One of the reasons may be that individual Koreans have not suffered from the side effects of the economic reform required by the IMF. It will be far from surprising if furious nationalistic reactions occur. Some people are against globalization and complain about measures taken by he IMF office in Seoul, but at present, very few people want to cut off economic ties with intentional society. The reason is that Korea is already a part of the global economic system and has enjoyed benefits of globalization as well as the risks involved. In Asia, where countries fiercely protect their territory and sovereignty, there are a number of issues that cannot be solved by state level negotiations. In addition, states are confrontational in nature. I would like to expect that civil society, which has been expanding during the past twenty years, could play important roles in settling disputes peacefully among nations. For example, Japan and Korea continue to dispute the ownership of Takeshima Island. The negotiations between the two governments have not been able to break the deadlock. In an ideal civil society, the media should take the initiative and provide balanced coverage. However, in reality, the media is not objective: it works in the interests of its nation's government. Neither Japan's nor Korea's media are able to provide unbiased coverage. This is why Japanese readers of Japanese newspapers cannot develop well-informed opinions about Japan-Korea relations. They get one side of the story only, the side that favors Japan. Korean readers also face the same lack of objectivity in their media. I hope that Waseda graduates will one day bring unbiased, fair, disinterested journalism to Japan. But, this will not happen until civil society matures.
Even in this era of globalization, nationalism will remain strong and uncompromising. It has been said that humanity follows two trends. When people want to do what others are doing, they tend to follow the global trend. However, people will always protect their cultural or national identity to preserve their sense of difference. People will never lose their cultural or national identity even though we become global citizens. It is important for us to redefine cultural and national identities in order to establish a single economic zone that uses yen as a key currency in Asia. Thank you very much for your attention.
｡?IOKIBE
Dr. Lee seems to have given us two reports. In his prepared report, he talked about the separation of three powers, but not in a narrower sense, the separation of administration, legislation, and judicature, but in a much wider sense, the separation of the nation, the market and the citizens' society.
Then taking up his home country, Korea, as an example, he talked about the multi-layer of nationalism, regionalism and globalism, in which the citizens' society must expand beyond national borders. I have had several opportunities to listen to his talks in academic meetings and international conferences and his topic today was the most wide-ranging I have ever heard,
Dr. Nandy talked about the citizens' society, citizenship which enables great diversification based on culture and Dr. Lee's two talks. Well, it depends a lot on our two commentators in what direction our discussion will develop.
｡?Commentator: Anthony REID
Professor, Southeast Asian History, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University
First of all, in relation to globalization many of the trends are irresistible. The changes in the technological field relate to communication and they will go on whether politicians wish to create nationalist or fundamentalist reactions or not. I think the market, the other great mantra of the day, is less certain to continue as a sort of Juggernaut in transforming the world. These are the forces that are requiring us to adapt, requiring us to think of new more imaginative, more international, more global, more regional solutions. That, I think is the task of a meeting like this, to think creatively in relation to constantly more interlocking worlds.
The second point I want make is that in terms of what has to be done is, of course, more sophisticated regulatory frameworks to enable the market and these globalizing changes to act in our interests and not against them. It is by no means self-evident that opening to the market, deregulating the economy, dismantling the monopolies of the sate, will result in a freer flow of goods, ideas and labor and a more genuinely equal playing field. In the unregulated free market the strong gobble up the weak and one of the results is a very few players and a monopoly situation which can be even worse than the monopoly of the state. The smaller the state, I think on the whole, the greater the need for the regulatory frameworks which prevent cartels and so forth. The United States, from which many of the multinational firms and pressures emerge, is the country with the fiercest anti-monopoly, anti-cartel registration, the most
