진화하는 한반도의 안보 역학 관계

한반도의 미래는 미중 경쟁과 북한의 핵 야망의 진화하는 역학 관계를 헤쳐나가는 데 달려 있습니다.

### 진화하는 역학 관계: 동북아시아의 안보와 경제의 상호 작용
* 🌍 우리는 현재 글로벌 긴장 속에서 특히 한미 동맹 내에서 **경제와 안보 문제가 심각하게 얽혀 있는 것**을 목격하고 있습니다.
* 🔄 미중 경쟁 심화, 우크라이나 전쟁 지속, 북한의 핵 도발 등으로 국제 정세가 변화하면서 **한반도의 미래에 대한 의문**이 커지고 있습니다.
* 📉 전문가들은 현재의 지정학적 환경이 **냉전과 같은 질서로 돌아갈 가능성**을 반영하고 있으며, 현재 진행 중인 권력 투쟁으로 인해 **양극화된 세계가 등장할 가능성**이 있다고 지적합니다.
* 🔍 미국과 중국 간의 경쟁은 **트럼프 행정부 출범 이후 격화**되었으며, 국익과 강대국 민족주의의 부활에 영향을 받아 **향후 20~30년 동안 지속될 것**으로 예상됩니다.
* ⚔ 우크라이나 전쟁은 **글로벌 공급망을 붕괴**시키고 기존 국제 질서에 도전했으며, **코로나19 팬데믹은 경제적 상호의존성을 더욱 복잡**하게 만들었습니다.
* 🔗 동북아시아의 맥락에서 각국은 특히 **반도체 및 전기자동차 배터리와 같은 전략 분야**에서 미국 및 중국과의 관계에 균형을 맞출 것을 촉구합니다.
* 🛡 북한의 핵 야망의 미래는 이 지역에 중대한 도전이 될 것이며, 안보와 평화를 보장하기 위해 **굳건한 한미 동맹과 선제적 외교 전략**이 필요합니다.
* 🤝 복잡한 지정학적 환경을 헤쳐나가는 과정에서 한국은 **한반도 통일을 위한 협력과 대화를 촉진**하며 글로벌 중심축으로 자리매김하는 것이 필수적입니다.

We are living in an era where the economy and security are intertwined. To adapt to this new reality, the South Korea-U.S. alliance must evolve further. The international situation is at a turning point, marked by the intensifying competition between the United States and China, the unexpectedly prolonged war in Ukraine, and the lingering shadows of COVID-19. Amidst this, provocations from North Korea regarding its nuclear capabilities have also occurred. In this new international order, where is the Korean Peninsula headed? We will discuss how the international political landscape and the unification environment surrounding the Korean Peninsula are changing. Today, we are joined by three experts: Professor Kim Tae-won from Sungkyunkwan University, Research Fellow Bong Young-sik from the Yonsei University Institute for Unification Studies, and Professor Sam Won-seok from the National Institute for Unification Education. For the past thirty years, the international community has experienced a post-Cold War transformation.

We have been working together, aiming for values aligned with the world. However, in recent years, cooperative globalization has weakened, and the international situation has been significantly shaken. Terms like new Cold War and second Cold War have even emerged. Could you please provide an assessment of the current situation? Let's start with Professor Kim Tae-won.

Honestly, I had expected it would end in a victory for Russia, but now, as this war has unfolded, those predictions have gone awry, and it has already been almost a year. The aftermath of this war has effectively shattered the existing world order and framework that had operated under the premise of U.S. hegemony for the past 30 years. Some experts believe that as Russia loses its status as a great power, the United States and China will each take on a respective role in this new dynamic.

There is a possibility that we will move towards a bipolar system, and on the other hand, there are opinions that a pressing system will be formed where the United States, China, and other major powers will lead together. Additionally, there are experts pointing out the aspects of international disorder. Given the variety of opinions presented, it seems that we are still unable to find our place amidst this situation, where we are divided into two camps and facing a new Cold War, while major powers sometimes cooperate and at other times conflict, creating a dynamic order. One clear fact is that we are certainly transitioning into a new order that we have not experienced before. Yes, I share the same view. On one hand, it seems like a return to the Cold War order.

