• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.6 no.3
• /
• pp.373-384
• /
• 2004

While the bilateral trade volume between China and U.S. has been growing rapidly, the trade deficits of U.S. to China has also been expanding. This growing trade deficit of U.S. to China has several reasons: the increase of foreign direct investment to China, the transfer of trade deficit origins, the intervention of U.S. domestic politics to China-U.S. trade relations, and U.S. direct control on export to China. However, the increased U.S. trade deficit to China does not mean that U.S. is in a disadvantaged position in its economic relations with China, or its international competitiveness is deteriorating. When U.S. surplus in service trade to China is included, the picture would be very different. Also, as internationalization progresses and China's industrial structure adjusts, the trade deficit of U.S. to China would narrow.

• 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.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.115-144
• /
• 2023

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. has made clear that "China is America's strategic competitor, revisionist power and a major challenge to America's prosperity and security." The Biden administration has largely inherited this perception of China. China has also responded without backing down. Therefore, the U.S.-China strategic competition has become the most important background factor in the international system and has a great impact on the security situation in Northeast Asia. Nevertheless, if you look at the recent process of establishing trilateral security cooperation among ROK, the U.S. and Japan, we can find that ROK's foreign strategy adjustment has played a key role. This is because establishing trilateral security cooperation among ROK, the U.S. and Japan depends on improving ROK-Japan relations. And the Yoon Suk Yeol government is pushing for rapid improvement in ROK-Japan relations regardless of domestic political constraints. The trilateral summit at Camp David laid the groundwork for future cooperation among ROK, the U.S. and Japan in security and other broader areas. China is strongly dissatisfied with the formation of trilateral security cooperation among ROK, the U.S. and Japan. However, this paper argues that although ROK agrees to form trilateral security cooperation with the U.S. and Japan, ROK's strategic objectives are not exactly the same as those of the U.S. and Japan. For example, looking back at the development of the U.S.-Japan alliance after the end of the Cold War, both the U.S. and Japan share similar views and perceptions of China's rise. The real goal of the strengthening of the U.S.-Japan alliance in recent years is also how to cope with China's rise. On the other hand, ROK's previous administrations have been negative about trilateral security cooperation with the U.S. and Japan. This is because ROK's main strategic goal is to reduce or eliminate threats from DPRK rather than respond to China. Faced with increasing DPRK's provocations and threats, more than half of South Koreans are in favor of reinforcing trilateral security cooperation with the U.S. and Japan to contain or mitigate threats from DPRK. As a result, if North Korea's nuclear and missile threats to ROK continue, then ROK's foreign strategy is likely to be to strengthen trilateral security cooperation between the U.S. and Japan to ensure its own safety and survival. If China wants to reduce the strategic pressure from the trilateral security cooperation among ROK, the U.S. and Japan, the best way is to reduce DPRK's provocations and threats to ROK and play a more substantive role in getting DPRK to give up its nuclear program.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.83-93
• /
• 2017

The U.S.-China Relations could be analyzed two perspectives and their basis under major international p olitics theory-power transition with conditions: (1) North Korean's nuclear puzzle, (2) THAAD in the Kor ean Peninsula and (3) the U.S.-ROK Alliance. One perspective is the global order dominates the regional order, and then stable regional order comes out. The other is the regional order dominates the global ord er, and China wages a regional hegemonic conflict against the United States. Consequently, America's o verwhelming leadership in North Korean's nuclear, THAAD and U.S.-ROK Alliance as national power is expected to endure. But China also has expected empowerment and cooperation for the peace and stabilit y on the Korean Peninsula military problems. In this perspective, South Korea needs to pay attention to the changing power distribution and competition between the U.S. and China and needs to strengthen a balancing and harmonious diplomatic strategy, so called 'see-saw diplomacy'.

