11th Five Universities Conference and the Tokyo Forum on “In Search for Common Security in an Age of Deglobalization”

Day 1 — Friday, December 6, 2019

Panel 1 — US-China Relations in Crisis

The first panel focused on the factors causing the US-China confrontation and its impact on regional and global order, and also discussed future prospects of the two countries’ relationship.

The first speaker, Professor Qingguo JIA from Peking University, described the factors behind the two countries’ deteriorating relationship. They have chosen different paths of development, they both feel vulnerable and suspicious of the other’s intentions, and the arrival of new technologies such as 5G and artificial intelligence (AI) is also disrupting the relationship. Yet, he analyzed that the confrontation will not evolve into another cold war as it is too costly for either country. In order to protect the country’s interest, in the long run, the two countries would find a common ground where they can manage their differences and cooperate.

Next, Professor Yuen Foong KHONG of the National University of Singapore shared his view that Asia is shifting to bipolarity as China closes in on the US. China is ready to be acknowledged as an equal, but US refuses to grant co-equality yet. This discrepancy will eventually cause the competition to intensify, perhaps to a more severe state than the US-Soviet rivalry during the Cold War. In the midst of this competition, the two countries will apply more pressure to other states to align with them. ASEAN’s strategy to maintain solidarity by not choosing sides will become increasingly difficult in the coming years.

The third speaker, Professor Peter TRUBOWITZ from London School of Economics reflected on the Cold War era rivalry and compared it with the current US-China relations. From the three options, “containment,” “integration,” and “rollback,” US back then chose “containment” as the main strategy against the Soviet Union. Moscow’s behavior and domestic political imperatives were the reasons behind this choice. Today, considering US-China relations, a containment-like strategy, again, seems the most likely choice for the US. But US is now more domestically polarized, and how things progress also depends on the two countries’ decisions. Whether the two countries will fall into the so-called “Thucydides trap” is not yet destined.

The last speaker, Professor Akio TAKAHARA from the University of Tokyo, focused on China and Japan’s initiatives in the Indo-Pacific region. After the trial for “New Model of Major Country Relations” with the US failed, China turned its focus to Eurasia, and implemented the “Belt and Road (BRI)” initiative which aims to connect East Asia and Europe. A similar overlapping initiative by Japan is “Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP)” vision, with a main goal of achieving improved connectivity between Asia and Africa. Strategically, the two initiatives may fuel geopolitical competition, yet economically, they can coexist by cooperation and contribute to regional growth.

With inputs from four speakers, the participants further discussed the current situation of the US-China competition. Referring to the US-Soviet Union rivalry during the Cold War, it was pointed out that tacit rules for coexistence develop only when two equal powers exist. Therefore, rules will only develop after US starts to consider China as its co-equal. Others shared their view that China is committed to a different form of modernity, described as capitalism without liberalism or democracy, and the competition could be viewed as a contest over the model of modernity. As China is still under development, there is still a possibility that it will reconcile with the current model of modernity with liberalism, but China’s attempt may decide the future of the world order.

Panel 2 — Economy and Trade: Globalism in Retreat

The second panel was constructed around the following lead question: why has the growth of international trade decreased? The causes and consequences of globalism in retreat and how to understand the trade war were discussed.

Professor Keisuke IIDA from the University of Tokyo, the first speaker, shared the forecast by the World Trade Organization (WTO) on worldwide merchandise trade volume growth, highlighting that it is gradually slowing down, though not yet in the negative zone. The major factor causing this slowdown is trade-restrictive measures undertaken by WTO members. Contrary to the general view that the rise of populism is the reason behind the surge of trade protectionism, it was pointed out that, in the US, the build-up of anti-China sentiment is the more important factor. The possibility of this trade war between the two superpowers escalating to a military warfare is unlikely, yet scenarios do exist, which gives reasons to be concerned.

