• Strategy21
• /
• s.46
• /
• pp.5-28
• /
• 2020

In 2019, the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State issued two reports to announce their plan to fulfill "free and open Indo-Pacific". Two reports commonly insisted on the support and participation from allies and partners to maintain security and stability in the Indo-Pacific. In response to this, neighboring states in the Indo-Pacific, including Japan, Australia, India, ASEAN, and Taiwan have different perspectives and stances based on their national interests. South Korea, too, has not clearly announced its position because they need to consider the alliance between the U.S. and South Korea as well as relationships between South Korea and China. This report focuses on the stances of neighboring states to the Indo-Pacific strategy and expected pros and cons of the participation of the strategy. In addition, when considering the name of strategy, the Indo-Pacific, naval power will be a main instrument to implement the strategy. Thus, this study also investigates the role of naval power in the Indo-Pacific strategy.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.45
• /
• pp.5-32
• /
• 2019

The paper introduces US Indo-Pacific Strategy and discusses its meanings and implications for international security and our strategy. It tries to look at the Indo-Pacific strategy(IPS) through the lenses of international political theories. The paper provides three important observations. First, the US Indo-Pacific strategy is a declaration of the national identity of the US as an Indo-Pacific nation. The paper argues that the IPS reflects the US leadership that would facilitate the formation of, so called, the Indo-Pacific community. In arguing these points, the paper notes that the IPS has rich elements of constructivist approaches including norms and national identity. Second, the paper observes that the IPS report serves as an effective deterrent strategy. The IPS does not call out China as an enemy. But, it tries to deter against a range of actors including China by warning that whoever violates the rules-based order in the region would have consequences. Third, the paper maintains that the IPS is an effort by the US to mitigate the risk of a great power war between the US (an established power) and China (a challenging power) because the IPS articulates the United States's willingness to work with China as long as it plays by the rules. There will be challenges to the US and other countries in the region including South Korea particularly because of economic interdependence. However, the paper argues that the IPS stands for an optimistic sign of the future security in the Indo-Pacific region because it is a manifestation of the US for its national will to defend the status quo characterized as Pax Americana which has been maintained since the end of the Second World War. It also argues that South Korea also can, and should make the most of this opportunity by enhancing our capacity in national defense.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.39
• /
• pp.242-250
• /
• 2016

본 논문은 왜 인도해군이 인도양을 벗어나 태평양 해역으로 진출하려는지에 대한 이유를 설명한다. 인도는 거대한 섬 국가이자, 해양국가이다. 이에 인도해군(Indian Navy: IN)은 인도양에서의 해양안보(maritime security) 활동을 주도하고 있으며, 이는 이 해양에서 발생되고 있는 다양한 비군사적 위협에 대한 기여로 나타나고 있다. 예를 들면 아덴만 해적퇴치작전 등이다. 인도는 지리적으로 중국 등의 대륙국가와 국경을 접하고 있으나, 태평양 연안국가들과 긴밀한 양자간 관계를 유지하고 있으며, 아울러 다양한 다자간 협력체에 적극적으로 참가하고 있다. 후자의 경우 EAS, ARF, ASEAN 등의 협력체이다. 또한 인도는 경제, 사회문화적으로 태평양 연안국가들과 동질성을 갖고 있다. 그 동안 인도해군은 태평양에 대한 많은 기여와 관심을 갖고 있었으며, 이는 서태평양해군심포지움(WPNS) 업저버 국가 등의 다양한 활동 확대에서 발견되고 있다. 인도는 동방정책(India's Look East Policy)를 외교정책으로 채택하고 있으며, 이는 태평양에서의 해양안보에 대한 기여와 참여를 의미한다. 이는 최근까지 왜 인도해군이 중국, 아세안, 한국, 일본 및 호주 등과 긴밀한 해양협력 관계를 유지하고 있는지에 대한 주된 이유를 설명한다. 이러한 인도해군의 기여는 태평양 해양에서의 해양 평화와 번영에 기여할 것으로 전망된다.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.46
• /
• pp.277-303
• /
• 2020

