The Two Koreas after U.S. Unipolarity: In Search of a New North Korea Policy

황지환 서울대학교 국제학연구소 2013 Journal of International and Area Studies Vol.20 No.1

The global and East Asian orders of power are now represented by China's economic, military, and diplomatic rise and America's decline. While U.S.-China relations represent a set of the most important variables in world politics, the meaning of China’s rise is much greater on the Korean Peninsula. Given the recurring balance of power shift from the U.S. preponderance of power for the last two decades, it is necessary to rethink the security environment in the region. In this vein, South Korea may need to examine the meaning of the rise of China for the Korean Peninsula, especially with regard to the North Korean issue. In reality, China's rise has presented South Korea with a complex and difficult challenge in dealing with North Korea. As a result of the rise of China and changes in Chinese-North Korean relations, the North Korean problem can no longer be seen from the post-Cold War framework of the 1990s. North Korea is now a nation strongly dependent on and supported by a rising China. Thus, it is high time for South Korea to think again about its North Korea policy. The South Korean government needs to reassess the changing balance of power on the Korean Peninsula and seek a new North Korea policy that can increase its influence on North Korea.

The Two Koreas after U.S. Unipolarity: In Search of a New North Korea Policy

Jihwan Hwang 서울대학교 국제학연구소 2013 Journal of International and Area Studies Vol.20 No.1

The global and East Asian orders of power are now represented by China's economic, military, and diplomatic rise and America's decline. While U.S.-China relations represent a set of the most important variables in world politics, the meaning of China's rise is much greater on the Korean Peninsula. Given the recurring balance of power shift from the U.S. preponderance of power for the last two decades, it is necessary to rethink the security environment in the region. In this vein, South Korea may need to examine the meaning of the rise of China for the Korean Peninsula, especially with regard to the North Korean issue. In reality, China's rise has presented South Korea with a complex and difficult challenge in dealing with North Korea. As a result of the rise of China and changes in Chinese-North Korean relations, the North Korean problem can no longer be seen from the post-Cold War framework of the 1990s. North Korea is now a nation strongly dependent on and supported by a rising China. Thus, it is high time for South Korea to think again about its North Korea policy. The South Korean government needs to reassess the changing balance of power on the Korean Peninsula and seek a new North Korea policy that can increase its influence on North Korea.