Professor Danny QUAH from the National University of Singapore shared his analyzed the network structure in the global trade. While the breadth of US trade has reduced during the last four decades, China’s presence has risen significantly, becoming an important trading partner for many countries especially across ASEAN countries. For the US, the current situation may be a retreat in globalization, but for other countries, it means more options to choose from. More trade was better in the past, but this standard linear story of globalization no longer stands. Globalization’s costs and benefits apply differently across borders, and each country is acting accordingly.

The third speaker, Professor Michael MASTANDUNO of Dartmouth College, focused on economic and security relations. Previously, the liberal international theory supported the idea that good economic relations led to good security relations. But under economic interdependence, the US-China competition is taking place, and security relations are influencing economic relations. This implicates the arrival of a new era of geo-economics. As neither of the two dominant powers have compelling domestic reasons to promote economic liberalism, the so-called middle powers, including Japan and Germany, needs to step in. And the problem in the security sphere must be fixed while the liberal world economy is still functioning.

Professor Moonsung KANG from Korea University shared his view on the slowing down of international trade and the return of protectionist policies. Future prospects extracted from the current situation was that the multilateral trading system including the WTO, with US questioning the effectiveness of it, will become weaker, and demands for FTAs will become stronger. As a suggestion to the East Asian countries, Professor KANG pointed out the need to multilateralize FTAs in East Asia, where the trading system is complex and redundant with too many free trade agreements co-existing. This multilateralizing of regionalism, Professor KANG emphasized, must be done in a way to achieve common economic prosperity in the region.

The last speaker was Associate Professor Zhaohua DONG from Peking University. She analyzed the rationale behind the retreat of globalism. As a way to relieve discontent against globalization within a country, she suggested establishing a government transfer system in which the winners of the trade will be taxed to fund social safety net to help the losers, and activating the labor market by allowing opportunities of retraining and assisting relocations.

After the five presentations, participants discussed about the paralyzed great powers in the international trade system. Some tried to understand US’s attitude of distrust in the multilateral trading system as a result of the sense of loss of control, especially concerning the WTO appellate body. A few agreed that the so-called middle powers need to step up in such situations. It was also pointed out that trade has always been perceived as a risk by security focused experts, but with the arrival of new technologies including 5G that has further geopolitical implications, security has now become a factor that determines the outline of trade relations.

Panel 3 — Korean Peninsula: Prospects for De-nuclearization

The third panel reexamined the geopolitical situation in the Korean Peninsula which has dramatically changed after the inauguration of President Trump. Achieving de-nuclearization of the peninsula seems to be quite a challenge under the current circumstances, and the participants discussed other possible options to stabilize the region.

Yongwook RYU, Assistant Professor of the National University of Singapore, started the panel with a presentation titled “A Time to Think the Unthinkable? The Prospect of a Nuclear Region in Northeast Asia.” Mainly two approaches have been attempted to achieve de-nuclearization of North Korea in the past: diplomatic negotiations to extract voluntary de-nuclearization, or adding pressure through international economic sanctions to force de-nuclearization. With neither of the approaches being effective, the only feasible option left is deterrence, and Assistant Professor RYU emphasized the importance of contemplating this once-wild idea.

The second speaker, Professor Masahiro KOHARA from the University of Tokyo also agreed that there has been no progress in the nuclear negotiations since President Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un met in Singapore in 2018. Meanwhile, North Korea has continued its development of short-range missiles, and demanded the US to prepare a new deal. Whether a deal would be made or not was discussed, and three possible deals were suggested: an ambiguous political deal without any concrete goals, a comprehensive deal to realize complete de-nuclearization, or a partial step-by-step deal to move incrementally towards the same goal. Which will be the better of the three should be considered by analyzing the effectiveness of international sanctions, and also how imminent this issue of a nuclearized peninsula is in terms of security.

Dean Sung-han KIM of the Korea University also suggested the need for a “Plan B,” especially from the US, rather than relying on the present Trump-Kim relationship. The diplomatic negotiation between the two countries has been costly for either countries. He suggested that the strategy should seek to achieve three objectives: the strengthening of US deterrence by cooperation with South Korea and Japan, the reinforcement of economic sanctions, and reaffirmation of US onshore strategic posture.

