윤석열 정부의 자유·평화·번영의 인도·태평양 전략 추진에 따른 태평양도서국(太平洋島嶼國) 접근 전략 연구

박영민 ( Park Young-min ),이웅규 ( Lee Woong-kyu ),김용완 ( Kim Yong-wan ) 한국도서(섬)학회 2023 韓國島嶼硏究 Vol.35 No.4

This study considered that the complex importance of Pacific Island countries, including politics and economy, society and culture, ecology and environment, oceans and fisheries, health and medicine, resources and history, will increase further. The purpose of this study was to contribute to Korea's international community by studying Korea's perspective and approach strategy toward Pacific Island countries. Hence, future research should review the history of Pacific Island countries, early Europeans' perception of the Pacific region, and historical links with Korea to suggest perspectives and approach strategies that Korea should establish. In particular, the Yoon Seok-yeol government's Indo-Pacific Strategy emphasizes that Korea will contribute to the freedom, peace, and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific and lead the process so that all countries in the Indo-Pacific region coexist harmoniously. In this regard, it is proposed that international norms will be observed and regulations established based on universal values, including freedom, democracy, rule of law, and human rights, will be strengthened. Strengthening cooperation with other countries in various key fields is the core theme and main context that runs through the Indo-Pacific Strategy. As a result of the study, the direction of development approach strategies for Pacific Island countries is presented as follows. First, it is an active diplomatic response. Second, it is a search for a new independent and comprehensive foreign strategy and regional cooperation based on the Indo-Pacific strategy. Third is expanding Korea's role and contribution to the Pacific Islands region. Fourth, the linkage and cooperation with Pacific Island countries will be upgraded to the external strategy level and further expanded. Under the direction of this Pacific Island country development approach strategy, specific development approach strategies are presented as follows. First, strengthen economic cooperation and promote diversification strategies. Second, the strategy to promote infrastructure construction and development projects is promoted. Third, the promotion of sustainable development promotion strategies in response to sea level rise. Fourth is the promotion of education and cultural tourism exchange promotion strategies. Fifth, the promotion of security cooperation promotion approach strategies. Yet, the most important thing is that Korea must have a differentiated strategy when the world is courting Pacific Island countries. In addition, it should be kept in mind that a strategic approach is needed to specify cooperative projects tailored to the characteristics of Pacific Island countries.

윤석열 정부의 자유·평화·번영의 인도·태평양 전략 추진에 따른 태평양도서국(太平洋島嶼國) 접근 전략 연구

박영민,이웅규,김용완 한국도서(섬)학회 2023 韓國島嶼硏究 Vol.35 No.4

This study considered that the complex importance of Pacific Island countries, including politics and economy, society and culture, ecology and environment, oceans and fisheries, health and medicine, resources and history, will increase further. The purpose of this study was to contribute to Korea's international community by studying Korea's perspective and approach strategy toward Pacific Island countries. Hence, future research should review the history of Pacific Island countries, early Europeans' perception of the Pacific region, and historical links with Korea to suggest perspectives and approach strategies that Korea should establish. In particular, the Yoon Seok-yeol government's Indo-Pacific Strategy emphasizes that Korea will contribute to the freedom, peace, and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific and lead the process so that all countries in the Indo-Pacific region coexist harmoniously. In this regard, it is proposed that international norms will be observed and regulations established based on universal values, including freedom, democracy, rule of law, and human rights, will be strengthened. Strengthening cooperation with other countries in various key fields is the core theme and main context that runs through the Indo-Pacific Strategy. As a result of the study, the direction of development approach strategies for Pacific Island countries is presented as follows. First, it is an active diplomatic response. Second, it is a search for a new independent and comprehensive foreign strategy and regional cooperation based on the Indo-Pacific strategy. Third is expanding Korea's role and contribution to the Pacific Islands region. Fourth, the linkage and cooperation with Pacific Island countries will be upgraded to the external strategy level and further expanded. Under the direction of this Pacific Island country development approach strategy, specific development approach strategies are presented as follows. First, strengthen economic cooperation and promote diversification strategies. Second, the strategy to promote infrastructure construction and development projects is promoted. Third, the promotion of sustainable development promotion strategies in response to sea level rise. Fourth is the promotion of education and cultural tourism exchange promotion strategies. Fifth, the promotion of security cooperation promotion approach strategies. Yet, the most important thing is that Korea must have a differentiated strategy when the world is courting Pacific Island countries. In addition, it should be kept in mind that a strategic approach is needed to specify cooperative projects tailored to the characteristics of Pacific Island countries.

