• 분석과 대안
• /
• 제7권3호
• /
• pp.1-26
• /
• 2023

This article will analyze and forecast important variables and dynamics in global power politics after the war in Ukraine. It tries to use several perspectives to analyze international relations, particularly liberal internationalism and structural realism. In short, core variables are as follows; First, how is the US-led liberal international order and globalization being adjusted? Second, how will the U.S.-China strategic competition, which is the biggest and structural variable, cause changes in the international order in the future? The third variable, how stable are Sino-Russia relations in the context of a structuring U.S.-China-Russia strategic new triangle? Fourth, to what extent will third middle hedging states outside the U.S. and China be able to exercise strategic autonomy in the face of multipolarization? To summarize, the first of these four variables is the largest basic variable at the global political and economic level in terms of its impact on the international community, and it has been led by the United States. The second variable, in terms of actors, seems to be the most influential structural variable in global competition, and the US-China strategic competition is likely to be a long game. Thus the world will not be able to escape the influence of the competition between the two global powers. For South Korea, this second variable is probably the biggest external variable and dilemma. The third variable, the stability of Sino-Russia relations, determines balance of global power in the 21st century. The U.S.-China-Russia strategic new triangle, as seen in the current war in Ukraine, will operate as the greatest power variable in not only global power competition but also changes in the international order. Just as the U.S. is eager for a Sino-Russia fragmentation strategy, such as a Tito-style wedge policy to manage balance of power in the early years of the Cold War, it needs a reverse Kissinger strategy to reset the U.S.-Russia relationship, in order to push for a Sino-Russia splitting in the 21st century. But with the war in Ukraine, it seems that this fragmentation strategy has already been broken. In the context of Northeast Asia, whether or not the stability of Sino-Russia relations depends not only on the United States, but also on the Korean Peninsula. Finally, the fourth variable is a dependent variable that emerged as a result of the interaction of the above three variables, but simultaneously it remains to be seen that this variable is likely to act as the most dynamic and independent variable that can promote multilateralism, multipolarization, and pan-regionalism of the global international community in the future. Taking into account these four variables together, we can make an outlook on the change in the international order.

• 분석과 대안
• /
• 제2권2호
• /
• pp.111-141
• /
• 2018

By the middle of 2018 there are signs of China's entry into a new period of development, characterized by a change in the old model: "market reforms-inner-party democratization - moderate foreign policy" to another: "market reforms - Xi Jinping personality cult - offensive foreign policy." This model contains the risks of arising of the contradiction between economic freedom and political-ideological rigidity which can lead to destabilization of the political life. However, in the current positive economic dynamics, these risks may come out, rather, in the medium and long term. Today, the political situation in China remains stable - despite growing dissatisfaction in scientific expert and educational circles due to increased control over the intellectual sphere by the authorities. The need for a new redistribution of power between central and provincial authorities could potentially disrupt political stability in the medium term, but, at the moment, is not a critical negative factor. The economic situation is positive-stable. Forecasts indicate a possible increase in China's GDP in 2018 at 6.5%. At the same time, there are negative expectations in connection with the Sino-US and potentially Sino-European "trade war". In the Chinese foreign policy, as a response to Western pressure, China increasingly uses the Russian direction of its diplomacy in the expanded version of Russia + SCO. The nuance here is seen in China's adjusted approach to the SCO: first of all, not as a mechanism for cooperation with Russia, but as an organization that allows using Russia's potential for pressure on the US in the Sino-US strategic rivalry. In the second half of 2018, the Chinese economy will continue to develop steadily, albeit with unresolved traditional problems (debts of provinces and state-owned enterprises, ineffective state sector, risks on the financial and real estate market). In politics, discontent with the cult of Xi will accumulate, but without real threats to its power. Weakening in economic opposition between China and the United States is possible due to Beijing's search for compromises on tariffs, intellectual property, trade deficit. To find such trade-offs, Xi will use the so-called. "Personal diplomacy" of direct contacts with Trump.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권34호
• /
• pp.5-25
• /
• 2014

On July 3~4, 2014, the Chinese President Xi Jinping's state visit to Seoul might be seen as a step on the path toward strategic outcomes for both country. For South Korea, Seoul shrewdly retains some degree of self-reliance by balancing between ROK-China strategic cooperative partnership relationship and ROK-US alliance. For China, Beijing appears to put its interests on the Korean Peninsula increasingly within China's larger geopolitical influence. To what extent can ROK-China relationship maintain futuristic strategic cooperative partnership between them? As we observed joint press communiques of the Chinese President Xi Jinping's state visit on July 3, 2014, four agendas of bilateral relationship between Seoul and Beijing can be identified: intractable rivalry between the two great powers, North Korea nuclear issues, disparities of their displeasure with Japan denying the past wrongdoing and enhancing its military capabilities and Chinese imposing of its core interests on its Korea policy. With these evolving strategic environments, however, China and the ROK appear justifiably be pleased with the state of their relations: their strategic cooperative partnership is the cornerstone of peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific or Indo-Pacific region and continues to grow broader and deeper.

