Earticle

The hegemonic competition between U.S. and China is deeply rooted in the interdependent relationship which was formed and evolved in the ‘Kissinger order’. However, the interdependence between the two great powers was also instable and vulnerable and the 2007-08 financial crisis revealed this instability and vulnerability. The core of U.S. foreign strategy in the age of Obama, Trump, and Biden administration was U.S. attempt to check China’s rise and seek alternative approaches to revitalize hegemonic power. As China confronts the U.S. squarely, U.S.- China hegemonic competition deteriorated into full-scale conflict around value, identity, and legitimacy of the regime. The most significant change due to the inauguration of the Biden administration restoration of alliance based on democratic values and strong industrial policy to gain competitive edge in state-of-the-art technologies. Moreover, U.S.-China conflict, which is often called the ‘New Cold War’, deepened as the democratic-values alliance is combined with the techno-alliance. Accordingly, China reinforced its attempt to break away from the interdependent relationship with the U.S. The U.S. is an ally of paramount importance for South Korea and China is a neighboring country with deep economic ties. South Korea needs an effective diplomatic strategy to prevent the U.S. and China from being a veto power to its interest, and should enhance its as a moderator or mitigator between U.S. and China.

It is challenging to achieve regional cooperation in Northeast Asia due to different identities between the nations within the region, differences in perceptions and approaches to the North Korean nuclear issue, and historical and territorial issues. There is also a fundamental limitation of low public recognition and policy priorities. However, peace and stability in Northeast Asia are directly linked to the survival of South Korea and other regional nations. Therefore, it is essential to build crisis management mechanisms for various issues and seek ways to coexist by expanding the base for cooperation. Nevertheless, regional cooperation should continue from a long-term perspective and be considered in terms of the direction and vision of Korean diplomacy. To this end, it is necessary to raise the priority of the underestimated regional cooperation policy in Northeast Asia, establish a direction and implementation strategy that is not swayed by the transition of regimes, and emphasize South Korea's independent role.

Over 70 years after the division, we have made various efforts to achieve peace on the Korean Peninsula. The method was largely political or sociological. But it didn't do as well as expected. If we are not getting the results we expect, we need to try different ways. I would like to talk about other ways to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula, not through political compromises or social communication between the two Koreas, but through common economic prosperity. The estuary of the Tumen River can be cited as a place where countries related to peace on the Korean Peninsula can pursue common prosperity. Geopolitically, it is an area where the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and North and South Korea meet. Economically, it is an area where each country thinks there is an opportunity to promote its own interests. In addition, in terms of population density, education level of population, and infrastructure for economic development, it is an area that has a lot of potential for common prosperity. At the mouth of the Tumen River, I propose a "United Nations City" in which China, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, and the United States (Japan) build their own cities and connect them linearly. Each city will create synergy under mutual cooperation. The greater the economic value the city produces, the stronger the peace on the Korean Peninsula will be. ‘The duck laying the golden egg’ will protect peace on the Korean Peninsula.

One of the notable phenomena during China’s spectacular reappearance in the international community during the period of its rapid growth is that the country dramatically built close ties with countries in the African region. After introducing the reform and opening-up policy, the so-called “world’s factory” started distributing its products worldwide, eventually strengthening its influence in terms of trade in Africa just as it did in other parts of the world. However, the said changes have been made apace in a relatively short period of time, and when comprehensively reviewing some other economic indicators (e.g. foreign direct investment, foreign aid, government-guaranteed financing etc.), phenomena are found that cannot be explained without excluding China’s national political and diplomatic goals. Considering the reality of South Korea, where the economy is almost absolutely based on the contribution from the trade sector, what can South Korea learn from China’s expansion of its strategic approach to Africa? South Korea’s approach to Africa has been characterized by a lack of clear diplomatic strategies and economic cooperation. The absence of mid- to long-term strategies and the failure to properly assess the African continent’s potential mean that South Korea will be in a relatively inferior position in future competition with other countries. A more serious problem than this is the absence of diplomatic strategies. Despite the continent’s geopolitical importance for and geographical distance from South Korea, it is undoubtedly a problem to be insufficiently aware of the importance of the vast region with a population of 1.3 billion people. South Korea has only looked at Africa as an object of aid and support, but has failed to recognize it as an object of economic/diplomatic cooperation. From now on, it is necessary to change perception and strategically utilize assistance to Africa as a means to lay the cornerstone for economic cooperation.