미국과 중국의 “인도-태평양 전략”과 패권 경쟁

김재관 조선대학교 사회과학연구원 부설 동북아연구소 2018 동북아연구 Vol.33 No.2

The main purpose of this article is to explore the US and China’s “Indo-Pacific Strategy” and their countermeasure toward each other. In order to deter China’s overwhelming influence in the Indo-Pacific region, the US has been driving some foreign policies. First, policy transition from Rebalancing strategy toward Asian-pacific under the Obama administration to Indo-Pacific strategy. Second, maintaining and expanding US’s influence in Southeast Asia as the most conflictive region between US and China. Third, Tit-for-Tat strategy against China’s One-Belt/One-Road Initiative (BRI) under Xi’s regime. Fourth, launching trade war between US and China under Trump administration for mitigating US’s trade deficit with China. China also has been interested in the US Indo-Pacific strategy with fear. China’s basic perception of US Indo-Pacific strategy is as follows. First, There is no big difference between Rebalancing strategy toward Asia-Pacific under Obama’s regime and Indo-Pacific Strategy under Trump’s regime. Second, China regards Indo-Pacific strategy as containing China. China also independently has put forward to drive a assertive grand strategy called China’s Dream especially under Xi’s regime since globally rising China as G2. We can call this grand strategy Indo-Pacific strategy with China style. There are some China’s countermeasures to US Indo-Pacific strategy as follows. BRI, strategic security cooperation between China and Russia, expanding and consolidating Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Strategy of splitting Quad, engaging Southeast Asia, Taiwan, and Korean Peninsula as the most conflictive region between China and US. To avoid strategic dilemma within conflict between China and US, Moon administration has been vigorously pushing forward hedging policy toward US and China by building peace and co-prosperity through denuclearization of North Korea, New Northern & Southern Policy.

미국의 인도-태평양 전략은 신 봉쇄전략인가? -美 전략문서에 나타난 위협인식과 대소 봉쇄전략과의 비교-

김동은(Kim, Dong-eun) 한국군사문제연구원 2020 한국군사 Vol.7 No.-

미국의 인도-태평양 전략은 냉전기 대소 봉쇄전략과 같이 21세기판 대중 봉쇄전략이 될 것인가? 미국은 2019년 6월과 11월에 ‘인도-태평양 전략문서’를 공표함으로써 인도-태평양 전략의 목표는 ‘수정주의 강대국’ 중국임을 천명했다. 하지만 과연 인도-태평양 전략문서에 나타난 대중국 위협인식만을 가지고 미국의 인도-태평양 전략이 대중 신 봉쇄전략이라고 말할 수 있을까? 본 연구에서는 인도-태평양 전략문서에 나타난 미국의 위협인식을 분석하기 위해 냉전기 이후 미국의 대전략에 큰 영향을 끼친 스파이크먼의 ‘주변지역’ 이론을 기준으로 삼았다. 또한, 미국의 인도-태평양 전략이 과거 대소 봉쇄전략과 어떠한 유사점과 차이점을 보이는지를 비교하기 위해 케넌의 대소 봉쇄전략 핵심개념을 기준으로 선정했다. 결과적으로, 인도-태평양 지역 내 국가 간 상호의존성이 심화되는 현상으로 인해 미국의 인도-태평양 전략 수행은 더 어려워질 것이며, 인도-태평양 전략이 과거처럼 봉쇄적 측면으로만 치우칠 가능성은 작은 것으로 보인다. Will the U.S.’s Indo-Pacific strategy be successful in containing China in the 21<SUP>st</SUP> century, as the strategy of containment of the Soviet Union was used in the Cold War? In the months of June and November 2019, the U.S. issued the “Indo-Pacific Strategic Document” which labelled China a “revisionist power.” However, this study poses the question “Can we really say that Indo-Pacific strategy is a Cold War-style containment strategy for China only with the awareness of the China threat expressed in the Indo-Pacific strategic document? In this study, we used Nicholas Spykman’s “Rimland theory,” which had a significant impact on the U.S. grand strategy after the Cold War, to analyze the U.S.’s threats perceptions described in the Indo-Pacific Strategic Documents. In addition, George Kennan’s core concept of containment strategy was selected to compare the similarities and differences between the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy for China in the 21<SUP>st</SUP> century and the U.S. containment strategy againt the Soviet Union in the Cold War. As a result, it can be argued that the deepening interdependence between countries in the Indo-Pacific region will make it more difficult for the U.S. to carry out the Indo-Pacific strategy. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy will only lean towards containment strategy as it did in the Cold War.

