Mask-wearers walk past a banner displaying precautions against the coronavirus on a street in Seoul, Korea, Monday, April 5, 2021. The banner reads “We can surpass Corona 19 “.
Source: AP Photo / Ahn Young-joon
In the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, an international “G-0” system appeared. Countries like South Korea are forced to consider pandemic management at a time of growing signs of a lack of cooperation between the two great powers, China and the United States, coupled with a joint absence of global leadership. demand and accountability – ie “International Order G-0”.
South Korea’s outstanding response to the pandemic, with the rapid proliferation of laboratory procedures, universal healthcare delivery, and overall success in flattening the epidemiological curve. Notably, Korea’s pandemic management measures have allowed this country organize parliamentary elections with the highest voter turnout rate in 28 yearsleading to a resounding victory for the ruling party. Notably, all of these efforts have been made while keeping the country as a whole open. In addition to keeping so economic open-minded, Korea has also remained relatively open border. In contrast, most advanced countries immediately ceased operations domestic movement and economic activities and closed international border for noncitizens and non-residents in the wake of a pandemic.
Given this unique experience, it is important to explore South Korean discourses about the pandemic, noting that Korean views are likely to be influenced by public health data and key responses. policy associated with domestic institutional environment and international political economy. In particular, it is interesting to see how Korea managed the COVID-19 pandemic along with how Koreans discussed changes in the international order.
By “speeches”, we mean output from academic journals, governmental organizations, major media outlets, as well as the leading consulting organizations on diplomacy and national security. family. We conducted multi-level discourse analysis of multilingual sources examining Korea’s dominant discourse on the responsibility of the two great powers, China and the United States.
First, some basic information. Before pandemic COVID-19, Korea engagement in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) do China and the US-led Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) that has been tailored, selective, and flexible. Notably, Korea track diplomacy Participate selectively in the IPS arrangement by focusing on specific issues and agenda consistent with US strategy. The challenging year that arose from the COVID-19 pandemic increased the nationalist tendencies to shape foreign and security policies. This has been evident when observing the speeches about the pandemic, especially the “blame game” caused by both China and the United States.
Amid the friction between China and the US over pandemic-related issues, two leading discourses emerged in Korea. At first, most Korean analysts considered the game to blame the source of the virus as primarily related to the respective domestic problems of China and the United States. Then, the palm line is related to the potential hegemonic rivalry between China and the United States. Beyond these two key positions, there’s an ongoing debate about what’s going on behind the scenes in this war of words. This debate links to the nature of the discord between China and the United States, and learns the best way to unravel the deteriorating relationship between China and the United States, namely whether this is competition “hegemony” or “strategy”. On this note, most sources point to the decisive role of internal politics and the ongoing stiff competition as a progressive policy viewed by political leaders in both Beijing and Washington. review.
A closer look at the speeches popular in Korea reveals their appreciation for domestic developments in each country, applying a critical view to Chinese and American stories. Most notably, South Korea’s speeches did not reflect the dominant consensus on which major power siding on. In South Korea’s discussions of the Sino-US blaming game, three factors were emphasized: First, the continued lack of cooperation between China and the United States; second, the continued decline in the global status of both China and the United States; and finally the overall negative impact on Korea. Accordingly, the Korean forums concluded that Korea is being pressured to choose sides when China and the US stay away from cooperation and find ways to transfer of responsibility put the pandemic together.
Thus, South Korean speeches on foreign policy and security policy reveal three conspicuous positions in the “G-0” era. First, Korea should stay away from getting involved in conflicts between China and the United States. Second, the country is emerging the need to reduce its dependence on both China and the United States. Finally, and with respect to the previous point, Korea should expand and strengthen relations with other countries. Overall, the South Korean speeches underscored the risks associated with entering into the worsening competition between China and the United States and the importance of enhancing its technological comparative advantage. the country while reducing its dependence on both China and the United States. Pursuing the traditional role of a mid-range power and reviving the current Moon administration’s foreign policy directives is often proposed as alternative strategies for managing the immediate challenges involved. pandemic in the context of the Sino-American increase. stress on multiples matrix.
Analysis of popular speeches on the war of words between China and the United States in South Korea as the country tries to speed up immunization rates and manage healthcare needs leads to comments that sentimentality “G-0” dominated the academic, media and policy worlds during the pandemic. Local discourses do not benefit both powers amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the associated blame game. Korea’s discussion focused on the weaknesses of both the Chinese and the US positions.
It is important to note that there is a big difference between the Sino-U.S. Blaming game versus the COVID-19 pandemic and other points of friction. Pandemic is a related issue Health security and Mankind In terms of security, both require a transnational approach. With the pervasive impact of COVID-19, the broader global community is likely to be involved in shaping the story, including those from severely vulnerable groups. Therefore, observing Korean speeches on this topic provides an important case study to analyze potential outcomes in foreign policy making and security of the war of words. between China and the United States.
The world is witnessing the G-0 moment. As observed from the Korean case above, a country can adjust its strategic interests over more powerful powers in the absence of global leadership in the pandemic. This is likely to provide the basis for G-0’s public discourse and opinion to seek a more independent approach and indigenous policy from current and upcoming governments. Nationalism has the potential to gain considerable political power in the absence of accountability and cooperation among great powers during the pandemic.
Local presentations observed in Korea resonate in other countries with similar conditions and concern over potential outcome of the G-0 international system: no order of accountability multi-pole, bipolar or unipolar. The COVID-19 pandemic is not the first and most likely not the last exogenous shock that has sent the world in that direction.