The last speaker, Professor Xiaoming ZHANG from Peking University, interpreted the failed North Korea policies of President Trump. North Korea’s nuclear program has been implemented to ensure the country’s survival after the Cold War when aids from communism countries ended. Whereas several countries supported the partial lift of UN sanctions, US has declined, leading to the failure of the summitry negotiation between US and North Korea. With the US-China competition intensifying, changes in Trump’s alliance policy, and the forthcoming US presidential election, the President may be tempted to rush into making a deal, accepting the partial lift approach. Professor Zhang also mentioned alternative approaches, such as China’s staged de-nuclearization or a multilateral security mechanism to address the issue.

After the four presentations, participants reconfirmed the fact that President Trump’s North Korea policy has not brought concrete results so far, and that skepticism prevails when considering the realization of de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It was pointed out that perhaps US is using the situation to extort alliance prices with Japan of South Korea. While it appeared as if North Koreas as a nuclear state was unwillingly accepted, though not acknowledged, a few participants reminded the horrifying outcomes caused by nuclear weapons, emphasizing that the ultimate goal must be de-nuclearization. Others pointed out the need to renew sanctions. Sanctions will always have leaking points, so even if the current sanctions are still working, its effectiveness may be eroded due to other countries finding ways to breach them. The necessity to restart the conversation between US, China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea was also mentioned. The countries could search for common regional strategic principles that would guide the nations over multiple years to reduce North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, although this itself has its own barriers as US-China conflict is intensifying.

Day 2 — Saturday, December 7, 2019

Panel 1 — Changing Technology and its Regional Implications

The first panel of the second day was dedicated to the influence of changing technologies. The controlling of the technology itself has become a politicized issue as seen in the case of 5G and the Huawei incident, with technology becoming more linked to trade, geopolitics and international relations. New technologies also affect employment in a country. Four speakers shared their input to gain a broader perspective of the issues surrounding technology development.

Professor Yee Kuang HENG from the University of Tokyo first presented on how the issues related to artificial intelligence (AI) are being mentioned in various fields. Four views were shared: AI as an “existential risk,” AI “mapped” onto geopolitical competition, AI described with metaphors of competition and war, and AI research promoting cooperation between companies to avoid zero-sum game. Through these views, it was reminded that economic growth, interdependence, and competition are all intertwined with geopolitical rivalries and security. It was also noted that a twisted positive effect may rise from the potential existential risk of AI. Firms and institutions in the field may be stimulated to cooperate and find common grounds in order to avoid catastrophic situations for the entire humankind.

Next, Ryo SAHASHI, Associate Professor from the University of Tokyo, explained the Japanese perspective on the impacts of the US-China competition on the East Asian order. Although new emerging technologies should be developed unrestrictedly, US regulations and policies are changing the openness of the innovation sphere. US is also restraining inbound and outbound trade with China, especially ICTS products and technology made in China. Although Japan shares concerns for rules-based economy with the US, it does not necessarily conform with US policies on technology. Japan is economically and technologically interlinked with China, and although some regulations and export controls on technology for national security is necessary, it was concluded that technological decoupling would be difficult for Japan to realize.

The third speaker was Professor Jae-Seung LEE from Korea University, and he focused on technology related to renewable energies. To cope with climate change, there is a rapid shift towards renewable energies. This will lead to changes in areas of cooperation and competition: less competition for fossil fuel supply, increased energy interdependence between the countries when grid connections are implemented, and more competition in new industries, technological innovation, or obtaining critical resources. Although in the short run, US-China conflict and other diplomatic relations will prevent cooperation to some degree, in the long run, it was suggested that the advancement of technologies will prevail and stimulate cooperation in beneficial areas.

