• Strategy21
• /
• s.36
• /
• pp.5-32
• /
• 2015

Geopolitics or Political Geography is an essential academic field that should be studied carefully for a more comprehensive analysis of international security relations. However, because of its tarnished image as an ideology that supported the NAZI German expansion and aggression, geopolitics has not been regarded as a pure academic field and was rejected and expelled from the academic communities starting from the Cold War years in 1945. During the Cold War, ideology, rather than geography, was considered more important in conducting and analyzing international relations. However, after the end of the Cold War and with the beginning of a new era in which territorial and religious confrontations are taking place among nations - including sub national tribal political organizations such as the Al Quaeda and other terrorist organizations - geopolitical analysis again is in vogue among the scholars and analysts on international security affairs. Most of the conflicts in international relations that is occurring now in the post-Cold War years can be explained more effectively with geopolitical concepts. The post - Cold War international relations among East Asian countries are especially better explained with geopolitical concepts. Unlike Europe, where peaceful development took place after the Cold War, China, Japan, Korea, the United States, Taiwan and Vietnam are feeling more insecure in the post-Cold War years. Most of the East Asian nations' economies have burgeoned during the Cold War years under the protection of the international security structure provided by the two superpowers. However, after the Cold War years, the international security structure has not been stable in East Asia and thus most of the East Asian nations began to build up stronger military forces of their own. Because most of the East Asian nations' national security and economy depend on the oceans, these nations desire to obtain more powerful navies and try to occupy islands, islets, or even rocks that may seem like a strategic asset for their economy and security. In this regard, the western Pacific Ocean is becoming a place of confrontation among the East Asian nations. As Robert Kaplan, an eminent international analyst, mentioned, East Asia is a Seascape while Europe is a Landscape. The possibility of international conflict on the waters of East Asia is higher than in any other period in East Asia's international history.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.1-29
• /
• 2023

For the last 70 years, the U.S.-led bilateral security system, or "Hub-and-Spokes" system, has been applied to Northeast Asia, and the system has been successfully settled in terms of stability and economic achievements of the region. Given the increasing complexity of the security environment of East Asia, it is plausible to consider the possibility of a security system shift from bilateral alliances to collective security. In order to analyze the driver of collective security system, this study developed three factors of formation and development of collective security system - main threat, intensity of the threat, and confidence among countries in the system - by reviewing international political theories related to security cooperation. Comparing the formation, development, and achievements of NATO and SEATO, the study figures out that the existence of the main threat, the high intensity of the threat, and the strong confidence among countries in the security system are the primary drivers for a successful collective security system. Based on the result, the study also analyzed the possibility of a security system shift in East Asia. Considering contemporary international conflicts such as U.S.-China strategic competition, Russia-Ukraine War, and growing threats posed by North Korean nuclear and missiles, the study anticipates that the necessity of a collective security system that will replace the current security system of the region would arise. Still, although some issues between countries should be overcome, the growing intensity of the threats will promote cooperation among countries by improving their confidence.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.51 no.6
• /
• pp.1696-1707
• /
• 2019

This paper conducts a qualitative policy analysis of current challenges to safety culture and security culture in Southeast Asia and emerging best practices in Northeast Asia that are aimed at strengthening both cultures. It analyses lessons, including strengths and limitations, that can be derived from Northeast Asian states, given the long history of nuclear energy in South Korea, China and Japan. It identifies and examines best practices from Northeast Asia's Nuclear Security Centres of Excellence in terms of boosting nuclear security culture and their relevance for Southeast Asia. The paper accentuates the important role of the State in adopting policy and regulatory frameworks and in institutionalising nuclear education and training programmes to deepen the safety-security cultures. Best practices in and challenges to developing a nuclear safety culture and a security culture in East Asia are examined using three frameworks of analysis (i) a comprehensive nuclear policy framework; (ii) a proactive and independent regulatory body; and (iii) holistic nuclear education and training programmes. The paper argues that Southeast Asian states interested in harnessing nuclear energy and/or utilising radioactive sources for non-power applications must develop a comprehensive policy framework on developing safety and security cultures, a proactive regulatory body, and holistic nuclear training programmes that cover both technical and human factors. Such measures are crucial in order to mitigate human errors that may lead to radiological accidents and nuclear security crises. Key lessons from Japan, South Korea and China such as best practices and challenges can inform policy recommendations for Southeast Asia in enhancing safety-security cultures.

