베이징직할시와 서울특별시의 도시외교 비교 연구

Abstract

The concept of borders has been weakening since the start of the global era. The capacity of local governments has been strengthened, and exchanges between local governments have drawn attention. International relations are also expanding significantly due to the strengthening and expansion of economic interrelationships in the world. The importance of status and the role of the nations have also gradually faded due to powers in the international and domestic society. Currently, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities, and the role of cities is becoming more important. Today, City diplomacy is an indispensable program for city development that symbolizes international exchange and cooperation. Unlike diplomacy at the national level, City diplomacy can promote reconciliation and cooperation as well as promoting flexible inter-city relations. In addition, it integrates the country’s diplomatic resources through city diplomacy research, promotes the development of cities, and complements the country’s diplomacy as a whole. At the diplomatic level, it can coordinate the activities of cities and states and protect national interests. Furthermore, the city becomes the subject of international politics, which will help to deal with the relationship between local government city diplomacy and national diplomacy. This paper was analyzed based on city diplomacy theory. With the progress of globalization and localization, various diplomatic methods and actors have appeared. Various discussions such as ‘public diplomacy’, ‘local government diplomacy’, and ‘city diplomacy’are actively taking place. Terms related to different levels and appearing in these discussions are often used interchangeably, so academic clarification is required. Therefore, this thesis aims first to organize theories related to city diplomacy. ‘City diplomacy’means that local governments and organizations or enterprises designated by local governments, subsidize the entire country’s diplomacy under the guidance of the central government. In recent years, the role of the central government in international relations has been weak, while the role of city diplomacy in a country’s regional economic development and exchanges between countries has attracted attention. In this trend, China and Korea have focused on promoting city diplomacy. Beijing and Seoul, the capitals of China and Korea and the political and cultural centers of both countries. They have embassies and are important gateways for friendly exchanges between the two countries and the world. In the 21st Century, foreign relations between China and Korea have improved significantly. Beijing and Seoul have expanded their international influence. Both cities are representative cities in which city diplomacy is rapidly developing in Asia. Although the autonomy of local governments in China and Korea is lower than that of Western countries, Beijing and Seoul have a certain city autonomy. This study compared and analyzed the diplomacy of both cities, focusing on organization, strategy, and practice through examples of Beijing and Seoul. Based on this, the achievements and limitations of city diplomacy between China and Korea were presented. As part of the national foreign policy, city diplomacy began in earnest in both Beijing and Seoul. Beijing and Seoul differ in the way they develop city diplomacy and the relationship between the central and local governments due to different national systems. In conclusion, the achievements of city diplomacy between Beijing and Seoul were summarized by dividing the types of city diplomacy between Beijing and Seoul into three categories: international networks, cultural and sports exchanges, and economic exchanges. By 2019, Beijing had formed sisterhood and friendship city relations with 71 local municipalities in 54 countries around the world. Seoul had formed sisterhood and friendship city alliances with 221 local municipalities in 52 countries. In the early days, administrative exchanges mainly started with mutual visits to the council for promotion of exchanges between cities and consultation with doctors. Beijing, as the capital of China, has a political characteristic of being strong in foreign exchanges, and administrative exchanges with foreign countries which mainly consists of mutual visits from high-ranking cities. In contrast, Seoul promotes people-to-people exchanges in various fields. For example, training or dispatching public officials is the most typical method. Second, city diplomacy makes international exchanges between local governments more active. Beijing and Seoul are actively engaged in external cultural and sports exchanges. For example, participation in festivals, dispatching performances of art groups, holding and participating in Go and calligraphy exchange and art exhibitions, and fashion show events are mainly conducted in the cultural category. Third, local government’s city diplomacy leads city interests. Both cities are producing economic benefits by attracting foreign capital, increasing imports and exports, and attracting tourists. City diplomacy and economic exchanges between the two cities lead to foreign capital attraction mainly through holding trade and investment fairs. It is conducted by signing a memorandum of bilateral or multilateral cooperation through trade shows and investment briefings. Beijing tends to invite companies and related people from friendly cities to trade shows. There are three problems with the development of city diplomacy in Beijing and Seoul. First, there are institutional limitations in strategies and policies for city diplomacy development. Due to China’s national system, the level of decentralization in China is lower than in Korea. Accordingly, Seoul’s local government puts emphasis on the city aspect in international exchange, while Beijing puts more emphasis on the national aspect. Second, there is a limit to the composition of the international network. Foreign exchanges between Beijing and Seoul were mostly conducted between cities and local governments in Asia. The development of external exchanges for each administrative district is unbalanced and Foreign exchanges of each administrative district also show a pattern of unbalanced development. Third, the systematization of institutions leading city diplomacy by local governments is not well-organized. Both cities have certain departments for city diplomacy, but the way they lead each department differs from Korea in terms of relations with the central government and autonomy of local governments. Beijing Foreign Affairs Office also follows the central government’s foreign policy when conducting foreign affairs and mainly conducts interviews with foreign high-ranking people and delegations. The Seoul International Cooperation Officer has more autonomy than the Beijing Foreign Affairs Office in terms of financial and practical policies. However, both cities have insufficient cooperation between government agencies and other agencies in city diplomacy. Accordingly, there are implications to aim for the development of city diplomacy in both cities. First, local governments must accurately set up the relationship with the central government. When local governments promote city diplomacy, it is important to understand the autonomy of city foreign exchange and the diplomatic relations. It should proceed the overall foreign policy in the whole country. We must protect the interests of the city and take advantage of the city’s autonomy to carry out flexible and distinctive city diplomacy activities. Second, there is a lack of mechanisms for the foreign affairs system and management which must be strengthened. The role of the organization in each city diplomacy should be clearly specified. It is necessary to optimize resource distribution, establish a system for the development of city diplomacy, and actively cultivate city diplomacy professionals. Third, the international network must be strengthened. The targets of international exchange between the two cities are mainly concentrated in other cities in Asia. Currently, quality is more important than quantity in terms of the twinning of cities. Participation in international organizations should be actively involved in regional cooperation for economic, trade and cultural exchanges between regions. Fourth, the city itself needs to be built. City diplomacy between Beijing and Seoul should develop the city’s own construction by activating exchanges in the economic, cultural and social field. Thus, both cities must raise international awareness and competitiveness. Fifth, in the post-Covid-19, city diplomacy should cooperate in the health and sanitation field. Both cities have excellent experience against the Covid-19 virus. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the influence of cities by sharing excellent preventative measures with cities in neighboring countries and strengthening cooperation in the health and sanitation field.