바이든 행정부 출범 이후 미중 전략경쟁: 쟁점과 접점

김예경 경남대학교 극동문제연구소 2022 한국과 국제정치 Vol.38 No.2

This article presupposes that the U.S.-China strategic competition is not just conflict-oriented. There has always been room for cooperation behind the conflict between the U.S. and China. Therefore, it is necessary to attempt to see the gap between ‘rhetoric and reality’ in the U.S.-China strategic competition process. Under the awareness of the problem, this article presents Korea's response direction by dividing the main issues of the U.S.-China strategic competition into "issues" and "points of contact." First, it presents the conflict between the U.S. and China, focusing on "international norms" and "interests," which are becoming "issues" of the U.S.-China strategic competition. Second, It presents “points of contact” that are not willing to compete in the U.S.-China strategic competition but can be compromised. The U.S. and China share profits in the economic sector, climate change, and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and have explored the possibility of conflict management and cooperation over these areas. Finally, the direction of Korea's response was suggested.

미⋅중 전략경쟁, 전쟁으로 갈 것인가? : 세력우위론적 접근

남궁영,장시영 국가안보전략연구원 2023 국가안보와 전략 Vol.23 No.4

As strategic competition between the U.S. and China intensifies, the possibility of a substantial conflict between the two powers cannot be ruled out. Based on William Thompson, Peter Brecke, and Randall Schweller’s international system’s polarity classification, the study analyzed the current polarity using economic power (GDP), military power (military expenditure), and national power (Global Power Index [GPI]). As a result, China’s rise in the current U.S.-dominated international system was witnessed. The power preponderance theory, referring to the power transition theory and the hegemonic stability theory, discusses the possibility of a power transition between the hegemonic state and the potential challenger when the challenger’s national power equals that of the hegemonic state. In the late 1970s, China pursued the so-called Open Door Policy and became the world’s second-largest state in terms of economic, military, and national power. Based on this, China has become a revisionist state and seeks to replace the existing system. Given that China, China’s Bloc among great powers, and China’s influence spheres are all inferior to the U.S. in terms of economic, military, and national power, the possibility of substantial conflict between the two countries is currently low. However, if China becomes equivalent to the United States regarding economic, military, and overall national power, the possibility of a war between the U.S. and China cannot be ruled out. China is seeking to build a ‘China-styled’ modern socialist superpower by 2049, and the U.S. clearly intends to block it, seeing China as the only challenger to the current international system. As the U.S. and China have conflicting goals, the tension between the two countries is escalating.

시진핑 시기 중국의 대외전략 변화와 한반도 정책에 대한 영향

신종호 통일연구원 2016 統一 政策 硏究 Vol.25 No.2

China has set ‘peaceful development’ and ‘safeguarding core interests’ as the tenets of foreign strategy in the Xi Jinping era. Beijing has pursued an active and engaged foreign policy to boost its influence in East Asia and secure its spot as the regional power. Based on this principle, China suggested ‘a new type of major power relations’ with the U.S. and has responded aggressively to the territorial dispute in the South China Sea. The problem is that change in China‘s foreign strategy tenet, the strengthening of China’s neighborhood diplomacy, and the U.S.-China strategic competition in East Asia affect China’s policy on Korean Peninsula. From the Chinese point of view, which focuses on having greater influence over the Korean Peninsula, it strategically ‘maintains’ the relations with both Koreas as a preparatory measure for the strategic competition with the U.S. Regarding the facts that China perceives the issue of Korean Peninsula as a subset of U.S.-China strategic competition and structural factor that upholds the DPRK-China relations remains intact indicates that it is difficult for South Korea to excessively rely on ‘China’s role’ in solving the North Korean issue and the nuclear issue. Rather, South Korea should present a long-term vision on North Korea and Korean unification to China to take the initiative in the resolution to the issue of the Korean Peninsula. To this end, Seoul should establish a priority list for national interests, consistently implement it in foreign affairs, coordinate the goal of North Korea sanctions by bolstering ROK-U.S.-China trilateral cooperation, and simultaneously consider pressure and diplomatic solution. Finally, multilayered and multidimensional approaches to cooperation and ‘policy public diplomacy’ ought to be reinforced to substantiate ROK-China strategic cooperative partnership. 시진핑 시기 중국은 ‘평화적 발전’과 ‘핵심이익 수호’를 대외전략 기조로 설정하고, 동아시아에서의 영향력 증대 및 지역강대국 지위 확보를 위해 이전 보다 더 적극적이고 주도적인 외교정책을 추진하고 있다. 이를 기반으로 중국은 미국과 ‘신형대국관계’ 구축을 제안했고, 남중국해 영유권 문제에 대해서도 강경하게 대응하고 있다. 문제는 중국의 대외전략 기조의 변화와 주변외교 강화 및 동아시아에서 미중 전략경쟁이 중국의 한반도 정책에 영향을 미치고 있다는 점이다. 한반 도에 대한 영향력 확대를 중시하는 중국의 입장에서는 미국과의 전략 경쟁에 대비하는 차원에서 남북한 모두와의 관계를 전략적으로 ‘관리’하고 있다. 중국이 한반도 문제를 미중 전략경쟁의 하위구 조로 인식하고 있고, 북중관계를 지탱하는 구조적 요인이 여전하다는 점에서 북핵·북한문제 해결과정 에서 ‘중국역할론’을 과도하게 기대하기 어렵다. 오히려 우리가 대북·통일정책에 대한 장기적 비전을 중국에게 제시함으로써 한반도 문제 해결의 주도권을 확보해야 한다. 이를 위해 국가이익 우선순위를 설정하여 대외관계에 일관되게 적용하고, 한·미·중 3자 협력을 강화하여 대북제재의 목표를 조율하고 압박과 외교적 해결 방안을 동시에 고려해야 한다. 한중 전략적 협력 동반자 관계의 내실화를 위해 다층적·다차원적 협력 및 정책공공외교를 강화할 필요가 있다.