• East Asian Economic Review
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2020

This paper analyzes how the current Global Value Chain (GVC) of East Asia has been established, and attempts to project the future trajectory of GVC under New Normal in the global trading system. For this purpose, the framework of Ideology-Technology-Institution nexus is presented with focus on the dynamics of interplay between ideology and technology, duly recognizing the dual-aspect of technology- a platform for business and also for national defense. The paper analyzes how the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) of the 1990s played a role of "facilitator" in shaping the GVC of East Asia, where China plays 'factory for final assembly' and the US plays 'the largest consumer'. Under New Normal, digital technology is likely to play the opposite role of "disrupting" the GVC of East Asia, unlike ICT. The paper explores the mechanism behind this great disruption. What is driving New Normal is the US-China power competition, seeking for dominance in East Asia and beyond. This paper argues that New Normal is not temporary shock, but will last for some time. Under this presumption, the paper presents three scenarios for the future trajectory of GVC in East Asia.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Information and Commucation Sciences Conference
• /
• 2012.10a
• /
• pp.214-218
• /
• 2012

China has definitely been arising as the world's most powerful nation. By looking at general national power it seems that China's national prestige in 2011 is already way beyond Asia and even it closely catches up with the United States which is the most powerful nation over the world. The United states-centered world political order has begun to struggle by China's growth. Moreover, there has been an earnest competition arisen for the east-Asia sea supremacy between previous U.S. hegemony and arising China's power. East-Asia's ocean is the stage for this strife and it grows more serious. At this point, South Korea, one of the east-Asia country seeking the nation's stability and prosperity through its ocean, has come under the influence of this strife among the super powers of the world. The Author will closely examine the backgrounds and future opportunities of military competition between U.S. and China to analyze the influence of the power competition towards the security status of east-Asia especially South Korea.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.37-78
• /
• 2022

The U.S.-led international order, sustained by overwhelming national power since the end of the Cold War, is gradually being restructured from a unipolar international system to a bipolar international system or a multipolar international system, coupled with the weakening of U.S. global leadership and the rise of regional powers. Geopolitically, discussions have been constantly raised about the security instability that the reshaping of the international order will bring about, given that East Asia is a region where the national interests of the United States and regional powers sharply overlap and conflict. This study aims to critically analyze whether security discussions in Korea are based on appropriate crisis assessment and evaluation. This paper points out that the security crisis theory emerging in Korea tends to arise due to threat exaggeration and emphasizes the need for objective evaluation and conceptualization of the nature and the level of threats that the restructured international order can pose to regional security. Based on the analysis of changes in conflict patterns (frequency and intensity), occurring in East Asia during the periods divided into a bipolar system (1950-1990), a unipolar system (1991-2008), and a multipolar system (2009-current), this study shows that East Asia has not been as vulnerable to power politics as other regions. This investigation emphasizes that the complexity of Korea's diplomatic and security burden, which are aggravated by the reorganization of the international order, do not necessarily have to be interpreted as a grave security threat. This is because escalating unnecessary security issues could reduce the diplomatic strategic space of the Republic of Korea.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.44-64
• /
• 2017