• Acta Via Serica
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.91-110
• /
• 2020

This paper traces the trajectory of a variety of complicated economic and political developments between China and India - the world's most ancient civilizations connected by rich history. These recent developments, which are heavily acrimonious and include military clashes involving loss of lives, have greatly damaged bilateral relations. The paper examines the reasons behind the bilateral relations dipping to new lows. Aside from specific bilateral disputes like outstanding border problems, China-India relations have been affected by global and regional developments. The paper identifies rising tensions between the U.S. and China, the evolution of the Belt and Road Initiative, and the growth of the Indo-Pacific construct, as the reasons that have expanded distance and mistrust between the two countries. Both China and India are now part of country coalitions aiming to marginalize each other's strategic influences. The paper argues that such efforts by them are going to impact countries in their neighbourhood - such as in Central Asia - by forcing them to make complex choices in the areas of trade engagement and technological development.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• 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.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.36
• /
• 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.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.31-43
• /
• 2017

The article is devoted to the theoretical and practical analysis of Chinese global leadership. The concept of leadership is applied as a methodology, which involves identifying the main factors, such as strategic power, the attractiveness of political institutions, the ability to provide acceptable ideas and the presence of allies that contribute to a comprehensive analysis of the country's leadership potential. The authors also describe the relevance of Chinese global leadership and analyze its domestic, economic and international causes. Moreover, the ''Belt and Road'' initiative is defined as the main mechanism for providing the influence of China on the global level which is now being changed its quantitative component, namely the increasing attention to the security aspects of this initiative. In addition to that, it is important to note that China maintains its economic and political positions in Africa, Central Asia and South-East Asia. Africa has a special role in the Chinese ''Belt and Road'' initiative as a recipient of Chinese investments and a site for the deployment of China's naval facilities to protect the trade routes. On the regional level, China will strive to become a leader of the trade and economic processes in the Asia-Pacific region, the South China Sea and the North Korea nuclear program issues. The American factor in modern international relations, namely so-called "Trump factor", which means the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Agreement, will cause demand for Chinese leadership in the Asia-Pacific region and in the world as well. However, in this case a number of questions arise: is China prepared for this? Is Beijing able to bear greater responsibility? Does China have the potential for this? The article concludes that China will not become global leaders in the next 20-30 years, because of internal (political reforms) and foreign policy reasons (doctrinal formulation of foreign policy initiatives, military-political and economic power, international posture and relations with other states). The authors believe that the implementation of Chinese leadership is possible not on the condition of confrontation between China and the United States, but on the establishing of constructive relations between these countries. The last meeting between Trump and Xi Jinping showed a trend for creating channels for dialogue between Beijing and Washington, which can become the basis for interaction. An important place in the work is given to the analysis of development and forecasting the evolution of Russian-Chinese and U.S.-China relations. As for Russia, Moscow should conduct a policy that will not allow it to become a ''junior partner'' of China.

• 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.

• Analyses & Alternatives
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.69-114
• /
• 2022

This paper analyzes Taiwan's 「New Southbound Policy」 from the perspective of 'balancing' and 'bandwagoning' in international politics. Specifically, it examines the changes and characteristics of 'Southbound policies' that have continued since the period of the Lee Teng-hui(李登輝) administration, and examines the meaning of the New Southbound Policy promoted by the Tsai Ing-wen(蔡英文) administration. Taiwan's foreign policy has been strongly influenced by external variables such as U.S.-China relations. Previous Taiwanese governments have actively promoted Southbound policies to advance to Southeast Asian countries such as ASEAN with the aim of 'De-Sinicization', but have not achieved much results. This is because variables such as cooperative U.S.-China relations and strong checks from China played a role at the time. In this environment, Taiwan had to pursue an appropriate 'balancing' between the United States, China, and Southeast Asian countries. However, since the inauguration of the Trump administration, strategic competition between the U.S. and China has been maximized, creating a new space for Taiwan's foreign policy. This is because the U.S. valued cooperation with Taiwan in the process of embodying the 'Indo-Pacific Strategy' to curb China's rise. The New Southbound Policy promoted by the Tsai Ing-won administration is different from the existing Southbound policies in that it seeks to link with the U.S. India-Pacific Strategy and attempts to advance to South Asian countries such as India. From an international political point of view, the Tsai Ing-won administration's New Southbound Policy can be interpreted as a 'bandwagoning' to the United States, not a balanced strategy between the U.S. and China. Strategic competition between the U.S. and China is expected to intensify for a considerable period of time in the future, and honeymoon between Taiwan and the U.S. are also expected to continue. Taiwan's bandwagoning strategy, which actively pursues a link between the New Southbound Policy and the India-Pacific Strategy, is also expected to be maintained.