The fourth and last speaker, Assistant Professor Shaohua LEI of Peking University, emphasized how the competition for innovative technologies and industrial application are becoming the core of great power competition. Three important factors will be involved: industrial structure, cutting-edge technology, and the size of the market. Therefore, the danger that emerges from this competition is not war, unlike the US-Russia rivalry during the cold war era, but the division of the global value chain and international market. Because the two countries are strategic stabilizers of the global economy, the speaker concluded that cooperation between the two are required when the possibility of another global financial crisis is looming.

After the input from the four speakers, participants further discussed the influence of changing technologies. Countries including Japan are caught in a dilemma whether to follow US government’s regulation on emerging technologies as an ally, or to pursue its own benefits such as using cheap Chinese high-tech products. This is a new type of power projection so as to sustain the country’s superiority. Another example from the financial division was shared where the US is sending observers to foreign banks to ensure its regulations are followed. On the other hand, it was noted that China is developing its own digital currency to circumvent the monetary system dominated by the US entirely. It was concluded that politicization or securitization would most likely continue to expand to other frontiers.

Panel 2 — The Way Out: Managing Great Power Politics

The last panel of the Five University Conference dealt with power transition and how the Asian-Pacific countries could react to the changing environment. The first speaker, Professor Kanti BAJPAI from the University of Singapore pointed out that accepting the shift from US hegemony to bipolarity in East Asia due to the rise of China is the first step to stabilize the region. The key to balance the new power system is deterrence, and in order to prevent it from regressing to an arms race, Professor Kanti emphasized the importance of military dialogues between the countries on a regular basis including joint military exercises and clarification of protocols. He concluded by mentioning the role institutions can play under the new power system, especially anticipating Asia-wide organizations which focus on great power issues.

Professor Peter TRUBOWITZ from the London School of Economics gave a short presentation under the title “The Retreat of the West: Globalism, Populism, and the Decline of Liberal Internationalism.” He started out by pointing out that although the western governments are willing to promote globalization, its voters no longer support that decision. In order to sustain the liberal international order, it is necessary for the governments to continue investing in globalization, and the gap needs to be closed or it will cause polarization within its society. The best option available to US and other western countries is to regain its voters’ support by reassuring the government’s commitment to domestic issues such as improving social security. It was warned that a more sustained domestic commitment than currently underway must be implemented in order to fight off anti-globalists’ backlash.

The third speaker, Professor John IKENBERRY from Princeton University reflected on the accomplishments made by the liberal international order that has been around for seventy years. The two countries, US and Britain, the great powers of the twentieth century, are arguing against this order, and now it is in crisis. Though it was predicted that the Trump administration’s policy and Brexit will eventually fail and that liberal internationalism will prevail once again, it will need to be reformed or redefined to some extent as it was structured inside a bipolar system during the Cold War era. Yet, it was emphasized that its core principles, not about prioritizing globalism over nationalism but about creating an international environment so as to advance national interests, should be reserved.

The last speaker was Professor Qingmin ZHANG from Peking University, who specializes in Chinese foreign policy. He divided the transformation of China which coincided with US-China relations into three stages, the standing up period, the growing rich period, and the current becoming strong period that supposedly started in 2018. Although power transition is often used to describe the competition between the two countries, Professor ZHANG described the situation differently, where China is aspiring to be treated as an equal but the uncomfortable US is unwilling to consent. Learning from the past, it was emphasized that the two countries need to communicate in order to figure out a way to co-exist and avoid another cold war situation.

After the four presentations, it was discussed whether the liberal international order can include non-democratic systems. Proponents suggested it can accept both logics, and eventually, non-democratic nations would head toward liberal democracy in the long run. Values that cannot be simultaneously maximized but should not be traded off, such as liberty and equality, are balanced through liberalism. A value-based framework, therefore, should be built under the liberal internationalism. As for China’s acceptance as co-equals by the US, others argued that China should be given an equal opportunity instead of having its system criticized.

*This workshop was organized by subsidies both from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the University of Tokyo.