• Strategy21
• /
• s.38
• /
• pp.221-249
• /
• 2015

The Royal United Services Institute(RUSI) was founded in the middle of the 19th century in Britain. It was developed through 'Naval Historical Revitalization Movement' in that time. Many celebrities and people who were interested in the Navy participated in the activities of the RUSI. For example, the forums and lectures were held by prestigious persons, like Sir Garnet Wolseley and the Duke of Cambridge. It also became the milestone for guiding the flow of the Royal Navy's thought with the Naval Intelligence Department and the Naval Records Society. The forum of the RUSI was the place for debating naval hot issues. The journal of the RUSI was the space for suggesting an idea and gathering public opinions for developing Britain's sea power. Therefore, the RUSI was the public sphere for the Royal Navy in the 19-20th Century. And especially, the paper prize contest of the RUSI was the culmination of the RUSI's activities for the Royal Navy. Naval prize essays gave messages to the Royal Navy about the changing situation of European naval powers. Also, they made many meaningful debates for the Royal Navy to overcome the difficult situations in that time. Those essays were reflecting the issues of the Royal Navy and leading the way for getting over it. Besides, some people appeared through the contest and they played important roles for making the contingency and planning the war. The contest reflected the past, anticipated the future, and selected the talented persons to shape the future. This developing aspects of the RUSI could apply to the Korea Institute for Maritime Strategy(KIMS). The KIMS already carries out the role of the RUSI very similarly. If the KIMS changes to the way for open-door policy to more people, it will work more efficiently for their goal. In this respect, the messages of the RUSI will be very useful for improving the activities of the KIMS.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.37
• /
• pp.32-64
• /
• 2015

This paper examines the types and trends of North Korea's military provocations and regional maritime threats against South Korea, and is focusing on the Republic of Korea's naval development and modernizations by the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) on future actions, what directions of the ROKN has taken thus far in response, as well as an examination of how the ROKN might respond to vulnerabilities identified throughout modern history. Importantly, this paper does not consider the domestic, bilateral, multilateral, regional and global political dimensions of the situation on the Korean Peninsula; nor does it consider the North Korea's transitional power politics, but including North Korea's nuclear program and submarine-launched ballistic missile developments, as a caveat, this paper is based on open sources in Korean and English language, and thus information concerning provocations is indicative only.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.42
• /
• pp.196-223
• /
• 2017

The aim of this paper is to analyze China's naval strengthening and threat reflected in submarines, aircraft, destroyers and missile capabilities and US Navy's counter-forces. China is strengthening its naval forces in accordance with its three-step naval force build-up plan, and the introduction of Russian destroyers and submarines is a foothold for China's naval enforcement. The Chinese Navy also converted the concept of the First-Second Island Chain Defense, which it had already maintained, to the concept of maritime layer defense. Currently, the Chinese Navy maintains the concept of a Three-Maritime Layer Defense which includes the South China Sea, where artificial islands are being built by China, in the First Layer Defense and the East China Sea in the Third Layer Defense. Along with the advancement of Chinese Navy's submarines, surface vessels and aircraft's operational capabilities, ballistic and cruise missile capabilities become a major threat to the US Navy. If a crisis occurs in the East China Sea or in the Taiwan Waters, the US Navy will face more difficulties in employing the Carrier Strike Group to manage the crisis. Meanwhile, if a crisis occurs on the Korean Peninsula, it will be a burden to dispatch Carrier Strike GroupS to the East and West Seas of the Korean Peninsula. For the stable future, the US Navy should develop a strategy to respond more effectively to the Chinese Navy, which is challenging new maritime supremacy in East Asia.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.45
• /
• pp.148-187
• /
• 2019

This paper is to analyse the necessity and development direction of the ROK's maritime security strategy white paper. To this end the paper is composed of 5 chapters titled introduction; the necessity of the ROK's maritime security strategy white paper; the ROK's actual situation in relation to maritime security strategy and cases of major advanced oceanic countries; the vision, goals, strategic tasks, and implementation system of the ROK's 'national maritime security strategy'; and conclusion. The achievement of the national marine strategic vision, such as the 'Ocean G5,' is of course possible when Korea can maintain and strengthen the maritime safety and maritime security of the people. The Sewol Ferry incident reminds us that we need a 'national maritime security strategy white paper' like the advanced marine countries. In order for the national maritime security strategy to be carried our efficiently, as in advanced oceanic countries, mere should be a dedicated department with sufficient authority and status to mobilize the cooperation of related organizations including naval-coastal cooperation. It would be good to set up a tentatively named Maritime Security Council, an organization of minister-level officials involved under the National Security Council, and an executive body composed of working-level officials from related ministries. In order to successfully carry out the national maritime security strategy for the maritime safety and maritime security of the people like the United States and the United Kingdom, we need to further strengthen our domestic cooperation and cooperation system, international cooperation, and maritime security. We have to promote the establishment and promotion of maritime security strategies by the Navy; strengthening the operational link between the Navy and the Coast Guard; strengthening the maritime surveillance capability at the national level, and promoting sharing with the private sector, etc.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.40
• /
• pp.235-254
• /
• 2016