When we look at the competition between great powers, the rivalry between the United States and China is similar to the competition the U.S. had during the Cold War. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia shows that conventional wars are still a possible reality. If we consider this, we could say that the Cold War order has returned. However, on the other hand, when we observe trade between the U.S. and China or the emergence of new virtual realities on the internet, we see that while the previous order is indeed being shaken, a new order has not yet arrived. This creates a highly uncertain and fluid situation. As you mentioned, it seems that we cannot avoid the flow of national fluidity. How do you predict the future direction of U.S.-China competition? In fact, the competition began to intensify during the Trump administration, but it has worsened further under the Biden administration.

We are seeing a situation where the Biden administration has designated China as the most serious geopolitical challenge in its national security strategy. Given this, I think the current US-China competition is unlikely to come to an end in the short term. From a long-term perspective, the United States is addressing the threat posed by China, while China itself is pursuing a long-term strategy aimed at becoming the world's leading nation by 2050. Therefore, I believe that the US-China competition will continue for the next 20 to 30 years without a clear distinction of a winner. Particularly, if we look at recent international trends, there seems to be a resurgence of national interest, often referred to as America First, which reflects a typical realist approach reminiscent of the 19th century. This appears to be reemerging. The most important...

Now, we are in Korea. Therefore, from the perspective of a middle power like us, we cannot be shaken by these geopolitical crises or the U.S.-China competition. However, it seems necessary to actively manage the situation in a way that minimizes being swept away by these large-scale events. Professor Bong Myung-sik, what are your predictions? For those watching this broadcast, it might be good to think about when the COVID-19 pandemic started. It has been over three years. We have pondered a lot, and finally, we have returned to the state we were in before. Through our three years of experience with the COVID-19 pandemic, if we have learned anything about international security, it is that security is a public good, like oxygen. The safety of one country is not guaranteed simply because it shares a border with another, and when a global crisis arises, countries must cooperate to escape that crisis as quickly as possible. I believe that is the lesson we have learned.

No matter how competitive the relationships are between the United States and China, or the United States and Russia, there will eventually be a stable structure that has its limits. Ultimately, I believe that international relations will find a direction towards cooperation. It's quite impressive to think of it like the air we don't see. When observing the global order, it seems that the aspirations of each country vary significantly. I would like to ask Professor Bong Hyung-sik what he thinks about the politics of identity that each country pursues. To put it simply, the politics of identity means that this reality is not fixed and unchangeable; rather, it can be interpreted in various ways depending on our identity and values. For example, when police carry weapons, we don't feel scared just because they have a gun. This is because we understand the identity of the police, which is to maintain public order.

I understand that there will be a use of force. However, if someone unknown to us is holding a gun, we naturally feel anxious and threatened, don't we? Therefore, international relations are no longer just about cooperating or conflicting based on interests; rather, they depend on whether I can trust this country and if it is a reliable country that shares my identity. This changes the level of security cooperation, which is a matter of identity in international security. The immediate response of NATO countries when Russia invaded Ukraine was due to economic losses, but it was also because we can only survive by sharing these values. Ukraine and NATO member countries share values, and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia is something that cannot be tolerated on the level of our identity, which is why there was a consensus on this. Now, how should we perceive the politics of identity that are currently emerging at the global level? Professor Kim Tae-hyung, what do you think about China?

China's hard power is rapidly increasing. As a result, there seems to be a desire to realize an ambitious identity to achieve great power status. However, the United States cannot just sit back and watch this unfold. The Biden administration emphasizes major values such as human rights and democracy, and it appears to be using the framework of democracy versus authoritarianism to contain China. From this perspective, the U.S.-China competition is gradually expanding beyond military, economic, trade, and technological aspects to include the realm of values. In this regard, the U.S.-China competition encompasses not only the geopolitical characteristics we are familiar with but also socio-cultural aspects.

I think it's not working out. It is clear that the United States has played a very important role in promoting liberal values in diplomacy until now. However, recently, as the U.S. has faced various challenges both internally and externally, it seems that the polarization between liberalism and anti-liberalism has deepened. I also heard Professor Kim Tae-won's insights on this matter. He mentioned that a major risk factor in the global landscape is the acceleration of the restructuring of global supply chains. What are your thoughts on this, Professor Bong Young-sik? 

