1
00:00:15,542 --> 00:00:17,584
(Korean) Hello, I am Jae Ho Chung.

2
00:00:17,584 --> 00:00:21,793
Hi everyone, I'd like to start
by thanking the organizers

3
00:00:21,793 --> 00:00:27,648
for this excellent venue,
for a very important discussion.

4
00:00:27,649 --> 00:00:31,410
It is my great pleasure
to share with all of you

5
00:00:31,411 --> 00:00:34,493
some of my thoughts
on the future of China.

6
00:00:34,501 --> 00:00:40,113
I wish I could say the same thing
as what Kevin Rudd said,

7
00:00:40,114 --> 00:00:42,048
"I'm here to help."

8
00:00:42,049 --> 00:00:46,836
But somehow, predicting the future
is a very difficult task.

9
00:00:46,837 --> 00:00:52,767
First, social scientists are not
very well equipped to predict the future,

10
00:00:52,768 --> 00:00:57,621
as we've seen
in the collapse of the Soviet Union,

11
00:00:57,622 --> 00:01:02,386
the financial crisis in East Asia,
and so on and so forth.

12
00:01:02,387 --> 00:01:09,124
Another reason is that black swans
actually show up, so it's very difficult.

13
00:01:09,125 --> 00:01:14,161
Particularly, when it comes down
to China, the future of China,

14
00:01:14,162 --> 00:01:16,704
the challenge is much more daunting,

15
00:01:16,705 --> 00:01:19,746
and I have to talk about it
in just 15 minutes.

16
00:01:19,747 --> 00:01:24,659
So I'll try my best to give some answers.

17
00:01:27,430 --> 00:01:30,166
These are the two cartoons that I adopted

18
00:01:30,167 --> 00:01:33,323
from South China Morning Post
early this year.

19
00:01:33,324 --> 00:01:37,058
As you can see,
in the cartoon on the right side,

20
00:01:37,059 --> 00:01:39,498
Chinese officials are trying very hard

21
00:01:39,499 --> 00:01:43,149
to maintain the growth rate
of 7% or higher.

22
00:01:44,224 --> 00:01:47,098
And then, on the left side,
this cartoon says

23
00:01:47,099 --> 00:01:50,868
there are three new think tanks
starting up in China.

24
00:01:50,869 --> 00:01:54,529
And then the guy sitting at the desk says
we don't need any more think tanks,

25
00:01:54,530 --> 00:01:58,464
we need "know" tanks
because they give me some answers.

26
00:01:58,465 --> 00:02:03,800
I hope I can give you answers
by the end of this 15-minute presentation

27
00:02:03,801 --> 00:02:06,740
but even if I cannot,
please bear with me.

28
00:02:06,741 --> 00:02:10,102
Let me first introduce one book.

29
00:02:11,709 --> 00:02:14,903
This book came out in 2006

30
00:02:14,918 --> 00:02:18,862
from a publisher
called Rowman & Littlefield,

31
00:02:18,863 --> 00:02:21,862
and this book grew out
of an international conference

32
00:02:21,863 --> 00:02:23,938
that took place in 2004.

33
00:02:24,511 --> 00:02:29,246
In this book, I put together
eight internationally renowned experts

34
00:02:29,247 --> 00:02:35,317
to chart China's future
from what we had back in 2004.

35
00:02:36,297 --> 00:02:42,102
In that book, we laid out
eight possible scenarios for future China.

36
00:02:45,623 --> 00:02:50,184
If you look at the column on the left,
these are the three scenarios

37
00:02:50,185 --> 00:02:53,910
that I'd like to take off
from the list at this point.

38
00:02:53,911 --> 00:02:57,960
Although we considered
these three possibilities back in 2006,

39
00:02:57,961 --> 00:03:03,252
but I think these three scenarios
are no longer plausible or applicable

40
00:03:03,253 --> 00:03:04,682
to the future of China

41
00:03:04,683 --> 00:03:08,212
from the vantage point
of 2015 which is now.

