership, Russia may move from a semi-democracy to semi authoritarian. On the other hand, Putin has provided very impressive leadership in Russia, in stimulating the economy, in bringing about a number of economic reforms, in taking realistic positions in world affairs and issues, in cooperating so extensively with the United States in the war on terrorism. I think he is a tough-minded, realistic person. I think it is that type of person that Russia needs.
What is Putin¡¯s basic diplomatic policy in East Asia?
Well, I think Russia has complicated interests these days. My guess is that Russian policy in East Asia will not change very much. It is possible, but I think unlikely, that some arrangement will be worked out with the northern island. I think Russia obviously has a close relationship with China, for a variety of reasons. Both of them want to limit overall American influence and Russia obviously is very interested in selling weapons to China. I think in the longer run, Russians have a great fear of the expansion of Chinese influence, the migration of Chinese into Siberia. So in the longer run, Russians are threatened by China and that is probably one of the reasons why Russia are so anxious to establish a very close relationship with NATO.
In the past Russia and China were allies and the US, NATO and Japan were together, however these days there is more fragmentation. How do you see patterns of new allies and foes emerging?
Russia and China became enemies in the 1950s and the 1970s. They were rivals that had a small border war. So that¡¯s the immediate factor. Since the end of the Cold War, relations between Russia and China have improved greatly. It¡¯s hard to predict, one can see varying responsibilities but I think to a very large extent it will depend upon what extent China becomes more assertive in East Asia, and it will depend to some extent what happens to Taiwan, whether that issue is resolved. It will depend to some extent on what happens on the Korean peninsula and with North Korea.
China joined the WTO on its rapidly growing economic and military growth, while supporting Bush's war on terrorism. Do you think there will be a clash between the US and Japan, and China, or will there be a strategic companionship between traditionally hostile countries?
Well, I think the relationship among China, and Japan, and the US will be fine; one with cooperation and conflict. Obviously there are extensive trading relationships among these three countries. There is considerable investment from Japan in both China and the US, and there is considerable investment from the US in China and so economically certainly there¡¯s a great deal of beneficial interaction. Trade and investment can also create conflicting interests and that happens at times. But I think in the longer term, and it will be a significant issue, as I said, how China behaves in East Asia. As we know China was the hegemonic power in East Asia, Japan and other countries, and that ended in the 19th century. Japan and then the US, after WW2, became the dominant powers in East Asia and the question really is how far will China want to go in trying to resume its hegemonic position.
Will China's growing military power bring on a crisis in East Asia?
If it takes military action against Taiwan, that of course is a major crisis, involving the US and also Japan. If China become mores aggressive in trying to exert control over the South Chinese state, that will create problems, with Vietnam and the Philippines and other countries. And it will depend upon how the leadership in China defines its interests. China will have a new leadership in the next few years.
China¡¯s economy is growing fast in the IT field and some forecast that it could overtake South Korea.
Undoubtedly, the effect, in Taiwan, there¡¯s a competitive factor. They will be economically competitive and China may well take some industries away from countries like South Korea, in which case Korea has to move on and develop other industries.
What will happen to China politically? Will it gradually democratize or move towards a different authoritarianism?
My guess is that China will gradually move in the direction of greater political stability because as it becomes more integrated into the global economy, with membership in the WTO, you have further development of a variety of economic factors The middle class will expand and all of this will lead to a greater political stability. That does not necessarily mean democracy in the Western sense or the Japanese sense of the word. Again the extent to which China does become more pluralistic, will be taken by the leadership in China. My guess is that during the coming years, the Communist Party will remain as the source of power and dominance in China. But the Communist Party is changing in China. They recently invited business people to join the party, entrepreneurs and that will change the character of it.
What is your view of dangers on China's border?
I think there is certainly a problem with the Uygur. And you have low levels of violence there and substantial number of Chinese have moved in and the Chinese of course, following September 11th, tried to highlight what they consider to be the terrorist threat. My guess is that there'll be continuing tension and low- level violence.
What advice do you have for South Korea, a country which has had successes and failures in transiting from dictatorship to democracy, government to market led growth, charismatic to reasoned leadership, and from a border centric to global view.?
I think South Korea will make significant advances on all the factors you mentioned; an advanced democracy, market economy, integration, and global economy. Obviously South Korea like other countries, in the 1990s, during the Asian economic crisis had various problems, but it seems to me that it dealt with them quite effectively. I should say reasonably effectively.
But inside South Korea the post democratization era lacks democratic mores; only institutions and not the mentality.
Well, I think it takes time for mentality or culture to change. You have to recognize that democracy is inherently disorderly and messy. And people squabble and fight and the opposition groups attack the government and the government attacks the opposition and so forth. But that¡¯s part of the democratic order and the consequences of democracy are not always nice. In some countries like parts of the former Yugoslavia, I think the transition to democracy helped to produce ethnic conflict. Happily in South Korea you don¡¯t have any real basis for ethnic conflict, but democracy promotes conflict; that¡¯s part of the purpose, to promote conflict, to have competition and checks and balances.
Is your outlook for South Korea optimistic?
Yes. As I said, I think South Korea in the past few decades has handled quite successfully the transition to a democratic system and has demonstrated that it has the capabilities. Well, I guess, I¡¯m not sure that the country has really defined its place in international politics. How does it fit in? Obviously they have very close relations with the US. That may change. There¡¯s the question of the American military crisis in South Korea, what is its purpose now and how does the South position itself with respect to Japan and China?
What about the North Korean weapons of mass destruction issue?
I don¡¯t know how much we, the South Korean or the US government know with respect to weapons of mass destruction, in North Korea. I think it is very difficult to prevent countries like the North or Iraq or Iran from developing nuclear weapons, or other biological or chemical weapons. In fact, maybe chemical weapons are easier. Anybody can do that and lots of countries have. Many countries have developed biological weapons. The Soviet Union had an extensive biological weapons program after it had signed the biological weapons treaty. It was prohibited. I would not be surprised if countries like North Korea were trying to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. One just has to assume that it is.
How do you view the Sunshine Policy?
The Sunshine Policy is very constructive, and though the results so far have been limited, that is the policy that South Korea should follow. I did not like Pres Bush¡¯s initial policy of criticizing President Kim's engagement policy.
What about North Korea and terrorism?
Clearly in the past, the North had engaged in terrorism, particularly, the blowing up of that plane. At the moment as far as terrorism is concerned, NK seems to be more passive. Clearly NK terrorism may be directed to US, but it is much more likely to be directed toward South Korea, as it has in the past. If North Korea resumes terrorist activities, I¡¯m sure South Korea will have the full support of the US and the countries of Europe.
