South Korea’s Middle Power Strategy as a Foreign Strategy
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In Northeast Asia, the rivalry between the United States and China increasingly define the nature of regional security order. The combination of balance of power logic and the phenomenon of power transition defies the expectation that great power politics will make way for multilateral cooperation, but multilateral institutions are being reshaped to reflect great power politics. The rise of nationalism, composed of many different elements, haunts the region, further complicating security situation. Going through a series of hardships, nations in East Asia preserves a high level of suspicions and fears among themselves, which aggravates security dilemma. On the other hand, global security environments are in great flux. With possible decline of American hegemony, power vacuum takes places in many regions motivating many powers to take risks to accomplish regional ambitions. Rising tensions in Ukraine, the Middle East, and even in East Asia, shows that the hesitance of the United States to intervene with massive military power, specially ground forces, radically changes security landscape in these regions. These changes provide South Korea with opportunities and difficulties. South Korea’s main purpose is to contribute to enhancing systemic stability and flexibility to absorb the impacts of great powers’ rivalry and to pave the way for resilient adaptation to new security surroundings. South Korea has devised and elaborated the concept of middle power diplomacy for the past several years. In the area of security strategy, it is composed of six elements: 1) to help great powers to lessen mutual strategic mistrust; 2) to find out and suggest issue‐specific dispute settlement mechanism; 3) to develop multilateral institutions or to actively participate in and further existing institutions; 4) to preemptively import globally established norms to the region to set up the principle on which Northeast Asians can solve the problems; 5) to make a cooperative network among like‐minded middle powers to strengthen their positions vis‐à‐vis great powers; 6) then, finally to be a co‐architect in making and reforming regional security architecture. In what follows, this paper will delve into these points in more detail.
Abstract
In Northeast Asia, the rivalry between the United States and China increasingly define the nature of regional security order. The combination of balance of power logic and the phenomenon of power transition defies the expectation that great power politics will make way for multilateral cooperation, but multilateral institutions are being reshaped to reflect great power politics. The rise of nationalism, composed of many different elements, haunts the region, further complicating security situation. Going through a series of hardships, nations in East Asia preserves a high level of suspicions and fears among themselves, which aggravates security dilemma. On the other hand, global security environments are in great flux. With possible decline of American hegemony, power vacuum takes places in many regions motivating many powers to take risks to accomplish regional ambitions. Rising tensions in Ukraine, the Middle East, and even in East Asia, shows that the hesitance of the United States to intervene with massive military power, specially ground forces, radically changes security landscape in these regions. These changes provide South Korea with opportunities and difficulties. South Korea’s main purpose is to contribute to enhancing systemic stability and flexibility to absorb the impacts of great powers’ rivalry and to pave the way for resilient adaptation to new security surroundings. South Korea has devised and elaborated the concept of middle power diplomacy for the past several years. In the area of security strategy, it is composed of six elements: 1) to help great powers to lessen mutual strategic mistrust; 2) to find out and suggest issue‐specific dispute settlement mechanism; 3) to develop multilateral institutions or to actively participate in and further existing institutions; 4) to preemptively import globally established norms to the region to set up the principle on which Northeast Asians can solve the problems; 5) to make a cooperative network among like‐minded middle powers to strengthen their positions vis‐à‐vis great powers; 6) then, finally to be a co‐architect in making and reforming regional security architecture. In what follows, this paper will delve into these points in more detail.