42
00:03:08,213 --> 00:03:13,067
Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore,
it's completely disintegrated;

43
00:03:14,350 --> 00:03:16,502
you cannot find it on the map.

44
00:03:16,503 --> 00:03:21,712
Now you can refer to Serbia,
Bosnia, Herzegovina, and so on.

45
00:03:21,713 --> 00:03:23,195
It's gone.

46
00:03:23,196 --> 00:03:26,542
So I don't think
this will be the future for China.

47
00:03:26,543 --> 00:03:32,606
Indonesia, back in 2004, when we were
actually doing research for this book,

48
00:03:32,607 --> 00:03:36,342
Indonesia was economically very backward,

49
00:03:36,343 --> 00:03:40,322
politically it was not
a democratic system,

50
00:03:40,323 --> 00:03:42,156
and it didn't really have

51
00:03:42,157 --> 00:03:46,296
a very strong diplomatic
or strategic presence at all.

52
00:03:46,297 --> 00:03:51,743
So we didn't think China's future
will go down the path of Indonesia,

53
00:03:51,744 --> 00:03:53,628
so it's off the list as well.

54
00:03:53,629 --> 00:03:57,085
Latin America: a lot of people
compare high Gini coefficient,

55
00:03:57,087 --> 00:04:01,241
that means income inequalities,
in China to those of Latin America.

56
00:04:01,242 --> 00:04:02,614
That might be true.

57
00:04:02,615 --> 00:04:07,546
But Latin America's diplomatic
strategic presence is not felt.

58
00:04:07,547 --> 00:04:13,994
Differently, China is now rising
and is making its imprints everywhere

59
00:04:13,995 --> 00:04:18,567
so I think the Latin America model
is also off the list.

60
00:04:18,567 --> 00:04:23,136
If you look at the column in the middle,
there are three models.

61
00:04:23,137 --> 00:04:27,355
Indian model, back in 2004,
India's economy was not that great.

62
00:04:27,356 --> 00:04:29,937
Of course it's doing a great job now.

63
00:04:29,938 --> 00:04:32,287
But even so, India's presence,

64
00:04:32,288 --> 00:04:35,017
particularly from the viewpoint
of Northeast Asia,

65
00:04:35,018 --> 00:04:37,768
is not being felt very strongly.

66
00:04:37,769 --> 00:04:39,779
Of course, there is still a possibility

67
00:04:39,780 --> 00:04:44,172
that China's path might actually resemble
that of India in the future.

68
00:04:44,173 --> 00:04:48,625
So there is a possibility
for these three models in the middle,

69
00:04:48,626 --> 00:04:52,648
but not really high, I would say.

70
00:04:52,649 --> 00:04:56,730
Soviet Union: as you all know
what happened to Soviet Union,

71
00:04:56,731 --> 00:05:00,026
now it's Russia,
it's now still a semi-global power,

72
00:05:00,027 --> 00:05:05,254
although its global reach
has been constricted considerably.

73
00:05:05,255 --> 00:05:07,063
But there is still a possibility

74
00:05:07,064 --> 00:05:10,237
that China might go down actually
the path of the Soviet Union,

75
00:05:10,238 --> 00:05:13,837
but the possibility as I see it
is not that high.

76
00:05:13,838 --> 00:05:17,577
Finally, the French model:
France is a global power,

77
00:05:17,578 --> 00:05:21,595
but France cannot make
international rules and norms by itself.

78
00:05:21,596 --> 00:05:24,148
But France actually makes its imprints

79
00:05:24,149 --> 00:05:29,372
by vetoing what others are willing to do,
particularly the United States.

80
00:05:29,373 --> 00:05:31,246
So it's a global veto power.

81
00:05:31,247 --> 00:05:34,144
Will China resemble the path of France?

82
00:05:34,145 --> 00:05:36,396
It remains to be seen.

83
00:05:36,397 --> 00:05:40,248
So these three possibilities
in the middle column still remain,

84
00:05:40,249 --> 00:05:45,725
but I'd say the likelihood
is not very great.