미·중간의 지정학적 해양패권경쟁과 한국의 안보전략

배학영(Bae, Hack-Young) 한국해양대학교 국제해양문제연구소 2022 해항도시문화교섭학 Vol.- No.27

인도·태평양전략은 이름에서 알 수 있듯이, 인도·태평양(해양)을 중심으로 한 지전략(Geostrategy)이다. 그러나 지금까지의 미·중경쟁을 주제로 인도 태평양전략을 연구한 논문들은 많은 부분을 미 중의 두 강대국 간의 다양한 분야(정치, 경제, 군사 등)의 국제관계 혹은, 미·중의 국내정치적인 측면에서 다루고 있다. 지전략의 출발은 해당 지역의 중요성, 전략적 가치에서 출발해야 제대로 된 전략을 도출할 수 있다. 그러나 국제정치적 수준에서 다루다 보니 인도·태평양 자체의 중요성에 대해서는 간과한 면이 있다. 이 논문은 인도·태평양을 지전략으로 정의하고, 해당 지역의 전략적 가치를 해양 측면에서 분석하고 있다. 인도·태평양의 중요성을 인구, 지역경제블럭, 해양관할권, 심해 저자원, 원유수송로 등의 해양적 관점에서 제시하였다. 미국은 이렇게 중요한 인도·태평양에서 미국과 중국은 충돌할 가능성은 날로 높아지고 있다. 특히, 미국은 인도·태평양사령부를 중심으로 3가지 노력선(Prepareness, Partnership, Promoting a Networked Region) 구현을 위해 다양한 노력을 경주하고 있다. 중국, 또한, 해양실크로드 건설을 위해 인도·태평양을 중심으로 전세계 해상교통로 확보에 집중하고 있다. 이렇게 미·중간의 경쟁이 지전략적인 가치가 높은 인도태평양지역에서 심화되면서 우리에게도 중요한 인도·태평양의 안전이 위협받고 있다. 하지만 인도태평양 지역(특히, 동·남중국해)가 왜 우리에게 중요한지 우리의 산업구조를 통해 구체적으로 제시하고, 만일 미중 갈등으로 인해 해상교통로가 마비되면 우리에게 어떠한 영향을 미칠지를 제시하고자한다. 또한, 주변국과 해양경계획정이 되지 않은 상황에서 보다 넓은 해양영토확보를 위해 인도·태평양 지역은 매우 중요하다. 이러한 미 중 갈등, 미국의 인도·태평양전략과 군사적 활동, 인도·태평양의 우리에게 중요성 등을 고려하여 앞으로 미·중 경쟁 속에서 우리가 마주할 다양한 양자택일의 해양에서 이슈에 대해 우리 국익이 최대가 되는 방안을 선택할 수 있는 고민이 필요하다. As its name suggests, the Indo-Pacific Strategy is a geostrategy centered on the Indo-Pacific(Ocean). However, many of the scholars that have studied the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy on the subject of the U.S.-China competition so far deal with international relations and domestic politics of the U.S. and China. The start of the geo-strategy must start from the importance of the region and strategic values to derive a proper strategy, but the importance of the Indo-Pacific itself has been overlooked as it is handled at the international political level. This paper defines the Indo-Pacific Strategy as a geostrategy and analyzes the strategic value of the region from the maritime perspective. The importance of the Indo-Pacific Ocean was presented from the marine perspective of population, regional economic blocks, maritime jurisdiction, deep-sea resources, and crude oil transport routes. The United States is making various efforts to implement three lines of effort (Preparance, Partnership, Promoting a Networked Region) centered on the Indo-Pacific Command. This Indo-Pacific is also important to us. Due to Koreas industrial structure, it relies heavily on imports of raw materials and exports of final products through the sea. Therefore, the maritime transportation route itself is very important. In addition, the Indo-Pacific region is very important to secure a wider marine territory in the absence of a agreement on maritime delimitation line with neighboring countries. Considering the U.S.-China conflict, the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy and military activities, and the importance of the U.S.-China competition to us, it is necessary to consider how Korea can choose various policy options to maximize national interest in the future.