최근 남중국해(South China Sea: 南中國海)가 동아시아 해양안보의 중심 이슈로 대두되고 있다. 아울러 남중국해 문제가 당사국 간 해양분쟁 및 해양경계획정 이슈만이 아닌, 제3자 개입 등의 다자간 해양분쟁과 대립으로 확산되는 매우 복잡한 양상을 보이고 있다. 이러한 남중국해 해양문제는 미국과 중국 간의 강대국 경쟁구도가 적용되어 힘의 시현을 위한 대결 국면이 되는 반면, 중국이 전통적 해양이익을 구단선(nine dash line)을 근거로 주장하면서 국제법 적용 문제에 따른 법적 문제의 성격을 나타내고 있다. 이에 따라 최근 남중국해 상황은 '항해의 자유(Freedom of Navigation)' 보장을 주장하는 미국, 역사적 권리 보장을 위해 일반적 조치를 강행하고 해군력을 증강시키는 중국, 그리고 남중국해를 경유하는 수많은 선박들의 항해 안전(navigational safety)을 강조하는 역내 국가 간 의견이 표출되는 복잡한 양상으로 나타나고 있다. 특히 최근 중국이 상설중재재판소의 남중국해 중재판결을 무시하여 국제법 적용이 어려운 가운데 포괄적 동아시아 해양안보 차원에서 남중국해 이슈 해결을 위한 새로운 접근방안이 요구되고 있다. 이는 남중국해에 대한 당사국 간 평화적 분쟁 해결과 더불어, 강대국 간의 전략적 함의에 의한 해결이 병행되어야 함을 의미한다.

• 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.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.41
• /
• pp.208-231
• /
• 2017

The balance of power in conventional forces between the two Koreas works in favor of the South Korea in the Korea peninsula. But, the balancing mechanism between the two Koreas in asymmetric forces like nuclear and missile forces works absolutely in favor of the North Korea. That's why it should be timely for the ROK military to review existing strategy and revise a new counter strategy against the threat posed by the North Korea's nuclear and missile forces. The ROK military is now developing 4D, KAMD, KILL Chain strategies as means to cope with the North Korea's nuclear and missile threats. Considering efforts and resources invested now, the strategies are expected to be in place in next five or more years. However, approaches to those strategies seem to be rather fragmentary and conceptual than comprehensive and pragmatic. The types of strategies against the North Korea's military threats need to be a deterrence in peace time and a fighting and winning in war time in the Korean theater. But, the most important element in the deterrence strategy is the credibility. This study concludes with an new strategic concept titled "ADAD(Assured Defense, Assured Destruction)" as an alternative to existing strategies to deal with the North Korea's nuclear and missile threats.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.43
• /
• pp.125-174
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the status of naval arms race in Northeast Asia. To this end, the scope of the research was limited to national security strategies, maritime strategies and naval strengthening of the United States, China, Russia and Japan. The major powers' active maritime strategies and naval arms race give some strategic implications to the Republic of Korea Navy as follows. First, China and Japan, unlike the past, are actively using submarines in offshore waters including the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, the ROK Navy must successfully promote the Jangbogo-III-class submarine, which is currently constructed, and get a nuclear-powered submarine and P-8 MPA capable of long-range and long-time operations to enhance ASW capability. Second, North Korea's current building submarines capable of loading SLBMs and SLBMs are a new threat to the ROK Navy. The current building KAMD, which focuses on terminal phase defense, cannot effectively respond to North Korea's SLBMs and should be converted to a multi-layered defense system including SM-3 at a mid-course phase. Third, as China militarizes the South China Sea, the instability of the South China Sea is growing. Therefore, the ROK Navy should strengthen its maritime cooperation with the regional countries such as Japan and ASEAN navies to protect SLOC. In conclusion, the ROK Navy needs to build a strong naval power to keep in mind that the 21st century naval rivalry in Northeast Asia is accelerating. The navy must do one's best to protect national strategic and vital interests by strengthening cooperation with regional countries. South Korea is also accelerating its defense reforms in accordance with the pattern of future warfare and the ROK Navy do one's best to have a balanced naval capability capable of actively operating in the offshore waters.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.37
• /
• 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.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.41
• /
• pp.5-29
• /
• 2017

The Mahan's seapower theory has been the basis of US Navy to date as it can enjoy the supremacy status in all of the seas of the world. His theory is very straightforward. A nation can be a great country in the world just through the use of maritime commerce that could be protected by a strong and powerful navy. Mahan's theory on seapower was substantiated in the Spanish-American War with respect to how important the naval power is. The best thing to make US a great nation was to make sure that flow of international trade is smooth, and the unhindered trade could be made possible only by the destruction of enemy's fleet that may obstruct the SLOCs. That's why Mahan insisted that a strong navy was needed and a decisive battle by the navy's fleet at sea should be encouraged as a way of ensuring the safety of the SLOCs. The newly-arrived Trump administration seems to be in line with the Mahan's theory seapower in its policy on naval forces structure. It is expected that US will continue to support the Pivot to Asia policy that has been adopted by the previous administration through an increase in its naval fleet forces. The number of US navy ships will be 355 in 2030, rendering it much more powerful navy than before. The catch phrase "3rd Fleet Forward" proposed by the president Trump indicates that two carrier strike groups will be present in the Asia Pacific region, being able to make the confrontation between US and China more tense than before. The presence of the US naval forces in the area may function as some sort of pressure against China that Trump insisted had been responsible for the closure of 60,000 factories and the loss of 3,000,000 jobs in the United States.