85
00:05:45,726 --> 00:05:50,743
If you want me to bet, my bet
would be on the column on the right,

86
00:05:50,744 --> 00:05:54,423
either the Chinese model
or the American model.

87
00:05:54,424 --> 00:05:56,139
What does the Chinese model mean?

88
00:05:56,140 --> 00:05:58,188
It means an authoritarian political system

89
00:05:58,189 --> 00:06:01,930
with a highly competitive
market-based economic system.

90
00:06:01,931 --> 00:06:07,317
China has been successful
in sustaining this particular model.

91
00:06:07,318 --> 00:06:11,383
If China really should prove successful
in the future as well, and I think

92
00:06:11,384 --> 00:06:15,730
that will have enormous implications
scholarly, as well as policy-wise.

93
00:06:16,510 --> 00:06:21,239
The American model: that is market-based,
highly competitive, efficient system

94
00:06:21,240 --> 00:06:23,904
as well as a politically
democratic system.

95
00:06:23,905 --> 00:06:26,455
Will China eventually go down this path?

96
00:06:26,456 --> 00:06:30,396
I don't know, but if you want me to bet,
among these eight models,

97
00:06:30,397 --> 00:06:33,462
probably China will go down
either the Chinese model

98
00:06:33,463 --> 00:06:35,852
or in the long run, the American model.

99
00:06:35,853 --> 00:06:37,331
We'll see.

100
00:06:37,332 --> 00:06:42,223
I think, down the road,
probably the easiest task

101
00:06:42,224 --> 00:06:45,844
that China can accomplish
is economic development.

102
00:06:46,692 --> 00:06:49,561
When will China overtake
the US in GDP terms?

103
00:06:49,562 --> 00:06:52,891
Already my colleagues from China
have talked about it,

104
00:06:52,892 --> 00:06:56,836
but I'd like to lay out
a couple of important predictions

105
00:06:56,837 --> 00:06:59,836
made by "think" tanks not know-tanks.

106
00:06:59,837 --> 00:07:03,505
Goldman Sachs provided two estimates.

107
00:07:03,506 --> 00:07:06,723
In 2003, they said
that China would surpass

108
00:07:06,724 --> 00:07:10,404
the United States in GDP terms by 2050.

109
00:07:11,321 --> 00:07:14,471
And then six years later, in 2009,

110
00:07:14,472 --> 00:07:18,593
Goldman Sachs revised
their figures, to 2027.

111
00:07:20,251 --> 00:07:23,174
And then the Economist,
the magazine based in London,

112
00:07:23,175 --> 00:07:27,020
gave out the prediction for 2019.

113
00:07:27,021 --> 00:07:33,080
And Japan's Cabinet Research Office
came out with an estimate of 2025.

114
00:07:34,223 --> 00:07:40,858
And China's own Academy of Sciences
came out with an estimate of 2019.

115
00:07:40,859 --> 00:07:42,841
So what does this tell us?

116
00:07:42,842 --> 00:07:48,370
I think this seems to suggest
that between 2019 and 2025,

117
00:07:48,371 --> 00:07:53,696
China's GDP is very likely
to surpass that of the United States.

118
00:07:53,697 --> 00:07:57,343
So I think accomplishing
the economic takeover

119
00:07:57,344 --> 00:08:02,333
is probably the easiest and I think
it's going to happen very soon.

120
00:08:02,334 --> 00:08:08,573
Maybe, at the latest, within 10 years,
the fastest, probably within 5 years.

121
00:08:08,574 --> 00:08:13,193
Particularly given what my colleagues
from China and New Zealand

122
00:08:13,194 --> 00:08:15,743
have said about One Belt One Road;

123
00:08:15,744 --> 00:08:19,741
if that should prove successful,

124
00:08:19,742 --> 00:08:24,668
I think it will give an enormous impetus
for China's economic development.

125
00:08:24,669 --> 00:08:29,689
Don't forget that America's rise
was based in significant part

126
00:08:29,690 --> 00:08:32,760
on the gold rush toward California

127
00:08:32,761 --> 00:08:37,224
because it expanded
the spatial as well as the time dimension

128
00:08:37,225 --> 00:08:40,224
for development, by 50 to 100 years.