From Conceptual Idea to Strategic Reality: ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy’ from the Perspective of Chinese Scholars

Li Li,Tianjiao Jiang 경남대학교 극동문제연구소 2023 ASIAN PERSPECTIVE Vol.47 No.1

Chinese scholars’ research on “Indo-Pacific Strategy” has undergone two shifts. Firstly, they began to pay limited attention to the Indo-Pacific concept and the US Indo-Pacific regional strategy in 2013. With 2017 and 2018 as the turning point, the attention to the Indo-Pacific strategy shows a significant increase. Secondly, regarding the scholars’ judgment of the Indo-Pacific strategy, since the end of 2019, they reach a consensus on their assessment of the strategy, especially on its threat to China. The two main reasons that drove the above shifts were the enrichment of the Indo-Pacific Strategy by the United States and China’s perception of India’s attitudes. China’s official responses to the strategy have shown a co-moving rhythm with scholars’ research, shifting from a more open and neutral attitude toward the concept to a critical one. Against the background of America’s continuing effort to implement the Indo-Pacific strategy, China’s policy responses can focus on three aspects: do a good job of itself, handle China-US relations peacefully and cooperatively, and break down the group politics.

트럼프 행정부의 인도-태평양 전략과 한국에 대한 함의

김주리 한국국방연구원 2020 국방정책연구 Vol.35 No.4

The Trump Administration has consistently stressed that the Indo-Pacific is the priority theater and the most consequential region for the U.S. The Department of Defense’s 2019 Indo-Pacific Strategy Report is important in that it is the first strategy report containing the Trump administration’s awareness of the strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific region and the specific ways in which it can be implemented. This paper attempts to analyze how the U.S. Grand Strategy and military and security strategy under the Trump administration are reflected in the Indo-Pacific strategy and policy based on the 2019 Indo-Pacific Strategy Report It also reviews the constraints that may be involved in implementing this. Based on this analysis, the implications and policy implications for South Korea are drawn. 트럼프 행정부는 지속적으로 인도-태평양 지역이 미국에 있어 가장 중요한 권역임을 강조해왔다. 특히, 2019 인도-태평양 전략보고서는 트럼프 행정부의 인도-태평양 지역에 대한 전략 환경 인식과 전략이 이행되는 구체적인 방안들을 담은 첫 번째 전략보고서라는 점에서 중요성을 갖는다. 이에 본고는 2019 인도-태평양 전략보고서를 중심으로 트럼프 행정부하의 미국의 대전략과 군사･안보전략이 인도-태평양 지역 전략에 어떻게 반영되어 정책화되고 있는지에 대한 분석을 시도한다. 또한 이를 이행하는 데 작용할 수 있는 제약 사항에 대해 검토한다. 이러한 분석을 바탕으로 한국에 주는 함의와 정책적 시사점에 대해 도출한다.