단극체계에 관한 마스탄두노 가설의 비판적 고찰: 단극시대에 반복된 미국의 느슨한 통화정책과 자산거품과 국제적 다단계 금융사기

박훈탁 ( Houn Tark J. Park ) 대한정치학회 2009 大韓政治學會報 Vol.17 No.2

이 연구는 단극체계에 관한 마스탄두노의 가설을 비판적으로 고찰하고 단극체계에 관한 새로운 가설을 제시한다. 마스탄두노는 단극체계가 경쟁자가 없고 다른 국가의 제약도 받지 않는 단극에게 안정적 국제질서를 희생시키면서 자국의 편협한(parochial) 이해를 추구하도록 만드는 유인(incentive)을 제공한다고 주장한다. 그런데 역사적 사실은 마스탄두노 가설의 부인가설(null hypothesis)이라고 간주할 수 있는 아이큰베리(John Ikenberry)의 가설을 지지한다. 이것은 단극체계가 단극이 자발적으로 국제 공재 공급을 위해 더 큰 책임을 떠안게 만든다고 주장한다. 1920대에 발생했던 단극체계에서 미국은 1차대전으로 무너진 유럽경제의 신속한 재건을 위해 금본위제와 느슨한 통화정책이라는 국제 공공재를 공급했다. 소련의 붕괴로 인해 발생한 두 번째 단극체계에서도 미국은 중국과 인도를 비롯한 신흥경제의 글로벌경제 편입으로 발생한 디플레이션 압력을 해소하기 위해서 느슨한 통화정책이라는 국제 공공재를 공급했다. 그런데 미국이 제공한 국제 공공재는 안정이 아니라 재앙으로 이어졌다. 1920년대 후반 미국의 느슨한 통화정책이 주식거품을 일으켰고 1929년 10월24일 이것이 무너져 대공황이 시작되었다. 1920년대는 크루거(Ivar Kreuger)의 국제적인 다단계 금융사기의 발생을 목격했다. 21세기에도 미국의 느슨한 통화정책이 미국과 글로벌경제에 주택거품을 일으켰고 2008년 8월 꺼지기 시작한 미국의 주택거품이 글로벌 금융위기를 초래했다. 2008년 12월 나스닥 회장을 지낸 매이도프(Bernard Madoff)의 국제적인 다단계 금융사기가 드러났다. 그는 2009년 6월말 법정최고형 150년 형을 선고받았다. 단극체계가 단극이 자발적으로 국제 공공재를 공급하도록 촉구하지만 단극이 제공하는 국제 공공재가 안정보다는 재앙으로 이어지는 경향이 있다. This study is to review critically Mastanduno`s hypothesis about unipolarity and suggest a new hypothesis. Mastanduno argues that unipolarity without any competitors and constraints from other countries provides the unipole state with strong incentive to seek its parochial interests. Whereas historical facts support Ikenberry`s hypothesis could be considered null hypothesis of Mastanduno`s one. It says that unipolarity solicits the unipole country to take greater responsibility of providing international public goods. In the unipolarity of 1920s, America provided international public goods such as gold standard and loose monetary policy to help reconstruct European economy completely destroyed by the First World War. In the unipolarity created by collapse of Soviet Union, America provided pubic good of loose monetary policy to ward off deflationary pressures developed by entrance of China and India to global economy. But the U.S public goods both of 1920s and 21 century led to catastrophe rather than stability. In late 1920s, the U.S loose monetary policy led to huge stock bubbles, burst of which in late October 1929 ignited the Great Depression. Besides, 1920s had to witness international ponzi financial fraud of Ivar Kreuger. The U.S loose monetary policy of 21 century led to housing bubble in America and global economy and burst of American housing bubble in August 2008 triggered global financial crisis. In late June 2009, ex-president of NASDAQ Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years` imprisonment for devastating international ponzi financial fraud. Unipolarity calls upon the unipole country to take greater responsibility of providing international public goods but the public good provided by the unipole state tends to lead to catastrophe rather than stability.

미국 외교 정책의 일방주의의 기반

백창재 세종연구소 2003 국가전략 Vol.9 No.1

미국단극체제와 중국대외정책의 변화

김관옥 한국중국문화학회 2009 中國學論叢 Vol.27 No.-

What kinds of policies states adopt toward superpower state under unipolar system? Some argue that states attempt to balance against superpower because it threats other states' security while others believe that states do not balance against superpower due to either huge disparity of capabilities between superpower and other states or roles of existing international institutions that provide benefits to other states. In this regard, this study examines foreign policies of China under the U.S. unipolar system to verify explanatory power of the existing approaches' arguments. China has adopted bandwagoning policies in dealing with the U.S. initiating 'global war on terror' and nonproliferation regime by helping the U.S. as well as in maintaining international economic order by participating WTO. Conversely it also has attempted to take balancing policies against strengthening of U.S.-Japan alliance and U.S. initiating MD system by strengthening internal military capabilities and by consolidating security cooperation with Russia. Unlike the arguments of the existing approaches, the results of the case studies clearly show that China has adopted both balancing and bandwagoning policies toward the U.S. The limits of existing approach in explaining Chinese foreign policies under U.S. unipolar system mainly stemmed from their analysis' emphasis on international level factors while ignoring the role of domestic factors in determining Chinese foreign policies.

9,11 and The Balance of Power Redux

( Tae Hyun Kim ) 국방대학교 안보문제연구소 2004 The Korean Journal of Security Affairs Vol.9 No.1

The terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 will be recorded as a landmark event in international political history, but not in the way that many people think. Although the event led the U.S. government to reassert its predominant status in the international system by increasing its military power, its end result will not be what American leaders intend. Instead, it will be remembered as an event that precipitated the balance of power dynamics that will eclipse America`s status as the sole superpower. In the context of theoretical debate on the stability of a unipolar international system, this article reviews contending arguments of the future of American unipolarity, and supports the balance of power point of view that argues a unipolar system is not durable because of the threatening nature of unbalanced power and ensuing efforts by lesser powers to balance it. In addition to the traditional balance of power theory`s argument that any unbalanced power is threatening regardless whether it is intended or not, this article also explains why the U.S. is primed for expansionist foreign policy, hence threatening to others, in terms of some international and domestic factors. The article concludes that U.S. foreign policy after 911 has taken exactly such a course, and the balance of power dynamics is now back.