129
00:08:40,225 --> 00:08:45,637
So if that One Belt One Road initiative
should become successful,

130
00:08:45,638 --> 00:08:49,539
then, I think, it would be
an enormous variable for China's future.

131
00:08:49,540 --> 00:08:51,198
So economic dimension:

132
00:08:51,199 --> 00:08:57,205
I think there is very little debate
on what China will become in 2025.

133
00:08:58,279 --> 00:09:02,118
I think more debatable
is China's military power.

134
00:09:02,119 --> 00:09:04,523
Let me introduce two books here.

135
00:09:04,524 --> 00:09:08,009
The one on the left is
the Task Force Report

136
00:09:08,010 --> 00:09:10,369
which came out in 2003

137
00:09:10,370 --> 00:09:13,795
by the Council on Foreign Relations
in the United States.

138
00:09:13,796 --> 00:09:18,349
And this Task Force Report was chaired
by Mr. Harold Brown,

139
00:09:18,350 --> 00:09:20,569
the former Secretary of Defense.

140
00:09:20,570 --> 00:09:26,899
And he put together more than 20 experts,
security and military experts in America

141
00:09:26,900 --> 00:09:30,848
and the findings, the conclusion
of this Task Force Report

142
00:09:30,849 --> 00:09:35,529
is that as of 2003,
the publication date of that report,

143
00:09:35,530 --> 00:09:42,278
as of 2003, China's military power
was lagging behind the US by 20 years.

144
00:09:42,279 --> 00:09:47,514
So if we take that conclusion
at face value, that means, by 2023,

145
00:09:47,515 --> 00:09:52,301
China's military power
will most likely equal that of the US.

146
00:09:52,968 --> 00:09:55,229
Now, let me introduce
the book on the right.

147
00:09:56,110 --> 00:09:59,640
This is the book I edited,
and it will be forthcoming in two months,

148
00:09:59,641 --> 00:10:02,790
in early October this year by Macmillan.

149
00:10:02,791 --> 00:10:05,799
I put together
13 internationally renowned scholars;

150
00:10:05,800 --> 00:10:08,554
among them three were military experts.

151
00:10:08,555 --> 00:10:11,373
They contributed
three chapters to the book.

152
00:10:11,374 --> 00:10:16,208
One on conventional military power,
a second on nuclear weapon power,

153
00:10:16,209 --> 00:10:19,458
and a third one on cyber and space power.

154
00:10:19,459 --> 00:10:21,704
They all agreed to one fact

155
00:10:21,705 --> 00:10:28,544
that is, by 2025, China is not going to be
a match for the US on a global theater.

156
00:10:28,545 --> 00:10:32,638
So globally, China is not going
to be a match for the US.

157
00:10:32,639 --> 00:10:34,974
However, they added a footnote.

158
00:10:34,975 --> 00:10:38,147
That is in the regional setting,
particularly East Asia,

159
00:10:38,148 --> 00:10:41,930
China will be a peer competitor.

160
00:10:41,931 --> 00:10:45,177
Particularly given
the technological leapfrogging

161
00:10:45,178 --> 00:10:48,566
China has been making
in the last 10 years or so,

162
00:10:48,567 --> 00:10:50,864
including
the anti-ship ballistic missiles,

163
00:10:50,865 --> 00:10:53,464
supersonic weapons, and so forth;

164
00:10:53,465 --> 00:10:55,143
I think this is real.

165
00:10:55,144 --> 00:11:01,121
So, on the global setting,
China is no match even by 2025,

166
00:11:01,122 --> 00:11:05,430
but the conclusion might be
quite different in regional settings.

167
00:11:05,431 --> 00:11:12,157
So, economically, China
will be number one by 2025,

168
00:11:12,158 --> 00:11:17,583
but militarily China will still be limited
to a regional competitor.

169
00:11:17,584 --> 00:11:21,460
Globally, the US will still be
the hegemon.