There are two backgrounds to the emergence of global supply chain restructuring. One is the hegemonic competition between the U.S. and China that we have discussed so far. The conclusion that the U.S. has reached over the past few years is that while technological economic cooperation with China can be mutually beneficial, the U.S.

Advanced technology is flowing into China. Therefore, since this becomes a source of national power that China uses to reshape the global order, there is a need to prevent China from illegally acquiring advanced technology from the United States. In this context, the issue of global governance restructuring has emerged. The second factor is Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Until then, even if a country had an authoritarian political system, it was possible to conduct business and engage in economic cooperation. However, with Russia's invasion, NATO member countries were warned that if they supported Ukraine, energy supplies would be cut off. Thus, the risks of cooperating economically or exporting energy to authoritarian states have become too high. In this regard, the need to restructure global supply chains has also come to the forefront. Ultimately, this seems to be part of the same narrative, as many countries are now focusing on global supply chains.

In the current situation where diversification is taking place, major powers are adopting policies that are increasingly nationalistic and geopolitically motivated against their competitors. This is likely to result in significant disruption to global production and division of labor. In fact, the Biden administration's policies towards China, reflected in measures such as the Semiconductor Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, have aligned global supply chains to its favor. The focus of the U.S.-China technology war has really shifted to semiconductors, leading us to confront what we call a de facto semiconductor war. If we consider the Trump administration's efforts to curb China's 5G technology as the first phase of U.S.-China high-tech competition, it seems that the Biden administration has transitioned this into a 2.0 phase. This is especially evident in the realm of semiconductors and production equipment.

I read it as a declaration of intent to strengthen export controls to fundamentally block the development of China's semiconductor manufacturing capabilities. Additionally, in the case of Biden, there is a strong emphasis on cooperation. Many refer to similar positions among countries, mentioning democratic values, and adopting a multilateral cooperative strategy. In the semiconductor industry, this is being expressed through initiatives like the U.S.-Japan Trade Technology Committee and the Chip Alliance. Therefore, maintaining the advantages of the global supply chain becomes a key challenge. The Russian invasion in 2022 has led to a transformation of the global energy supply chain centered around Europe. Could you please evaluate how this war is impacting the international order? Professor Cha Moon-seok, could you start?

The war in Ukraine seems to have various characteristics. Ultimately, I think it has two main aspects. It might be a war that marks the end of the process that began in the 1990s with the collapse of the Soviet Union, globalization, and the peak of hyper-globalization. After this war, as the interests of each country intersect and are sorted out, if a new order is formed, I believe that the United States could see this war as the first conflict of that new order. In any case, the Ukraine war has emerged in a context of a globally disrupted supply chain due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and I think it adds further chaos to that situation. This is because Russia has intentionally engaged in issues related to food, energy, and globally significant materials, exacerbating the existing turmoil from the COVID-19 crisis.

The situation has worsened for those who were struggling. If we look at another aspect of the Ukraine conflict, prior to this war, the international community respected sovereignty and had principles and rules for resolving any disputes peacefully. However, Russia has violated these principles and rules. Therefore, I believe this could serve as a catalyst for countries that are willing to disregard existing territorial and regulatory issues in order to realize their own interests. Consequently, the war between Russia and Ukraine has significantly increased uncertainty in the international order. Now, observing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's strategic calculations have also become quite complex. I will mention three points. First, the United States and...

It became clear how significant it is to have a military cooperation relationship. During the five years of the Trump administration, when the United States pressured NATO members to increase their defense spending to 2% of their GDP, those NATO member countries that initially disagreed voluntarily announced they would raise it to 2% after Russia invaded Ukraine. 

Secondly, doubts have intensified about whether China could successfully invade Taiwan by force. Given that Russia's invasion, which is much closer and on land, has not succeeded, questions have arisen about whether the People's Liberation Army of China could successfully carry out a military invasion across the Taiwan Strait. 

Lastly, although the Chinese government is doing everything in its power to suppress separatism in regions like Xinjiang and Tibet, Russia has shown support for the declaration of independent sovereign states in the Donbas region.

Because it has been visible, China and Russia do not move in the same direction on this point. Therefore, with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's efforts to curb such separatist movements have instead resulted in a phenomenon that supports us. There is another factor influencing global dynamics, which is COVID-19. It has been ongoing for over three years now. Professor Cha Moon-seok will discuss the changes brought about by the pandemic in the international order. 