미중 전략경쟁과 우크라이나의 대응 전략

김정기 한양대학교 아태지역연구센터 2022 중소연구 Vol.46 No.2

This article examines the impact of the U.S.-China strategic competition on Ukraine, strategic implications, and countermeasures from a realistic perspective. And this article analyzes the correlation between the US-China strategic competition and the Ukraine war. On February 24, 2022, the Russia-Ukraine War broke out amidst intensifying strategic competition between the United States and China. The impact of the US-China conflict was linked to a strategic actor called Russia and led to the invasion of Ukraine. And the US-China conflict is fixing the confrontational structure between Russia and Ukraine and between the US and Russia. In other words, it can be said that Ukraine became the first strategic victim of the US-China conflict and confrontation. Russia is trying to gain recognition for its sphere of influence, such as “restoring hegemony in Eurasia,” using the US-China strategic competition structure. In the process, Russia is using Ukraine as a means of achieving its goals and is threatening Ukraine's sovereignty and independence. For this reason, Ukraine is concerned and wary of the possibility that great powers may decide Ukraine's own fate regardless of its will. In this regard, the US-China strategic competition can be expected to have similar negative effects on the Korean Peninsula as in Ukraine. Therefore, we need to use the Ukraine crisis as an opportunity to reflect on and respond to the preservation of national sovereignty, territory, and security. 이글은 미중 전략경쟁이 우크라이나에 미치는 영향, 전략적 함의, 대응 전략 등을 현실적인 관점에서 고찰하고, 우크라이나 전쟁과의 상관성을 분석하고 있다. 미중 전략경쟁이 격화되고 있는 와중에 2022년 2월 24일 러시아-우크라이나 전쟁이 발발했다. 이는 미․중 갈등의 영향이 러시아라는 전략적 행위자를 움직여 우크라이나 침공으로까지 이어졌으며, 러시아․우크라이나 간/미․러 간 대립적 구조를 고착시키고 있다. 즉 우크라이나는 미중 갈등․대립에 의한 최초의 전략적 희생자가 되었다고 할 수 있다. 러시아는 미중 전략경쟁 구도를 이용하여 약소국 우크라이나를 매개로 ‘유라시아 지역의 패권 복원’ 등 자신의 세력권을 인정받고자 하고 있으며, 그 과정에서 우크라이나의 주권과 독립을 위협하고 있다. 이와 관련 우크라이나는 자국의 의지와 상관없이 강대국들이 운명을 결정할 가능성을 우려하고 경계하고 있다. 이런 점에서 우크라이나 전쟁으로 이어진 미중 전략경쟁은 우리에게도 유사한 부정적 영향을 미칠 것이라는 점에서 국가 주권과 영토의 보존, 안보에 대한 성찰과 대응을 요구하는 계기가 되고 있다.