• 분석과 대안
• /
• 제1권1호
• /
• pp.31-43
• /
• 2017

The situation in Korean peninsula, globally and regionally, which followed the global huge uncertainty, changed a lot. Because of the political crisis, ROK falls into a chaos. And DPRK goes into a policy changing period by the internal issues, international sanctions and assassination accident in Malaysia, which is confirmed to be DPRK's Supreme leader, Kim Jong Un's half brother. Under this changing circumstances, the perspectives of regarding China and the Korean peninsula, must be undated accordingly. Only by understanding the Sino-US relations, the DPRK nuclear issue and the regional dilemmas can we formulate reasonable policies to contribute to the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권41호
• /
• pp.108-152
• /
• 2017

This paper aims to analyze hegemonic competition and the role of naval power. To this end the paper is composed of four chapters titled introduction, the role of naval power in the hegemonic competition, the role of naval power in the East Asia, and the lessons and implications for the Korean Peninsula. Since the modern era, the hegemonic competition in the East Asian region has been the intrusion and struggle process between the world system and the East Asian regional system, and the ocean between these two systems has become the goal and means of supremacy(hegemony). Currently, the hegemonic competition between the US and China consists of systemic competition at the global level and marine competition at the regional level. When South Korea is forced to make strategic choices in the course of the US-China hegemonic competition, naval power will be the first factor to be considered. The ROK is asymmetrically maintaining a deep dependency relationship with the United States in terms of security and China in relation to the economy. And while the ROK's national economic power is acquired from the ocean, the ROK's military power is imbalanced because it is centered on the ground forces. These international relations and asymmetric-unbalanced resources distribution will not be able to effectively cope with the hegemonic competition between the US and China in the future, and will limit Korea's strategic choice. Since naval power and forces are the prerequisites for the hegemonic competition or the maintenance of supremacy we must construct balanced naval forces(naval power) that are not subordinate to the ground forces at the national strategic level for the future of the country.

• 융합보안논문지
• /
• 제17권3호
• /
• pp.83-93
• /
• 2017

본 논문의 목적은 트럼프 행정부 등장 이후 미국과 중국의 한반도 주요현안에 대한 입장을 분석하고 미중관계 속에서 한국의 대응을 모색하는데 있다. 이 글은 세력전이 측면의 미중관계 담론을 바탕으로 (1) 북핵 (2) 한반도 사드배치 (3) 한미동맹의 세 가지 조건 하에서 두 가지 가정을 전망케 한다. 하나는 미국의 세계질서가 지역질서를 지배하여 지역 질서가 안정적으로 관리되는 것과, 다른 하나는 중국 중심의 지역질서가 세계질서에 영향을 주어 미국과 역내 패권적 갈등이 발생하는 경우이다. 연구결과, 미중관계에서 압도적인 미국의 객관적 힘의 우위는 북핵, 사드, 한미동맹 등 세계 및 지역질서를 리드하는데 상당부분 유지할 것으로 보이며, 중국은 미국과의 갈등 속에서도 미국적 세계질서 유지가 가져올 정치 경제적 이익에 편승하여 한반도 주요현안들에 일정 정도 영향력과 협력이 기대된다. 이러한 전망에서 한국은 북핵, 사드, 동맹의 주요 제 문제들이 한미관계 강화를 우선으로, 변화하는 강대국 세력경쟁 사이에서 현실적 국익에 부합한 외교를 균형 있게 추진해야 할 것이다. 이른바 '시소외교(see-saw diplomacy)'가 필요하다.

• 분석과 대안
• /
• 제5권1호
• /
• pp.25-57
• /
• 2021

미국과 중국의 전략적 경쟁이 격화되면서 중국을 비롯하여 전세계적으로 경제 제재가 더욱 빈번하게 사용되고 있다. 미국의 동맹국이면서도 중국을 최대 교역국으로 두고 있는 한국은 중국의 사드(THAAD) 배치에 대한 보복에서 보듯이 향후에도 경제 제재에 맞닥뜨릴 가능성이 높다. 이러한 배경에서 본 논문은 비공식성을 중심으로 중국의 경제 제재를 분석한다. 중국은 경제 제재를 거의 인정하지 않는다. 대부분의 경우, 중국은 한국의 사드 배치 사례처럼 거대한 시장을 가진 구매자로서의 지위를 적극 활용하여 비공식적으로 경제 제재를 시행한다. 핵심이익과 관련되어 있거나 유리한 무역구조를 활용할 수 없어 실질적인 제재 효과를 발휘할 수 없는 경우, 그리고 상호 분쟁이 고조되어 비공식성을 유지할 수 없을 때에만, 공식적인 대응을 한다. 중국의 비공식적 경제 제재에 취약한 한국은 무역구조를 개선하는 것과 함께 비공식성을 비롯한 중국의 경제 제재가 갖는 특성을 심도 있게 분석하면서 다양한 전략과 방안을 통해 이에 대비해야 할 것이다.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권30호
• /
• pp.177-199
• /
• 2012

