• Journal of National Security and Military Science
• /
• s.3
• /
• pp.121-167
• /
• 2005

The great strategy of China has been changing depending on the time, change of surrounding environment and personality of leaders of the time. However, the process of the change was not the drastic change but has maintained the consistency through the course of modification and development. The great strategy of Mao Ze-dong was to have the objective in 'World Great Nation' with the facilitation of the 'Surpass Strategy' and 'Autonomy, Independence and Alliance strategy' to successfully build up the political great nation, but he entrapped China's politics and economy into the point of no return by excessive war preparation under 'The Principle of Inevitable World War', striving of rapid communism and other policies. The Deng Xiao-ping era also targeted for ‘World Great Nation’ but, unlike Mao Ze-dong, he had the foundation in the 'The Principle of Evitable World War' and undertook the ‘Peace and Development Strategy’ and ‘Peaceful Coexistence' to build up the advantageous surrounding environment for China to focus on the economic construction as the core of the nation by establishing ‘The Reform and Opening Strategy’ and 'Three-step Development Strategy‘ to have the successful soft landing of the Chinese economy with the astonishing economic development. The system of leader's group of China after Deng Xiao-ping succeeded the practical and realistic spirit of Deng Xia-ping, and based on the drastically grown economic strength, the great strategy of China is on the ‘The Great Reinvigoration of Chinese Nation’. This is one step further from the strategy of 'World Great Nation' of the past that it embraces all the minority races in China, Chinese economic sphere, foreign citizens of Chinese origin as well as Chinese residing abroad. China contemplates the time of making 'The Great Reinvigoration of Chinese Nation’ in 2050, 100 anniversary of the birth of new China.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.36
• /
• pp.59-93
• /
• 2015

A Paradigm shift is in process in China's foreign policies during Xi Jinping's era. Such changes occur with changing national identities from developing country to great power, and from continental power to continental-maritime power. China's pursuit for sea power embraces its global strategy. Accommodating the new identity of maritime power, China is developing its maritime strategy. New silk-road strategy actively utilizes China's advantage in economy, while avoiding direct military challenges against the U.S. China seeks an associated balance of power with the U.S. On the other hand, China make its determination clear to protect its core national interests, particularly Taiwan straits issue, deploying Anti-Access and Area-Denial strategy. 'Pax-Americana 3.0' and 'China's rise 2.0' have convoluted and evolved in complexity. South Korea faces much tougher challenges ahead in its foreign and security environments.

• Journal of National Security and Military Science
• /
• s.4
• /
• pp.241-287
• /
• 2006

16th CPC National Party Congress established multi-polarization strategy as an external strategy, and 'The Great Reinvigoration of Chinese Nation' as the aim of The Great Strategy of China. It is required to maintain stabilized and peaceful surrounding circumstance in order to make it possible. The ideal surrounding circumstance that China is aiming for is to achieve multi-polarization of international society while maintaining strategic deterrence. Multi-polarization now in 'One super Multi powers' is that 'Multi powers' deter 'One super' to prevent predominance of USA and to decentralize the power. China wishes to realign international order as it accomplishes multi-polarization. China who wants 'Peace and Stabilization' emphasizes autonomy, peace and unification of Korean peninsula. Autonomy means the restraint intervention of foreign power, that is, American influence in Korean peninsula. Multi-polarization strategy of China will be used in Korean peninsula to solve nuclear issue of North Korea, to support neutral unification and to keep balance of power with USA, Japan and Russia as it renders economic advantages to South Korea and security engagement to North Korea, based on special geographical, cultural and historical relationship with two Koreas. The nuclear issue of North Korea will be a stage to test multi-polarization of China. When it deduces positive solution of nuclear issue due to successful six-party talks, and advances to security talks of Northeast Asia, it will contribute a lot to power and elevation of national stature of China in international society. Thus, the Chinese strategy will be an accommodative condition for the security of South Korea, and it requires wise decision of South Korea to make hay while the sun shine.

• Journal of Public Diplomacy
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.49-74
• /
• 2021

In this paper, I applied grounded theory in exploring how Twitter became the battlefield for China's public diplomacy campaign. China's new move to global social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, has been a controversial strategy in public diplomacy. This study analyzes Chinese Foreign Spokesperson Zhao Lijian's Twitter posts and comments. It models China's recent diplomatic move to Twitter as a "war of words" model, with features including "leadership," "polarization," and "aggression," while exerting possible effects as "resistance," "hatred," and "sarcasm" to the global community. Our findings show that by failing to gage public opinion and promote the country's positive image, China's current digital diplomacy strategy reflected by Zhao Lijian's tweets has instead constructed a polarized political public sphere, contradictory to the country's promoted "shared human destiny." The "war of words" model extends our understanding of China's new digital diplomacy move as a hybrid of state propaganda and self-performance. Such a strategy could spread hate speech and accelerate political polarization in cyberspace, despite improvements to China's homogenous network building on Twitter.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.45
• /
• pp.33-59
• /
• 2019

There have many research papers to see China's evolution of maritime strategy and naval modernization in terms of its naval mind-set. However, this article focuses on assessing how China uses its all sorts of maritime strength to achieve 'a building maritime great power.' The aim of the article is to introduce a new perspective to this debate by analysing China's diversified ma maritime capabilities and a new way of implementation in maritime security strategy. In recent years, China has been developing not only unpredictable maritime military capabilities but also maritime supporting forces - Coast Guard and Maritime Militia. And recently China adopted up-to-date operational concept aimed at gaining military superiority in Asia-Pacific waters. By taking salami slicing strategy, gray zone strategy and cabbage strategy, China has been trying to exercise surpassing influences in regional maritime area, also in western Pacific region. This article provides a stepping stone to comprehend the aspect of China's recent maritime strategic actions, especially in Yellow Sea. In conclusion, this article suggests some policy recommendations for countering China's coercive maritime strategy. First, Korea should make sure a strategic concept of maritime security, instead of land warfare focused strategic concept. Second, it is needed to set up suitable naval forces for actively responding to neighbor nation's offensive actions.

• Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.157-173
• /
• 2021

In the transition to a multipolar international system, the literature has focused on great power competition while little attention has been given to the strategic possibilities of smaller states. However, as a result of globalization, states are so closely interconnected that the primary strategies of even major powers are not to achieve zero-sum solutions but to create asymmetric dependency through which they can influence the behavior of other states and non-state actors. States are assisted in this effort by a variety of tools, including setting up institutions, direct economic influence and through building different forms of infrastructure connectivity networks. By discussing asymmetric dependency situations from the perspective of the great powers, the literature presents smaller states primarily as passive actors, paralyzed by their dependence on great powers. Our paper argues that interdependence allows smaller states to effectively influence larger actors and examines strategies from which smaller states can choose in order to influence the behavior of larger states. Despite an extremely asymmetric relationship between Myanmar and China, actors in Myanmar have sought to influence China's Myanmar policy. We examine a case study of the Myitsone Dam, including Myanmar's strategic aims, chosen strategy and limitations in maneuvering space. Semi-structured interviews with local decision-makers and stakeholders are conducted in order to portray the full picture. Our study concludes that further research on the influencing strategies of small states in response to asymmetric dependence can contribute to a better understanding of the interdependence of states.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.245-268
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper is to acquire competitiveness faced with a global business so that Korea and China make them put ICT into practice through industrial policy of regional innovation clustering. In the Chapter 2, overall review of industrial spaces theory and the environment in Global-business is conducted. In the Chapter 3, current main economic issue and West Great Development of China are viewed. Chapter 4 proposes models and strategies for the target of regional innovation clustering and phasing in development. The results of this study is that both country should do more long-term cooperation and collecting intensive knowledge for the property of region and preparatory research of regional innovation clustering than do reckless investment.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.33
• /
• pp.37-64
• /
• 2014

The year 2010 has been regarded as a year of China's assertive diplomacy. A series of China's behavior--including China's critical reaction to the U.S. for its sales of weapons to Taiwan, the Dalai Lama's visit to President Obama, China's arbitrary designation of 'core interests' over the South China Sea, China's inordinate reactions to the sinking of the Cheonan and Yeonpyeong bombardment, and China's activities in the Senkaku/Diaoyu island areas--has served as the witnesses to China's assertive diplomacy in 2010. The major causes of China's assertive diplomacy can be summed up by three factors: potential power transition from U.S. to China; emerging China's nationalism; and the recession of the Tao Guang Yang Hui as a diplomatic principle. But a majority of Western sinologists claim that China's assertive diplomacy is defensive in terms of its character. China's neighboring states, however, perceive its assertive diplomacy as diplomatic threat. Due to these states' geographical proximity and capability gaps with China, these neighbors experience difficulties in coping with China's behavior. In particular, China's coercive economic diplomacy, in which China tends to manipulate the neighbors' economic dependency on China for its diplomatic leverage, is a case in point for China's assertive diplomacy. China's assertiveness seems to be continued even after the inauguration of Xi Jinping government. Although the Xi government's diplomatic rhetorics in "New Type of Great Power Relationship" and the "Convention for Neighboring States Policy" sound friendly and cooperative, its subsequent behavior, like unilateral announcement of Chinese Air Defense Identification Zone (CADIZ), does not conform with its rhetoric. Overall, China's assertiveness has been consolidated as a fashion of its diplomacy, and it is likely to continue in its relations with neighbors. As a neighboring state, the ROK should approach to it with more balanced attitude. In addition, it needs to find out a new diplomatic leverage to deal with China in accordance with its security environment, in which China plays a growing role.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.34
• /
• 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.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.43
• /
• pp.175-199
• /
• 2018

Recent marine territorial disputes in the East China Sea and the South China Sea have come to us as a great threat. China, which has recently established the China Coast Guard and has rapidly developed maritime security forces, is trying to overcome the various conflict countries with its power. Japan is also strengthening intensively its maritime security forces. Since Korea, China, and Japan are geographically neighboring and sharing maritime space in Northeast Asia, there is no conflict between maritime jurisdiction and territorial rights among the countries. The struggle for initiative in the ocean is fierce among the three coastal nations in Northeast Asia. therefore, Korea needs more thorough preparation and response to protect the marine sovereignty. As the superpowers of China and Japan are confronted and the United States is involved in the balance of power in strategic purposes, the East Asian sea area is a place where tension and conflict environment exist. China's illegal fishing boats are constantly invading our waters, and they even threaten the lives of our police officers. The issue of delimiting maritime boundaries between Korea and China has yet to be solved, and is underway in both countries, and there is a possibility that the exploration activities of the continental shelf resources may collide as the agreement on the continental shelf will expire between Korea and Japan. On the other hand, conflicts in the maritime jurisdictions of the three countries in Korea, China and Japan are leading to the enhancement of maritime security forces to secure deterrence rather than military confrontation. In the situation where the unresolved sovereignty and jurisdiction conflicts of Korea, China and Japan continue, and the competition for the strengthening of the maritime powers of China and Japan becomes fierce, there is a urgent need for stabilization and enhancement of the maritime forces in our country. It is necessary to establish a new long-term strategy for enhancing the maritime security force and to carry out it. It is expected that the Korean Coast Guard, which once said that it was a model for the establishment of China's Coast Guard as a powerful force for the enforcement of the maritime law, firmly establishes itself as a key force to protect our oceans with the Navy and keeps our maritime sovereignty firmly.