미·중 패권경쟁시대 인태 지역의 자유주의 국제질서: 도전과 전망

이신화,박재적 한국외국어대학교 국제지역연구센터 2021 국제지역연구 Vol.25 No.2

The U.S.-China relationship is exacerbating into an all-round competition as their zero-sum "frame competition" over global hegemonic influence. Both big powers put forward multilateralism, which originally aims at pursuing the common good of the international community, not individual national interests. But in reality, they are competing against each other to bring more countries to their side. Biden's multilateralist strategy to restore the U.S.-led liberal international order(LIO) is exclusive to countries that do not participate in the multilateral democratic alliance as it aims for anti-China solidarity with democracies. China has been actively expanding its influence in multilateral organizations through financial and human contribution, but Chinese-style multilateralism is criticized for being a rhetoric to ignore international laws and norms and forcefully carry out its national interests. As the U.S.-China hegemony competition is getting fierce, small and medium-sized countries are in a strategic dilemma of choosing between them. ‘Minilateral’ cooperation at the regional level is also likely to turn into a venue for a clash of geopolitical competitions between the U.S. and China rather than functioning as a mechanism that supports the LIO in the Indo-Pacific region. As a result, the middle power diplomacy (despite various limitations) is drawing attention. After all, the future of the U.S.-led LIO, challenged by China's rise, the relative decline of U.S. hegemony, and the U.S.-China strategic competition, will depend on whether the U.S. has the ability and will to continue to provide global public goods, and whether the international community, centered on middle power countries in the region, will provide support or solidarity for U.S. leadership. 국제질서의 주도권을 둘러싼 미·중의 전략적 경합이 전방위에서 진행 중이다. 양 강대국 모두 국제사회의 공동선(善)을 추구하는 다자협력을 강조하고 있으나, 실제로는 진영경쟁에 매진하고 있다. 미국 주도의 자유주의 국제질서(LIO)를 회복하려는 바이든 대통령의 다자주의 전략은 민주주의 국가들과의 반중 연대를 지향하고 있어 다자주의 민주동맹에 참가하지 않는 국가들에게는 배타적이다. 중국은 대규모 재정적·인적 자원을 동원하여 다자기구에서 적극적으로 영향력을 확대해왔으나, 국제법과 규범을 무시하는 중국식 다자주의에 대한 비판이 크다. 역내 (소)다자 협력도 미·중 대립이 가장 첨예한 인도·태평양(인태) 지역 LIO를 지탱하는 하나의 축으로 기능하기보다는 양 강대국의 지정학적 경합이 충돌하는 기제로 변질할 가능성이 크다. 이러한 맥락에서 미·중 전략경쟁을 완화하기 위한 중견국 역할론이 주목받고 있다. 양 강대국이 주도하는 네트워크가 갈등적 경쟁상태일 때, 중견국 연합체의 행위에 따라 경합하는 안보 네트워크들의 관계가 더 분쟁적이 되거나, 더 협력하게 될 수도 있기 때문이다. 결국, 중국의 부상, 미국 패권의 상대적 쇠락 및 미·중 전략경쟁으로 도전받고 있는 LIO의 향배는 미국이 중국과의 패권경쟁 상황에서 글로벌 공공재를 계속해서 제공할 능력과 의지가 있는지와 더불어, 역내 중견국이 주축이 되는 국제사회가 LIO를 위해 얼마나 건설적인 역할을 수행할 수 있는지에 크게 영향받게 될 것이다. 본고는 강대국에 대한 레버리지 확대를 위한 (소)다자협력의 중요성을 강조한다는 점에서 신제도주의적 관점을 취하지만, 강대국 정치라는 구조에서 각국이 국익확보의 일환으로 (소)다자협력과 중견국 역할에 주목한다는 점에서 신현실주의적 시각을 포함한다.

Behavioral Choices of Middle Powers in U.S.–China Strategic Competition: A Neoclassical Realism Perspective

Chaoying Zhang,Tong Sun 한국국방연구원 2024 The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis Vol.36 No.1

In the face of competition from great powers, the strategic choices that middle powers should make are a theoretical and practical issue that demands careful deliberation and in-depth research. In the post-Cold War era of U.S.–China strategic competition, the middle powers have adopted diverse strategies such as picking sides, hedging, and staying neutral. The behavioral choices of middle powers in the U.S.–China strategic competition are constrained not only by the intensity of U.S.– China competition and the type of dependence on the United States at the systemic level, but also by the strategic preferences of domestic policymakers and strategic elites. The intensity of U.S.–China competition and the dependency structures on great powers, as systemic factors, shape the range of behavioral choices for middle powers in the U.S.–China strategic competition. Meanwhile, domestic factors, acting as mediating variables, convey the directives issued by external structural variables, ultimately influencing and determining middle powers’ specific policies and behavioral patterns in the U.S.–China strategic competition. Canada, South Korea, and Argentina have chosen to pick a side, stay neutral, or hedge at different stages due to a combination of systemic and domestic factors, validating the core argument of this paper.