As is generally known, the sovereignty dispute over the Senkaku Islands between China/Taiwan and Japan was triggered by a report commissioned by the UN in 1968, which reported the possibility of a substantial amount of petroleum and natural gas buried in the South China Sea. When the administrative authority over the Ryukyu Islands was transferred from the US to Japan in 1972, jurisdiction over the Senkaku Islands was also transferred. A dispute ensued between China (Taiwan) and Japan over the Senkaku Islands except during the period in which formal relations were established between the two states. This paper will take a look particularly at the events that occurred in the 2000's and discuss their recent trends and aspects of the dispute. Though China and Japan agreed to joint resource development in 2008, the agreed zone was a very small area adjacent to the Korea-Japan Joint Continental Shelf Development Zone, and the points of agreement have not been implemented. China has been developing four oil fields including Chunxiao in its waters adjacent to the median line asserted by Japan. However, China also has been excluding the participation of Japan, while Japan has been strongly objecting to the unilateral development of oil fields by China. If indeed the oil fields on China's side are connected past the median line asserted by Japan, then China's unilateral development will infringe upon the potential sovereign rights of Japan, thereby violating international law.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권36호
• /
• pp.94-120
• /
• 2015

The Asia-Pacific Region has emerged as a arena of geopolitical competition between the U.S. and China. The Obama administration of the U.S. had laid out the concept of rebalancing strategy toward the region, concentrating its 60 percent of Naval Forces to the region till 2020 and consolidating its network of allies and partners. Whereas Chinese leader Xi Jinping also put forward the concept of new type of major power relations concerning its relations with the U.S. and a concept of 'the Asian Community of Common Destiny' aiming at a more intensified mutual relation among countries in the region. In doing so, Asia-Pacific region gradually became the arena where mutual competition and cooperation between the U.S. and China has crossfired. As a close ally to the U.S. and a partner to Japan, South Korea should develop trilateral naval cooperation by holding joint naval drill with the aim of humanitarian support and disaster relief. At the same time, Seoul also should make efforts to proceed mutual confidence building with Beijing by deepening military-to-military cooperation. These policy options will be helpful to enhance Seoul's security posture in the region.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권37호
• /
• pp.104-143
• /
• 2015

China's new grand strategy, the "One Belt, One Road Initiative" (also Belt Road Initiative, or BRI) has two primary components: Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the "Silk Road Economic Belt" in September 2013 during a visit to Kazakhstan, and the "21^st Century Maritime Silk Route Economic Belt" in a speech to the Indonesian parliament the following month. The BRI is intended to supply China with energy and new markets, and also to integrate the countries of Central Asia, the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), and the Indian Ocean Region - though not Northeast Asia - into the "Chinese Dream". The project will be supported by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), due to open in 2016 with 57 founding members from all around the world, and China has already promised US$ 50 billion in seed funding. China's vision includes networks of energy pipelines, railways, sea port facilities and logistics hubs; these will have obvious commercial benefits, but also huge geopolitical significance. China seems to have two distinct aims: externally, to restore its historical sphere of influence; and internally, to cope with income inequalities by creating middle-class jobs through enhanced trade and the broader development of its economy. In South Korea, opinion on the BRI is sharply polarized. Economic and industrial interests, including Korea Railroad Corporation (KORAIL), support South Korean involvement in the BRI and closer economic interactions with China. They see how the BRI fits nicely with President Park Geun-hye's Eurasia Initiative, and anticipate significant commercial benefits for South Korea from better connections to energy-rich Russia and the consumer markets of Europe and Central Asia. They welcome the prospect of reduced trade barriers between China and South Korea, and of improved transport infrastructure, and perceive the political risks as manageable. But some ardently pro-US pundits worry that the political risks of the BRI are too high. They cast doubt on the feasibility of implementing the BRI, and warn that although it has been portrayed primarily in economic terms, it actually reveals a crucial Chinese geopolitical strategy. They are fearful of China's growing regional dominance, and worried that the BRI is ultimately a means to supplant the prevailing US-led regional security structure and restore the Middle Kingdom order, with China as the only power that matters in the region. According to this view, once China has complete control of the regional logistics hubs and sea ports, this will severely limit the autonomy of China's neighbors, including South Korea, who will have to toe the Chinese line, both economically and politically, or risk their own peace and prosperity.