With the COVID pandemic, there has been a notable trend of increasing borders between countries. Border controls have been strengthened. Additionally, due to the pandemic, international value chains have started to become disconnected. The interconnected international value chains that facilitated cross-border trade and consumption have begun to unravel, leading to significant economic impacts in various countries. Unemployment has risen, and many influential companies have been negatively affected.

We're starting to see that each country is implementing policies to address the proof of unemployment, which is precisely the reshoring policy. This policy aims to encourage many companies that had expanded overseas during the globalization period to return to their home countries. In fact, the international phenomenon that arises with the execution of this reshoring policy is the international economic recession. This economic downturn is exacerbating the difficulties of the global order and serves as a catalyst for the reconfiguration of that order. We are living in an era where security is intertwined with the economy. This was stated by President Yoon Suk-yeol during his first summit with the U.S. What is the impact of the rivalry between the U.S. and China on the economy and security in Northeast Asia? Professor Choi Moon-seok, could you please elaborate? The competition and conflict between the U.S. and China are most pronounced in the Northeast Asian region.

The situation is progressing strongly and is manifesting in the most acute ways. Moreover, the Northeast Asia region is the most crucial area for the reorganization of the global air force network. Recently, economic, military technology, and security issues have become intertwined, operating in an inseparable relationship. As this environment develops, we can see that technological and economic issues are becoming significant resources in military alliance relationships. I believe that Northeast Asia cannot help but be at the core of these economic and security concepts. The reason for the concentrated interest in the Northeast Asia region regarding economic cooperation and supply chain restructuring is that, as the participants have mentioned, all the countries in the Northeast Asia region overlap with the major participating countries in IPF and CPTPP. Consequently, China naturally exerts pressure on the countries participating in IPF and CPTPP.

Now, it means that we can utilize economic leverage. Therefore, this mutual relationship is not a matter of choice. We should not view it that way. In our country, both relations with the United States and China have progressed simultaneously. We have had a difference with the U.S. in security and economy for seven years, haven't we? With China, we have been engaged in economic cooperation for the past 30 years. Therefore, the areas of cooperation between these two countries will increase, and naturally, we should also make efforts to expand the areas of cooperation in various ways. In 2022, Taiwan decided to invest in semiconductor products in the United States. After that, President Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which supports Taiwan's purchase of U.S. weapons and seems to promote future military cooperation. China...

Of course, there will be strong opposition to this. Therefore, amidst the competition in semiconductor supply between the U.S. and China, it seems that Korea should leverage its dependence on advanced and cutting-edge semiconductors from China as a means of restraint. As you mentioned through iPads and chips, we also need to strengthen our cooperation with the United States simultaneously. 

Another point I would like to highlight is that Taiwan has utilized its semiconductor production capacity as a so-called iron shield. I think we should benchmark this approach and create our own mechanisms, such as an iron shield or a silicon defense, to protect our semiconductor supply chain. Above all, like Taiwan, we should also seek substantial semiconductor investments from the United States as a countermeasure.

Now, we need to secure a more definitive security support through expansion deterrence, and for that, our negotiating power must be fully demonstrated. I believe the area with the highest military tension in Northeast Asia is the Taiwan Strait. In August of last year, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan, prompting China to blockade Taiwan and conduct extensive military exercises. Since then, concerns about military clashes between the U.S. and China have increased. Will China really invade Taiwan? How do you view the Taiwan issue in this situation? Is it possible that China will launch a military invasion of Taiwan? This is not just an abstract scenario; the military is meticulously preparing scenarios involving tanks and other equipment. When the U.S. and China normalized diplomatic relations, one of the agreements was the One China principle. However, this does not mean that China aims for unification with Taiwan.