2000년 이후 중국 해군은 빠르게 성장하고 있고 이러한 해군의 성장과 더불어 중국은 남중국해 내 도서를 군사기지화 하고 대함 미사일을 개발하고 있다. 이는 제1도련선 내 중국의 해양통제를 위한 노력으로써 인도-태평양 지역 내 미 해군 전력 및 기지에 심각한 위협으로 작용하여 미국의 해양 지배력을 약화시키는데 기여하고 있다. 이를 극복하기 위해서 미국은 인도-태평양 지역내 동맹국과 파트너국들과 함께 시간, 공간, 전력(화력, 군수) 측면에서 작전개념을 발전시켜야 한다. 우선 시간적인 측면에서 중국의 위협에 신속하게 대응하기 위해서 인도-태평양 지역내 국가들의 공중전력(UAVs)과 해상전력(Aegis ships)을 활용하여 대중 정보공유 체계를 강화시켜야 한다. 다음으로 공간적인 측면에서 중국의 위협으로터 인도-태평양 지역 내 미해군의 전력 및 기지를 보호하기 위해서 미 해군 전력을 일본과 호주로 분산 배치시키고 동맹국과 파트너국들의 이지스함, 잠수함 및 무인 수중전력을 적극 활용해야 한다. 전력 측면에서는 해상 기반 화력과 지상 기반 화력을 통합하여 화력의 치명성을 강화해야 하고 인도와의 협력 및 인도-태평양 지역내 함정 손상통제 시설의 확충을 통해서 해상 군수지원 능력을 발전시켜야 한다. 이러한 미 해군의 작전개념 발전 방향이 주는 한국 해군에의 함의는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 미·중간 남중국해 분쟁 발생시 중국의 미사일 위협으로부터 한국 내 위치하고 있는 한·미 해군 전력 보호를 위해 미사일 방어체계(이지스함, 사드 등)를 발전시켜야 한다. 둘째, 대중 감시·정찰 및 미 항공모함단 방호 전력으로 활용 가능한 한국형 원자력 잠수함을 개발해야 한다. 셋째, 미국 뿐만 아니라 인도-태평양 지역내 파트너 국가들을 포함하는 연합훈련을 확대·발전시킴으로써 남중국해내 중국의 해양통제 노력에 대응해야 한다. 넷째, 인명손실을 최소화하고 효율적으로 해군력을 현시할 수 있는 무인 수중·수상체계를 지속적으로 발전시켜 나가야 한다.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.71-123
• /
• 2021

Seoul is under increasing pressure to choose between the US-led IndoPacific Strategy (IPS) and China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Accordingly, this paper undertakes a detailed appraisal of the IPS and the BRI in the context of Korea's national policy imperatives. Based on a study of network structure by Daniel Nexon and Thomas Wright (2007), the present study seeks to identify a particular network structure within the IPS and the BRI. Through this analysis, the relationship between the core and the participant states will be addressed. Awareness of specific configurations of the IPS and the BRI is important as these reveal what participant states can expect from each network. According to Nexon and Wright, there are four types of network structure: unipolar anarchy, hegemonic order, constitutional order, and imperial order. Based on this, we argue that the IPS has a constitutional order and the BRI has an imperial order. Therefore, we suggest to Seoul that participating in the IPS may make more room for an independent foreign policy than would a BRI partnership with China. South Korea would benefit by participating in the IPS in terms of its national security, striking a favourable regional balance of power.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.115-140
• /
• 2021

The South China Sea is a significant maritime shipping route with abundant submarine and fishing resources. Over 40,000 ships pass through the South China Sea every year, constituting around 50% of global shipping and 66% of crude oil. In particular, 30% of Korea's import cargo and 90% of energy imports pass through this body of water. The US and China realized the significance of this sea area from early on and are embodying national interest through maritime security at the national strategic level by implementing the 'Indo-Pacific' and 'One Belt One Road' strategies, respectively. Such geopolitical conflicts are manifested in the 'freedom of navigation operations' by the US in the South China Sea. Despite its significance, there is a lack of studies in Korea on the freedom of navigation operations, and most previous studies only focus on analyzing international law and agreements. This article examines the origin and background of the strategic perception of the freedom of navigation operations and derives implications for the peace and security of the Korean Peninsula as the strategic competition between the US and China continues.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.83-107
• /
• 2023

To Republic of Korea in the Indo-Pacific region, the stability and prosperity of the area are directly coupled with national survival, interest. Currently, on account of strategic competition between U.S.A, and China in this area as well as supranational·non-conventional threats, the security environment is unstable, required joint/allied responses. So, lots of states inside(U.S.A., Japan, ASEAN, etc.), also, out of this Indo-Pacific area like EU-NATO, open their own strategy related in Indo-Pacific issues to be involved. R.O.K. government took its own line with publishing self strategy following this international trend, it can be shown korean government's strong intend to join in the pending security issues in this region with 'strategic clarity'. Now, R.O.K. Navy has to back up governments, policy. First, R.O.K. Navy should strengthen the relationship inside and take part in the multilateral cooperation of security. Second, to convey this deterrence message to potential threats, Navy is required to show of forces and have combined exercises. Also, as naval forces of advanced countries, Korea, Navy should be taken action in non-traditional threats, and help developing states improve their sea power. To fulfill this tasks in the wide ocean area, Navy need five inherent characteristics(mobility, flexibility, sustainability, capability of presence and projection). In the end, this paper propose the development plan following operational environment (SWOT) analysis as well.

• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.10 no.3
• /
• pp.25-29
• /
• 2024

After the Russia-Ukraine War, NATO broke away from the peacekeeping strategy that it had maintained and declared that it would strengthen the multilateral security consultative body, pursue strategic stability, expand armaments, cooperate security, and strengthen dialogue and cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region. Changes in NATO's strategy directly and indirectly affect Korea's security environment. Only by clearly analyzing this and establishing policies and strategies to respond to it can the threat be suppressed and national interests protected. NATO designates China and Russia as threats. By using cooperation and solidarity with NATO as an opportunity, we will be able to strengthen security cooperation and alliances, develop and expand the defense industry market, and expand opportunities to participate in the Ukraine reconstruction project.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.1-56
• /
• 2022

Why has India become a key actor in the maritime-configured Indo-Pacific region? There are some external factors, but for India, its geo-strategic frontier encompassing its geopolitical and maritime interests is expanding rapidly beyond its territorial space across both the Indian and Pacific oceans amidst an increasingly arduous geopolitical and security environment. India must, therefore, acquire the ability to influence events within this strategic arena using all facets of national power, including maritime-military power. Lately, therefore, New Delhi has invested much intellectual capital to review its maritime-security strategy. India's new strategy is premised on the concept of holistic security involving the 'softer' aspects of maritime-security, and a rekindling of maritime consciousness in India, a nation that has traditionally been beset by 'sea-blindness'. The strategy adopts a region-wide, inclusive, and a more proactive approach than hitherto, as is evident in its title 'Ensuring Secure Seas: Indian Maritime Security Strategy'. While it deals with the growing concern of new non-traditional threats in the Indian littoral and the need for military deterrence and preparedness, it also addresses the imperatives for India to seek a favorable and rules-based benign environment in its immediate and extended maritime periphery, including through multi-vectored strategic partnerships dictated by its enduring principle of strategic autonomy. For a more profound and comprehensive understanding of India's maritime-security strategy, this paper examines the key unstated and implicit factors that underpin the strategy. These include India's historical and cultural evolution as a nation; its strategic geography; its geopolitical and security perceptions; and the political directions to its security forces. The paper deals specifically with India's response to maritime threats ranging from natural disasters, crime and state-sponsored terrorism to those posed by Pakistan and China, as well as the Indian Navy's envisaged security role East of the Malacca Straits. It also analyzes the aspects of organizational restructuring and force planning of India's maritime-security forces.

• LOGISTICS
• /
• s.19
• /
• pp.26-29
• /
• 2006

지난 11월 16일 대한상공회의소 국제회의실에서 제14회 한국물류대상 시상식이 개최되었다. 매년 물류산업의 발전에 혁신적인 공헌을 한 기업이나 개인에게 주는 물류대상은 그 위상이 날로 높아지고 있다. 물류대상의 위상이 매년 높아지는 이유에는 여러 관계자들의 노고와 더불어 한국물류대상 집행위원장인 김정환 한국물류전략연구소 소장의 역할이 매우 크다. 김정환 위원장은 지난 30여년동안 국내 물류표준화와 물류인력 양성에도 남다른 애정과 열의를 가지고 물류정책 조언과 지원을 통해 국내 물류산업의 발전에 크게 이바지하여 온 분이다. 이 분만큼 물류산업에 많은 열정을 가지고 있는 분은 드물다. 김 위원장은 1980년 (주)태평양 물류본부장으로 부임하여 1990년까지 물류현장에서 실무를 담당한 실무형 이론가로써 국가물류와 기업물류 발전을 위한 컨설팅 능력을 유감없이 발휘해온 물류인으로 평가받고 있다. 우리나라에서 처음으로 물류 표준화를 실시하여 KS규격 파렛트인 T-11형을 도입하고 처음으로 파렛트 수송을 시작하여 물류합리화의 모델을 제시하였다. 이후 1992년, 김위원장은 사단법인 한국물류협회 전무이사로 부임하여 1997년에는 협회 상근 부회장직을 역임하여 회원사의 물류개혁, 표준화, 합리화, 교육훈련을 적극 지원, 우리나라 물류산업 발전에 지대한 성과를 이룩하여온 인물이다. 고희를 넘긴 고령에 지난해 위암수술을 받았다고 하기에는 믿기지 않을 만큼 정정하신 김위원장은 현재에도 물류산업발전과 물류인재 양성에 정열을 쏟고 있다.