170
00:11:22,336 --> 00:11:24,748
Then I think we have to think

171
00:11:24,749 --> 00:11:27,573
what will be the final game?

172
00:11:28,410 --> 00:11:32,003
The final game will be basically
something about perception:

173
00:11:32,004 --> 00:11:37,746
how the US will view China,
and how China will view the US.

174
00:11:37,747 --> 00:11:40,236
And most importantly,
how the international community

175
00:11:40,236 --> 00:11:44,319
and regional states
will view the United States and China.

176
00:11:44,320 --> 00:11:47,601
In other words,
which of the two will be considered

177
00:11:47,602 --> 00:11:50,265
as a more benign and friendly power.

178
00:11:50,266 --> 00:11:54,958
I think that with perception,
competition will be very important.

179
00:11:54,959 --> 00:11:56,823
Now, given the limited time,

180
00:11:56,824 --> 00:12:00,062
I'll just focus on the perceptions
between the US and China.

181
00:12:01,502 --> 00:12:06,610
These are the summary statistics
based upon PEW Global Research

182
00:12:06,611 --> 00:12:10,060
between 2008 to2014.

183
00:12:10,061 --> 00:12:14,428
And these are American perceptions
and Chinese perceptions of the future,

184
00:12:14,429 --> 00:12:18,286
whether or not China
will surpass the United States.

185
00:12:18,287 --> 00:12:22,500
If you look at the third column
from the left,

186
00:12:23,429 --> 00:12:27,427
about 10% of both Americans
and Chinese think

187
00:12:27,428 --> 00:12:30,427
that China already surpassed the US.

188
00:12:30,428 --> 00:12:35,198
10% of the Americans and Chinese think
China already surpassed the United States.

189
00:12:35,199 --> 00:12:37,650
That's not correct,
that is not the reality,

190
00:12:37,651 --> 00:12:42,787
but people are already thinking
that China already surpassed the US.

191
00:12:42,788 --> 00:12:48,130
If you look at the second column,
the percentage of Americans and Chinese

192
00:12:48,131 --> 00:12:53,019
who think China will eventually surpass
the US is increasing by the year.

193
00:12:53,020 --> 00:12:57,302
So if you look at 2014,
39% of Americans, nearly 40%,

194
00:12:57,303 --> 00:13:00,107
and nearly 50% of Chinese are thinking

195
00:13:00,108 --> 00:13:04,387
the so called power transition
is inevitable.

196
00:13:04,388 --> 00:13:06,441
If you look at the fourth column,

197
00:13:06,442 --> 00:13:09,523
the percentage of Americans
and Chinese who think

198
00:13:09,524 --> 00:13:13,503
China will never surpass the US
is actually decreasing.

199
00:13:13,504 --> 00:13:14,940
So what does this tell us?

200
00:13:14,941 --> 00:13:19,546
Increasing number of Chinese
and Americans are thinking

201
00:13:19,547 --> 00:13:22,077
that power transition is going to happen.

202
00:13:23,016 --> 00:13:27,286
More importantly, the next slide,

203
00:13:27,287 --> 00:13:32,520
these are the summary statistics
based upon Gallup polls in the US

204
00:13:32,521 --> 00:13:36,040
between 2001 and 2014.

205
00:13:36,041 --> 00:13:41,010
Which country constitutes
the biggest enemy in the eyes of America?

206
00:13:41,979 --> 00:13:44,543
If you look at 2001, China was number two.

207
00:13:44,544 --> 00:13:48,723
But since then, until 2011,
China never made top two.

208
00:13:48,724 --> 00:13:51,810
It was always Iran, Iraq,
and North Korea.

209
00:13:52,563 --> 00:13:56,498
But after 2010, the year when we all think

210
00:13:56,499 --> 00:14:00,609
China began to make
some assertive diplomacy,

211
00:14:01,322 --> 00:14:04,030
American perception of China
began to change.

212
00:14:04,031 --> 00:14:09,134
So in 2011, China made it
to number two biggest enemy

213
00:14:09,135 --> 00:14:13,812
in the minds of the Americans,
and in 2012, China remained number two,

214
00:14:13,813 --> 00:14:18,742
but in 2014, China finally became
number one enemy of the US.