The invasion through military force in any dimension to achieve a unified stance is something that the United States absolutely opposes. At the same time, the U.S. continues to maintain its opposition to Taiwan's independent declaration of sovereignty. This is what is referred to as a dual deterrence strategy. If either China or Taiwan disrupts the status quo in the Taiwan Strait through military displays, the Biden administration has pledged to respond firmly and take action against it. Therefore, our country is also paying close attention to this matter. This is because, in the event of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait, there are discussions within the U.S. about the possibility of U.S. troops stationed in Korea being deployed to Taiwan. Thus, we should not consider a potential crisis in the Taiwan Strait as a distant issue concerning our neighbor. Instead, we need to deeply discuss how we can proactively and strategically prepare to maintain security and peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Semiconductors are currently in a competitive struggle for market share between us and Taiwan, while electric vehicle batteries are contested between us and China. Professor Cha Mun-seok, could you explain your outlook on the future of supply chain competition among Northeast Asian countries? The issue of global supply chain restructuring in the Indo-Pacific region is one of the most important agendas. Strategic products such as semiconductors, rare earth elements, biotechnology, and batteries hold significant importance in terms of supply chains. This is due to their economic and technological significance, as well as their military and security implications. This matter is sensitive because it is also related to the technological leadership of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In the future, the supply chain restructuring will expand not only among Korea, China, and Japan, but also include many countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia, and this will lead to...

In the region, a new industrial restructuring seems to be underway. This process involves issues that are vital to the interests of many countries, but it is also a problem that needs to be solved cooperatively among nations. Therefore, the upcoming issues regarding the restructuring of the air defense network in East Asia and the creation of cooperation among industries will be significant challenges for the revival and prosperity of the Northeast Asian region, as well as for establishing a peaceful order. However, there are still fluctuations. Let's hear from Professor Kim Tae-won about what kind of impact our Korean Peninsula might be experiencing. The biggest theme in 2023 is the beginning of the post-COVID-19 era's order. If we were to summarize its core, there are about three main points: First, there is great power nationalism; second, the beginning of a globalization 2.0 that reflects on globalization; and third...

I see the current situation as another significant escalation in the threat to security. In the case of South Korea, considering factors such as GDP, geographical location, and the peculiarities of the U.S.-China relationship, it is a country that is highly dependent on the system order. Therefore, I believe that South Korea is likely to be one of the nations most affected by the changes in the global order and the turbulent times we are experiencing in 2023. 

Focusing on the Korean Peninsula, I would like to emphasize that we need to prepare for what strategic gamble Kim Jong-un's regime might undertake amid the worsening economic situation and its obsession with nuclear weapons and missiles in 2023. When Kim Jong-un first ascended as the third leader of North Korea, he promised the people that they would never have to tighten their belts again. However, in February 2019, during a meeting with President Trump...

After the summit with the president in Hanoi ended in a no-deal, the residents were told that self-reliance was the only way to survive, and that they needed to tighten their belts. This is a complete reversal of the previous stance. Given this difficult situation, one wonders what kind of gamble the Kim Jong-un regime, which is fixated on nuclear weapons, might undertake. How can the three countries—South Korea, the United States, and Japan—cooperate to prevent such actions? The security of the Korean Peninsula in 2023 hinges on this matter. 

As the international order rapidly reshapes, especially regarding security in the Korean Peninsula in 2023, how do you foresee it, Professor Bong Yang-sik? In January 2021, at the 8th Party Congress, the North Korean regime and military decided to develop five types of new weapons. Therefore, until the development of these new weapons is completed, it is expected that various missile tests and provocations will continue in North Korea this year, just as they did in 2022. In short,

It is expected that there will be a situation of ongoing tension, and regarding the enforcement of the seventh nuclear test, the Kim Jong-un regime is likely to make various strategic calculations. This is because, in terms of finding a breakthrough, they would want to carry out another nuclear test. However, if they do proceed with the nuclear test, South Korea, the United States, and Japan would impose various potential sanctions against North Korea, including cyber sanctions. Therefore, it is crucial for the Kim Jong-un regime to carefully assess whether the benefits gained from conducting the seventh nuclear test would outweigh the potential losses for North Korea before making a decision.

Now, at this point in 2023, what methods are available for the denuclearization of North Korea? Professor Samunseok, our government has proposed a bold initiative. This was presented through a rigid statement on August 15 of last year. Over the past 30 years, the situation with North Korea has deteriorated.