중국의 대한반도정책의 딜레마: 전환과 지속의 갈림길에서

이정남 경남대학교 극동문제연구소 2015 한국과 국제정치 Vol.31 No.3

This paper examines the dilemma in China’s policy vis-à-vis the Korean peninsula in terms of the change in China’s perception of its national identity and the importance of structural factors due to the strategic competition with the U.S. in Northeast Asia. With the rise of Xi Jinping has come a foreign policy direction which has been developing in line with that of a great power identity. With this, the impact of variables with regards to strategic competition between the U.S. has become more decisive in terms of China’s policy towards North Korea and the Korea unification issue. On one side, the China's government has increasingly concerned about the threat to peace in the region that North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests have created. However, this is not the only reason for taking a hard-line policy towards North Korea. Rather than protecting the North Korea which continues to create instability, there are signs which China’s government is beginning to consider that unification under Seoul does not pose any strategic risk. On the other side, it is argued that the strategic competition with the U.S. as a rival great power has created structural conditions that limit fundamental changes in China’s policy vis-à-vis the Korean peninsula. As the U.S.-South Korea and U.S.-Japan alliances are strong, North Korea can be regarded as an important strategic partner that China cannot give up.

“Chip War” Between U.S. and China : Restructuring the Trans-Pacific Semiconductor Value Chain

백두주 부경대학교 글로벌지역학연구소 2022 Journal of Global and Area Studies(JGA) Vol.6 No.3

This study analyzes the characteristics and contents of strategic competition between the U.S. and China through the reorganization of the Trans-Pacific semiconductor value chain (SVC). The research results are as follows: First, the Trans-Pacific SVC grew under the leadership of the U.S. government in the 1960s. In the 1980s, the U.S. faced a crisis with the growth of Japan’s semiconductor industry; however, the U.S. recovered leadership in semiconductors through an agreement based on predatory hegemony. The globalization of the semiconductor industry was differentiated by production process and consequently geopolitical risks and vulnerabilities, the decline of the manufacturing capacity of the U.S.’s semiconductor industry, and the resulting rise of China’s industry. Second, in the 2000s, China promoted an upward stratification strategy from its position in the existing low-value-added and labor-intensive value chain. Thus, awareness of the crisis regarding technological hegemony in the U.S. has increased. The U.S. is currently pursuing a technology blockade strategy against China, starting with the trade dispute in 2018, to prevent the rise of China. Third, the U.S. SVC’s competitive strategy is to reorganize the Trans-Pacific SVC based on onshoring and friendshoring. In response to this, China is establishing a domestic Red Supply Chain as China’s “self-reliance and self-improvement” in the semiconductor industry and advanced technology. In the future, the Trans-Pacific SVC will be reorganized around the “Semicon Pivot to the U.S.” and China’s “Red Value Chain” establishment strategy. Under these conditions, the Trans-Pacific SVC is entering a new “Age of Transition.”

미·중 경쟁 시대의 한국 외교 - 전략적 자율성과 동맹 강화의 딜레마 -

이성현 ( Lee Seong-hyon ) 한국외교협회 2024 외교 Vol.151 No.0

This paper examines the evolving nature of U.S. global leadership in the 21st century, focusing on its implications for the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. By analyzing the historical context of American leadership and drawing parallels with the British Empire, the study provides a foundation for understanding current geopolitical dynamics, particularly the intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. This great power competition profoundly affects strategic position of the Republic of Korea(ROK, South Korea), complicating its relationships with both powers. To address these challenges, the United States must continue to exercise leadership on global issues while strengthening cooperation with its allies, whereas South Korea must enhance its security through its alliance with the U.S. while pursuing its own strategic autonomy. The future success of the U.S.-ROK alliance hinges on finding a new equilibrium between cooperation and autonomy, adapting to the changing dynamics of the international landscape. The paper argues that the U.S. must adapt its leadership style to a multipolar world, while South Korea navigates the complex U.S.-China relationship. To effectively manage these challenges, the analysis concludes by recommending that South Korea establish a bipartisan ‘U.S.-China Relations Committee’ in its National Assembly, modeled after the U.S. Congress’s USCC, to analyze U.S.-China dynamics comprehensively. Additionally, it emphasizes the need for South Korea to enhance its diplomatic capabilities and negotiation skills to navigate the complexities of U.S.-China relations effectively, thereby maintaining stability in Northeast Asia while pursuing its national interests in an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.