참고문헌 (38)
- Brooks, Stephen G, "Don’t Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment", International Security, 37(3), pp.51~ (2012)
- Campbell, Kurt M., "Going Global: The Future of the U.S.‐South Korea Alliance" (2009), Center for a New American Security
- Chan, Steve, "The US and power‐transition theory: a critique" (2007), Routledge
- Fearon, James D., "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes", American Political Science Review, 88, pp.577~592 (1994)
- Fearon, James D., "Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands versus Sinking Costs", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, pp.68~90 (1997)
- Friedberg, Aaron, "Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia" (2011), W.W. Norton & Company
- Grovogui, Siba N, "Sovereigns, Quasi‐Sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self ‐Determination in International Law" (1996), University of Minnesota Press
- Jackson, Robert H., "Quasi‐States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World" (1990), Cambridge University Press
- 김상배, "한국의 네트워크 외교전략: 행위자-네트워크 이론의 원용", 국가전략, 17(3), pp.5~40 (2011), 세종연구소
- Kim, Sangbae, "Weaving Webs and Building Hives: Transformation of World Politics in the Perspective of Network Theories", Hanul Academy (2011)
- Kim, Woo‐sang, "Korea’s National Strategy: Its Middle Power Diplomacy" (2012), Sechang Publisher
- Kirshner, Jonathan, "The tragedy of offensive realism: Classical realism and the rise of China", European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), pp.53~75 (2012)
- Koo, Min Gyo, "Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia:Between a Rock and a Hard Place" (2009), Springer
- Krasner, Stephen D., "Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy" (1999), Princeton University Press
- Lake, David, "Hierarchy in International Relations" (2009), Cornell University Press
- Layne, Christopher., "The Unipolar Illusion Revisited: The Coming End of the United States’ Unipolar Moment", International Security, 31(2), pp.7~41 (2006)
- Layne, Christopher, "Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise", International Security, 17(4), pp.5~51 (1993)
- Layne, Christopher, "The Unipolar Exit: Beyond the Pax Americana", Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 24(2) (2011)
- South Korea as New Middle Power: Seeking Complex Diplomacy, "Lee, Sook Jong", EAI Asian Security Initiative, ~, pp.EAI Asian Security Initiative Working Paper 25 (2012)
- Lobell, Steven E., "The Grand Strategy of Hegemonic Decline: Dilemmas of Strategy and Finance", Security Studies, 10(1), pp.86~111 (2000)
- Lynch, Marc, "Why Engage?: China and the Logic of Communicative Engagement", European Journal of International Relations, 8(2), pp.192~ (2002)
- MacDonald, Paul K, "Graceful Decline?: The Surprising Success of Great Power Retrenchment", International Security, 35(4), pp.7~44 (2011)
- Mead, Walter Russell, "The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist Powers", Foreign Affairs, 93(3), pp.3~ (2014)
- Obama, Barack, "Hankuk University", ~ (2012)
- Panetta, Leon, "Shangri‐La Security Dialogue", Shangri‐La Hotel, ~ (2012)
- "Pentagon plan changes game in Asia", People’s Daily and Global Times, ~ (2012)
- "President Xi addresses CICA summit" (2014)[URL]
- Rice, Susan E., "America’s Future in Asia", Georgetown University, ~ (2013)
- Rice, Susan E., "The Strength of American Leadership, the Power of Collective Action", Center for a New American Security Annual Conference (2014)
- Ross, Robert S., "Balance of Power Politics and the Rise of China:Accommodation and Balancing in East Asia", Security Studies, 15(3), pp.355~395 (2006)
- Schweller, Randall L, "After Unipolarity: China’s Visions of International Order in an Era of U.S. Decline", International Security, 36(1), pp.41~72 (2011)
- Sohn, Yul, "Securitizing Trade: The Case of KORUS FTA", International Relations of the Asia‐Pacific, 11(3), pp.433~460 (2011)
- Sohn, Yul, "East Asia from the Perspective of Attractive Power: Creating Regionness and Seoul Consensus", Chisikmadang (2007)
- Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013, "United States. Department of Defense", GPO, ~ (2014)
- The White House. Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, "United States", GPO, ~ (2012)
- "Xi Jinping Calls for the Building of New Type of International Relations with Win‐Win Cooperation at the Core in a Speech at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations" (2013)[URL]
- "Xi Jinping: China to further friendly relations with neighboring countries" (2013)[URL]
- Zhu, Zhiqun, "US‐China Relations in the 21st Century" (2006), Routledge