일본의 인도-태평양 통상정책: 위기관리 전략으로서 인도태평양경제프레임워크 (IPEF)

석민규,박창건 현대일본학회 2024 日本硏究論叢 Vol.59 No.-

본 연구의 목적은 미중 전략경쟁 체제에서 일본의 인도-태평양 통상정책이 어떻게 발현되고 있는지 조명하는 것이다. 논의의 초점은 일본의 인도-태평양 통상정책을 설명하기 위해 인도-태평양경제프레임워크(IPEF: Indo-Pacific Economic Framework)라는 실증적 사례를 위기관리 전략으로 분석하고 있다. 현재 일본의 인도-태평양 통상정책은 미중 전략경쟁 속에서 경제안보 이익을 효율적으로 확보하기 위해 1) 지역의 경제적 번영의 추구, 2) 통상분야에서의 국제적 질서 설정, 3) 인도-태평양 지역의 연결성 향상을 추진하고 있다. 그중에서 IPEF는 인도-태평양 지역에서 공급망 위기와 글로벌 가치사슬(GVC: Global Value Chain) 재편에 대응하기 위한 전략적 수단으로 자리 잡고 있다. 특히 IPEF에 대한 일본의 대응은 일견 미국 중심의 경제안보 연대에 편승하는 것처럼 보이지만, 실은 중국과의 협력을 이어가기 위한 모습이 포함된 이중적 성격을 띠고 있다. This study aimed to determine how Japan's Indo-Pacific trade policy serves as an indicator of the US-China strategic competition. The discussion focuses on analyzing the empirical grouping of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) as a decentralization management strategy to explain Japan's Indo-Pacific trade policy. Japan's Indo-Pacific trade policy is 1) Pursuing economic prosperity in the region, 2) Establishing an international order in the field of trade, and 3) Improving the connectivity of the Indo-Pacific region in order to efficiently secure economic and security benefits in the U.S.-China strategic competition. Among them, IPEF is positioned as a strategic means to respond to supply chain crises and global value chain (GVC) reorganization in the Indo-Pacific region. In particular, Japan's response to IPEF seems to be on the side of the U.S.-centered economic security alliance, but in fact, it has a dual character that includes the appearance of continuing cooperation with China.

Evolution of U.S. Military Strategy Since the 2010s: U.S.-China Rivalry and Strategic Pivot to East Asia

공민석 사단법인 코리아컨센서스연구원 2022 분석과 대안 Vol.6 No.3

The purpose of this article is to trace the evolutionary process of U.S. military strategy and its implications within a structural and macroscopic context of change in America’s grand strategy since the 2010s. The most important change that defined the U.S. global strategy during the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 was the sense of crisis of deteriorating hegemony and the rapid rise of China. East Asia was the region of utmost importance in terms of responding to such change and the U.S. searched vigorously for a new global strategy that centers around East Asia. The ‘Rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific’ strategy of the Obama administration and the global strategies of the Trump and Biden administrations, which were both focused on the Indo-Pacific, were all results of such strategic thinking. U.S. military strategy also changed in tandem with such a transition in the global strategy. Despite the budgetary restrictions during the Obama administration, the U.S. drastically reinforced equipment in the Asia-Pacific region and proposed the air-sea battle and JOAC as a new concept of operation that takes into account a potential conflict with China. The Trump administration expanded the Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific and strengthened the tendency of military reinforcement in the West Pacific. Also, JADO, a developed form of JOAC, was declared as a new concept of operation, and the strengthening of integrated conduct of operation capability and cutting-edge military power was emphasized. The Biden administration developed JADO to JWC and strengthened the third offset strategy through the concept of Integrated deterrence, which centers on cutting-edge defense sciences and technology. Such evolution of U.S. military strategy observed since the 2010s shows that the U.S. military strategy, which takes into account a strategical competition with China, maintains a flow of consistency despite various domestic and foreign changes. This also implies that the current military strategy of the U.S. will not change in a short period. Amid the intensification of a new Cold War confrontation, there lies a great risk of aggravated tension within East Asia when the Biden administration’s strategy of restoring alliance and China’s aggressive foreign strategy collide.