215
00:14:18,743 --> 00:14:21,364
Of course, public perceptions change.

216
00:14:21,365 --> 00:14:23,284
Public opinions are very fickle.

217
00:14:23,285 --> 00:14:26,905
However, given the fact
that America is a democratic system,

218
00:14:26,906 --> 00:14:28,988
public opinions do matter.

219
00:14:28,989 --> 00:14:33,852
It may have an enormous influence
on policy making.

220
00:14:33,853 --> 00:14:35,945
So this is not very good news.

221
00:14:35,946 --> 00:14:41,275
However, probably that is why
our colleagues and Kevin Rudd

222
00:14:41,276 --> 00:14:43,843
were talking about constructive realism.

223
00:14:43,844 --> 00:14:48,661
Thus far I've talked only about China.

224
00:14:48,662 --> 00:14:50,934
I haven't talked much about the US.

225
00:14:50,935 --> 00:14:54,124
But I think, in order to talk
about the future of China,

226
00:14:54,125 --> 00:14:55,872
we have to talk about the US.

227
00:14:55,873 --> 00:14:58,719
Why? Because it's a game of relativity.

228
00:14:58,720 --> 00:15:02,941
If China grows richer and stronger,
but the US stagnates here,

229
00:15:02,942 --> 00:15:05,969
then power transition
would definitely take place.

230
00:15:05,970 --> 00:15:10,323
But if China grows stronger and faster,
but the US also grows stronger and faster,

231
00:15:10,324 --> 00:15:14,295
then power transition
is not likely to take place.

232
00:15:14,296 --> 00:15:19,099
So this is a very important dynamics
that we have to bear in mind.

233
00:15:20,534 --> 00:15:23,492
History has taught us a lesson

234
00:15:23,493 --> 00:15:27,172
that the biggest enemy
of an empire or a hegemon

235
00:15:27,173 --> 00:15:31,522
is not another country,
but actually it is self-complacency.

236
00:15:33,858 --> 00:15:37,408
These are the quotations
I got from British politicians

237
00:15:37,409 --> 00:15:40,641
in the late 19th century
and early 20th century.

238
00:15:41,334 --> 00:15:46,793
Mr. Benjamin Disraeli was
Earl of Beaconsfield in the UK.

239
00:15:46,793 --> 00:15:49,467
He made a speech in 1872.

240
00:15:49,468 --> 00:15:52,591
1872 is a very significant year,
because it is the year

241
00:15:52,592 --> 00:15:58,155
when the GDP of the US
has surpassed that of the UK.

242
00:15:58,156 --> 00:16:03,360
And Earl Disraeli says,
"I express here my confident conviction

243
00:16:03,361 --> 00:16:05,651
that there never was a moment
in our history

244
00:16:05,652 --> 00:16:07,734
when the power of England was so great

245
00:16:07,735 --> 00:16:11,184
and her resources
so vast and inexhaustible."

246
00:16:11,185 --> 00:16:14,880
30 years later, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain,
a very renowned politician,

247
00:16:14,881 --> 00:16:19,751
made another speech in 1903,
along the similar lines.

248
00:16:19,752 --> 00:16:22,929
UK has never been more powerful,
never been stronger.

249
00:16:22,930 --> 00:16:26,256
But we all know
what happened 40 years later.

250
00:16:26,250 --> 00:16:29,625
In 1944,
the Bretton Woods System was created,

251
00:16:29,639 --> 00:16:33,537
giving the US the status of a hegemon,

252
00:16:33,538 --> 00:16:37,576
making the UK nearly irrelevant
in international relations.

253
00:16:37,577 --> 00:16:43,142
So, I think what the US will do,
and what the US will be able to do,

254
00:16:43,143 --> 00:16:48,708
in the 10 years and after would probably
shape the future of China as well.

255
00:16:48,709 --> 00:16:50,192
Thanks for listening.

256
00:16:50,193 --> 00:16:51,583
(Applause)