Russia's push in the Asia-Pacific region stems from its interests that have the national, regional and global dimensions. In their turn, the aims of this policy are civilizational, geopolitical, economic and prospective, with a long-term outlook. In the course of their achievement, cooperation with Northeast Asia's countries will play one of the key roles owing to the factors of geographic proximity, Northeast Asia's economic potential, risk hedging and a growing influence Northeast Asia exerts upon the global development. A new cooperation paradigm between Russia and the states of Northeast Asia should be based upon establishing and cementing self-reproducing ties. This is the central aim of Russian initiatives in relations, with Japan, the Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mongolia and China. However, numerous obstacles ranging from Russia's absence in the regional free trade agreements and supply-production chains of value-added production to the permanent international instability generated by Pyongyang's missile-nuclear developments hamper the practical implementation of this task. Realizing the necessity to give an additional impetus to this new cooperative paradigm, Russia has to develop directions with an apparent consolidating effect. The most promising may be the establishment of a permanent security forum based upon Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism chaired by the Russian Federation. The urgency of this measure and its expected support stem from the necessity to strengthen security in Northeast Asia, a task neither the US-led hub-and-spoke system nor ASE-AN-led multilateral dialogue venues have been able to resolve. The issues addressed at the security forum must include the unification of approaches to North Korean nuclear issue and producing a document specifying actions of the claimants on the disputed maritime territories in the "direct contact" situations. At the expert level, Russia has elaborated on the idea to establish such a forum outlining the spectrum of the key directions of cooperation. With the urgency in the establishment of this dialogue venue, its agenda has to be coordinated with the agendas of the existing security systems presented by the US alliances and the ASE-AN-led multilateral negotiations. The practical implementation of this initiative will strengthen security in Northeast Asia as its challenges will be resolved in the pre-emptive way based on coordinated approaches. Therefore, Russia as the Eurasian state will be one of the role players in the advent of the Asian century.

• International Area Studies Review
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.195-218
• /
• 2011

Discussion of Economic Community in East Asia are active. This trend began in the late 20th from the EU and North America's regional economic integration is in response to the movement. East Asia in the late 1990s to the actual for the FTA, it was not very active. As East Asian Economic Community became one of agendas for ASEAN+3 Leaders' meeting since 2004. Japan has been positioned itself as a leading country in East Asia. However, the emergence of China in the East Asian economic community have been changes. Moreover, East Asian countries began concerns over regional economic community with frequent conclusions of FTAs and China is leading the discussion on strengthening economic cooperation in the region. Some of it in terms of economic community in East Asia will not be smooth. First, East Asian countries do not have a common goal. Second, East Asian countries have a lot of diversity. Third, China and Japan are expected to compete in the championship. Therefore, East Asian economic community should be approached in the long-term perspective.

• Korean Journal of Agricultural Science
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.182-189
• /
• 2000

The issue of food security will become one of the most widely concerned area of public policy in North East Asia coming 21st century. Although those countries such as China, Japan, South and North Koreas and Mongolia places emphasis on the need to have stable and reliable capacity for food production, it will be highly possible for these regions to experience the shortage of food supply due to growing population, expanding urbanization and rapid industrialization within next decade. Since world food markets are characterized as unstable structure and dominated by large multinational firms, their reliances on importing staple food may create the aggravation of food shortage problem in emergency situations. One possible proposal for solving food security in north-east region might be movements toward multilateral food supply assurance agreements as a component of trade negotiations among these countries. As measures for cooperation for securing food supply in these regions, following principles would be suggested; 1) encouraging agricultural cooperation based on private business, 2) exchange of technical and human resources rather than material support, 3) developing mutual concern and benefits, 4) managing joint buffer stock for staple food.

• Korean Journal of Agricultural Science
• /
• v.40 no.1
• /
• pp.61-78
• /
• 2013

The following four aspects should be examined in detail to revitalize North-East Asian agricultural cooperation specialized with Korea, Japan, and China. First, quality and safety standards of agricultural food should be unified. Secondly, it is necessary to build a food security cooperative system in North-East Asia. If three countries build the system, they can overcome a problem such as unstable supply and demand due to natural disaster, and also they can cope with food crisis. Thirdly, to establish North-East Asian Agro-valley is needed. After forming food production belt that connects Korea, Hokkaido in Japan, and the three north-eastern provinces in China, it is possible to realize high value-added agriculture with producing and processing of complementary food for partner country. Lastly, trilateral FTA negotiations should be managed carefully with operating the agricultural special zone and exclusion or prolong period of removal of tariff on sensitive items.