존재론적 안보와 미중 전략경쟁 시대의 북중 ‘전략적 협력’

신종호 경남대학교 극동문제연구소 2025 한국과 국제정치 Vol.41 No.1

본 논문은 미중 전략경쟁이 심화되는 국제정세 속에서 북중 간 ‘전략적 협력’이 어떠한 내재적 동인에 의해 재구성되고 있는지를 존재론적 안보 이론을 통해 분석한다. 전통적 안보 이론이 물리적 생존과 단기적 이해관계에 초점을 맞춘 반면, 존재론적 안보이론은 국가가 자국 정체성을 유지․강화하려는 욕구에서 비롯된 행위를 설명한다. 냉전 시기 중국과 북한은 이념적 유대와 지정학적 이해관계를 바탕으로 긴밀한 협력 관계를 유지했으나, 탈냉전 이후 북한의 핵․미사일 개발과 국제질서 재편 등으로 인해 양국관계는 갈등과 협력의 양면성을 보이며 불안정해졌다. 특히 최근 미중 전략경쟁의 심화는 북한으로 하여금 미국의 군사․경제적 압박을 ‘주체’ 정체성과 ‘자력갱생’의 위협으로 인식하게 하였고, 이에 대응한 핵 능력 강화 및 중국과의 협력을 선택하게 하였다. 중국 역시 미국의 봉쇄전략과 자국의 ‘강대국’ 정체성이 위협받는 상황에서 북한을 전략적 완충지대로 활용하여 존재론적 안정 확보에 나서게 하였다. 이러한 상호작용은 단순한 물질적 이해관계의 조정을 넘어, 각국이 내면적으로 느끼는 실존적 불안과 정체성 위기를 해소하기 위한 전략적 선택으로 나타난다. 즉, 북한은 ‘사실상의 핵 보유국’ 정체성을 통해 체제 정당성을 재확인하고 국제적 고립을 극복하려 하고, 중국은 ‘중화민족의 위대한 부흥’이라는 자전적 서사를 바탕으로 미국 견제에 대응하며 자국의 존재론적 안보를 강화하려는 복합적 전략을 전개한다. 결국, 본 연구는 미중 전략경쟁, 북한의 핵 정체성 강화, 그리고 중국의 강대국 정체성 유지라는 상호 보완적 요인이 북중관계를 단순한 동맹을 넘어 정체성 유지와 실존적 안정 확보를 위한 복합적 협력으로 재구성하고 있음을 보여준다. This study analyzes how North Korea-China ‘strategic cooperation’ is being reconstructed under the intensifying U.S.-China strategic competition through the lens of ontological security theory. While traditional security theories focus on physical survival and short-term interests, ontological security theory explains state behavior as driven by the desire to maintain and strengthen national identity. During the Cold War, China and North Korea maintained a close cooperative relationship based on ideological ties and geopolitical interests. However, after the Cold War, North Korea’s nuclear and missile development, along with shifts in the international order, led to a relationship characterized by both conflict and cooperation, making it increasingly unstable. The recent intensification of U.S.-China strategic competition has prompted North Korea to perceive U.S. military and economic pressure as a threat to its ‘Juche’ identity and ‘self-reliance’ policy, leading it to strengthen its nuclear capabilities and deepen cooperation with China. Similarly, China, faced with the U.S. containment strategy and threats to its ‘great power’ identity, has sought to secure its ontological stability by utilizing North Korea as a strategic buffer zone. This interaction goes beyond the mere coordination of material interests and represents a strategic choice aimed at mitigating existential anxiety and identity crises within each state. North Korea reaffirms its regime legitimacy and seeks to overcome international isolation through its de facto nuclear state identity, while China strengthens its ontological security by countering U.S. containment through the narrative of the “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation.” Ultimately, this study demonstrates that the interplay of U.S.-China strategic competition, North Korea’s nuclear identity consolidation, and China’s pursuit of great power status has transformed North Korea-China relations into a complex form of cooperation that extends beyond a simple alliance, focusing on identity preservation and existential stability.