This is a policy aimed at fundamentally resolving the nuclear issue. It consists of several agendas. One is to focus on a strong South Korea-U.S. alliance to deter North Korea's nuclear threats. Another goal is to discourage North Korea from pursuing nuclear development through sanctions and pressure. To achieve this, we are taking a political approach to promote North Korea's denuclearization through diplomatic methods and dialogue. Therefore, we aim to create an environment where North Korea can return to denuclearization negotiations on its own. If negotiations proceed effectively, we will strive to reach a comprehensive agreement and, based on that, quickly move from substantial denuclearization to complete denuclearization, implementing measures concerning North Korea's denuclearization as well as political, economic, and military situations. Until now, North Korea has engaged in provocative actions or nuclear tests and long-range missile launches.

When we experimented, the center of that sanction was the UN Security Council. However, due to China and Russia continuously exercising their veto power as permanent members, since 2017, we have not been able to adopt a new resolution for sanctions against North Korea. As an alternative, the independent sanctions by South Korea, Japan, and the United States, along with trilateral security cooperation among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan, have emerged as significant options. Therefore, to encourage North Korea to stop its nuclear missile development and come to the table for dialogue and cooperation, it is essential not to rely solely on the UN Security Council but to focus on how these countries can effectively promote independent measures. 

Resolving the North Korean nuclear issue has been a key task for our government, as it is a crucial step toward unification. The Yoon Suk-yeol administration has also presented the goal of achieving sustainable peace on the Korean Peninsula through the complete and verifiable denuclearization of North Korea as part of its national agenda. This administration is focusing on two main areas.

It seems that in order to properly activate the peace process on the Korean Peninsula, we should not focus our efforts solely on the peninsula but rather expand our outreach. Therefore, our country must act responsibly as a global pivotal state, which will help establish a substantial peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. This is the policy direction we are pursuing. 

Secondly, we must make the most of our strategic assets, which include the strong South Korea-U.S. alliance. A solid South Korea-U.S. alliance is essential because it encourages the North Korean regime to move away from its obsession with nuclear weapons and to engage more actively in inter-Korean dialogue, increasing the likelihood of cooperation in resolving the nuclear issue. In this regard, unlike previous information, we should adopt a strategy that avoids strategic ambiguity towards China, as such ambiguity could lead to unclear strategies. Instead, we need to strengthen the South Korea-U.S. alliance and focus on our core role as a global pivotal state.

Maintaining values and principles is also more helpful in persuading China. We are continuing to push forward with such policies. In this context, what direction should our current diplomatic efforts take? Professor Kim Tae-won, given the current U.S.-China confrontation and the fact that this situation will likely continue for the foreseeable future, it seems particularly important for us to maintain a consistent stance and make efforts to contain the situation. Through the fundamental axis of the South Korea-U.S. alliance, we should aim to develop the South Korea-China relationship based on mutual respect. Although this may be challenging, I believe we need to consistently demonstrate this through both words and actions. Especially for this purpose, our country should strengthen its negotiating power by connecting with other nations that share similar positions, and we should work to alleviate the tensions between the U.S. and China.

We should not rush, but we must steadily and gradually lay a solid foundation. I believe that a two-track approach is essential in this regard. I have listened carefully to the three of you. We are currently at a turning point in world history. In the context of the competition between the United States and China, it is crucial for Korea to elevate its status and become a global pivot. This requires efforts to broaden our perspective on international affairs. I hope that these interests will accumulate, bringing us a step closer to the unification of the Korean Peninsula. Thank you to Professor Kim Tae-won, Professor Cha Moon-seok, and Professor Gong Yeong-sik for your contributions today.

한반도 통일환경의 변화 - 공공부문 통일교육 영상(2023)

통일부 국립통일교육원에서 제작한 교육용 영상 및 공모전 수상작품 등을 보실 수 있습니다.

국립통일교육원

진화하는 국제 정세와 한반도에 미치는 영향

미중 경쟁, 우크라이나 전쟁 장기화, 북한의 핵 도발 등 변화하는 국제 정세에 한미동맹도 적응해야 합니다.

전문가들은 세계가 새로운 질서, 즉 양극 체제 또는 주요 강대국이 협력하고 갈등하는 역동적 질서로 전환하고 있다고 생각합니다.

미국과 중국의 경쟁은 향후 20~30년 동안 지속될 것으로 예상되며, 양국은 글로벌 리더십을 위한 장기 전략을 추구하고 있습니다.