방어적 현실주의로서의 ‘미국의 인도-태평양 전략’ 분석

강성철 ( Kang Sungchul ) 숭실대학교 숭실평화통일연구원 2024 평화통일논총 Vol.3 No.2

본 논문은 21세기 미국의 대전략인 ‘인도-태평양 전략’을 ‘자유주의’가 아닌 ‘방어적 현실주의’ 관점에서 분석하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 탈냉전기 들어 국제질서를 설명하는 데 있어, 현실주의는 약화하고 자유주의적 국제질서 이론이 재조명을 받았다. 하지만 이런 기조는 지속되지 못하고 지위가 흔들리며 방황을 맞이했다. 오바마 행정부 시기, “아시아로의 회귀(Pivot to Asia)”로 시작된 아시아 중시 전략은 트럼프 행정부 들어 ‘미국 최우선 정책’에 바탕을 둔 인도-태평양 전략으로 발전되었고, 바이든 행정부 역시 ‘미국의 글로벌 리더십 복원’과 ‘미국 우선주의(국익 우선)’의 특성이 혼재된 ‘현실주의적 국제주의’ 형태를 보인다. 이들 행정부의 공통된 “인도-태평양 전략”은 자유주의의 틀을 갖춘 현실주의적 접근이라 볼 수 있다. 그렇다면 인-태 전략이 나오게 된 이론적 배경은 신현실주의의 뒤를 이은 미어샤이머의 ‘공세적 현실주의’인가, 월트의 ‘방어적 현실주의’인가? 두 학자의 이론은 미 행정부의 외교정책 실패에 대해 같은 시각(‘자유주의는 환상이며, 미국 외교정책의 실책을 피하기 위해서는 현실주의적 입장을 고수해야 한다.’)을 보인다. 본 논문은 월트의 ‘방어적 현실주의’ 입장인 “역외 균형론”으로 바이든 행정부의 인도-태평양 전략을 분석하려 한다. 또한 월트의 역외 균형론이 인도-태평양과 동북아 지역에 적용된다고 예상할 때, 미국 외교ㆍ안보 전략의 방향성 변화가 어떻게 이루어지는지를 알아보고 그렇다면 한국의 입장과 외교적 원칙은 어떠해야 할지 살펴보려 한다. This paper aims to analyze the Indo-Pacific Strategy, a grand strategy of the United States in the 21st century, from the perspective of 'defensive realism' rather than 'liberalism'. In explaining the international order during the post-Cold War era, realism weakened and liberal theories of international order gained prominence. However, this trend was not sustained, and its status was shaken and drifted. The Asia-centered strategy that began with the Pivot to Asia during the Obama administration has evolved into the Indo-Pacific strategy based on the America First Policy under the Trump administration, and the Biden administration has also taken on a form of realist internationalism that mixes the characteristics of restoring America's global leadership and America First (national interests first). Their common Indo-Pacific strategy can be seen as a realist approach with a liberal framework. The theoretical background of the Indo-Pacific strategy is Meersheimer's 'offensive realism' that followed neorealism, or Walt's 'defensive realism'? Both scholars' theories share the same view of the U.S. administration's foreign policy failures ('Liberalism is an illusion, and we must adhere to a realist stance in order to avoid U.S. foreign policy mistakes. This paper will analyze the Biden administration's Indo-Pacific strategy through Walt's offshore balancing theory, a position of defensive realism. It will also examine how the direction of the U.S. foreign and security strategy would change if Walt's offshore balancing theory were applied to the Indo-Pacific and Northeast Asia, and what South Korea's position and diplomatic principles should be.