지정학적 위기 관리: 중견국의 관점

한국은 중견국으로서 미-중 경쟁과 글로벌 위기 속에서 흔들리지 않고 헤쳐나가고자 합니다.

코로나19 팬데믹은 우리에게 국제 안보는 국가 간 협력이 필요한 공공재라는 교훈을 주었습니다.

정체성의 정치는 국제 관계에서 중요한 역할을 하며, 신뢰와 공유된 가치는 안보 협력과 글로벌 도전에 대한 대응에 영향을 미칩니다.

글로벌 공급망 구조 조정의 영향

미국과 중국의 패권 경쟁으로 인해 글로벌 공급망이 재편되고 있으며, 미국은 중국의 불법적인 첨단 기술 획득을 막으려는 목표를 가지고 있습니다.

러시아의 우크라이나 침공으로 권위주의 국가와의 경제 협력에 대한 위험이 증가하면서 공급망 재편의 필요성이 더욱 커졌습니다.

주요 강대국들이 민족주의적이고 지정학적인 동기를 가진 정책을 채택하면서 글로벌 생산과 노동 분업에 혼란을 일으키고 있으며, 미중 기술 전쟁은 사실상 반도체 전쟁으로 전환되고 있습니다.

우크라이나 전쟁이 글로벌 역학 관계에 미친 영향

우크라이나 전쟁은 구소련 시대의 종말을 알리는 동시에 코로나19 팬데믹으로 이미 혼란에 빠진 글로벌 공급망에 혼란을 더하고 있습니다.

러시아의 행동은 국제 원칙을 위반하여 세계 질서의 불확실성을 높이고 중국의 전략적 계산을 복잡하게 만들었습니다.

또한 팬데믹은 국경을 강화하고 국제 가치 사슬을 단절시켜 여러 국가에서 경제적 타격과 실업률 증가로 이어졌습니다.

리쇼어링 정책과 미중 경쟁이 동북아시아에 미치는 영향

국제적인 경기 침체와 맞물려 각국은 기업을 국내로 불러들이기 위한 리쇼어링 정책을 시행하고 있습니다.

미중 경쟁은 동북아시아에서 가장 두드러지게 나타나고 있으며, 경제 협력과 공급망 재편에 영향을 미치고 있습니다.

대만의 반도체 생산은 전략적 지렛대로 활용되고 있으며, 다른 국가에서도 반도체 공급망을 보호하기 위해 유사한 메커니즘을 도입해야 한다는 요구가 있습니다.

동북아시아의 안보 역학: 대만 해협 긴장

대만 해협은 낸시 펠로시의 대만 방문 이후 중국의 봉쇄와 군사 훈련으로 인해 동북아시아에서 군사적 긴장이 고조된 곳입니다.

미국은 중국의 대만 군사 침공과 대만의 독립 선언에 반대하며 이중 억지 전략을 펼치고 있습니다.

전략 제품을 포함한 인도 태평양 지역의 글로벌 공급망 재구축은 경제적, 기술적, 군사적으로 매우 중요하며, 국가 간 협력적 접근은 이 지역의 안정과 번영을 위해 필수적입니다.

2023년의 보안 위협 한반도에 집중하기

한국은 글로벌 질서에 크게 의존하고 있으며, 2023년의 변화에 따라 큰 영향을 받을 가능성이 높습니다.

북한 김정은 정권은 경제가 악화되고 핵무기에 집중하는 가운데 전략적 도박을 감행하여 미사일 실험과 도발을 계속할 수 있습니다.

강력한 동맹, 제재, 외교적 대화를 통해 북한의 공격적인 행동을 막고 북한의 비핵화를 촉진하기 위해서는 한국, 미국, 일본의 협력이 매우 중요합니다.

유엔 안보리는 중국과 러시아의 거부권 행사로 인해 2017년 이후 북한에 대한 새로운 제재를 부과하지 못했습니다.

대신 한국, 일본, 미국은 독자 제재를 시행하고 3국 안보 협력을 강화해 왔습니다.

윤석열 정부는 북한의 비핵화를 통해 한반도의 지속 가능한 평화를 지향하는 동시에 한미동맹을 강화하고 미중 긴장 속에서 일관된 외교적 입장을 유지하는 데 주력하고 있습니다.