Alliance Burden-Sharing in System Polarities

김성우,김희연 한국국방연구원 2023 The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis Vol.35 No.1

As we move into the third decade after the end of the Cold War, scholars and commentators continue to ask how newly defined roles of various U.S. allies will correspond to their levels of burden sharing. In order to answer this question, we draw on neorealist and economic models to develop theoretical expectations about the relationship between system polarity and alliance burden sharing. Using the Alliance Treaty and Obligations (ATOP) data to measure alliances, and military expenditures and GDP data to fashion a burden sharing index, we examine the effects of major power and minor power alliances with a system leader under multipolarity, bipolarity, and unipolarity from 1885 to 2001. Consistent with the expectations, allies’ burden sharing demonstrates no clear pattern under multipolarity; decreases for U.S. allies and major powers allied with the USSR, but increases for minor powers allied with the USSR during bipolarity; and decreases for minor powers allied with the U.S. while having no effect on major powers allied with the U.S. under the current unipolar system.

Counterinsurgency Warfare and the American War in Iraq

LEE Geunwook(이근욱) 신아시아연구소(구 신아세아질서연구회) 2006 신아세아 Vol.13 No.1

  미국이 현재 이라크에서 수행하고 있는 것은 전통적인 의미에서의 정규전이 아니라 신생 이라크 정부에도전하는 이라크 반군과 이를 진압하고 국내적 질서 유지를 위한 미국과 이라크 정부군 사이의 무력 충돌이라고 볼 수 있다. 하지만, 이러한 형태의 무력 충돌은 매우 오랜 역사를 가지고 있으며, 유럽 국가들 및 미국은 오랜 경험을 축적하고 있다. 현재 미국은 이러한 경험을 이용하여 이라크 정부군을 창설하고 그 군사적 효율성 강화를 위해서 노력하고 있다. 또한, 이라크 전쟁의 형태는 미국이 유일한초강대국으로 남은 전세계적인 차원의 힘의 배분 상의 변화로 인하여 나타나게 된 것이며, 바로 이러한 변화에 한국은 적응하여야 한다.   The United States is conducting counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq rather than pitched battles on open field with the insurgents. It is armed struggle between the Americans and the Iraqi allies on the one hand and the resistance groups to undermine the newly created Iraqi state on the other. The United States has accumulated sufficient amount of knowledge about counterinsurgency warfare for example, the U.S. Armed Forces fought a counterinsurgency war in Vietnam, which will affect the U.S. policies in Iraq such as building an Iraqi Security Forces and making the war in Iraq into a war by the Iraqis, for the Iraqis, and of the Iraqis. It arises from a new condition of unipolarity and the absence of great power challenger to the U.S. supremacy. In decades to come, there would be fewer wars between great powers and more wars of insurgency and counterinsurgency. The current transformation of the U.S. defense policy and military structure should be understood from this perspective. Even in the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. Forces will prepare for counterinsurgency warfare rather than large-scale conventional invasion from North Korea.

단극시대 미국패권전략의 이론적 기초: 다자주의 vs. 일방주의

박인휘 경남대학교 극동문제연구소 2003 한국과 국제정치 Vol.19 No.3

To understand not only the post-Cold War world order, but the 21st century’s international relations is based on the conceptual identity and strategic selection of the U.S. foreign policy. As the only hegemonic state in the unipolar world the United States tries to justify her foreign policy between its national interests and international society’s common interests. In practice, the United States has oscillated between going it alone and joining with others. After the end of the Cold War debates about the appropriate balance between unilateralism and multilateralism in American global engagement have been highly contentious. So far the discussion has been more polemical than analytical. Since the practical and ethical ter- rain has not been clearly demarcated, it is easy to confuse prudential assessments about costs and benefits of unilateralism and multilateralism. Each side has claimed the moral ground and pragmatic efficiency. Greater clarity may be possible by classifying U.S. foreign policy into analytical categories based on whether the strategies adopted are unilateral or multilateral and whether the aims pursued are nationalist, internationalist, or cosmopolitan. Each set of aims has different ethical justifications, which generate and help to explain divergent attitudes and judgments about the appropriate role of unilateral U.S. foreign policy and multilateral U.S. foreign policy.

극 체제와 강대국 전쟁

장원익,김우상,이상훈 한국정치학회 2007 한국정치학회보 Vol.41 No.1

Most of the empirical studies on balance of power theory and power preponderance theories have been at the dyadic level. In this study we conduct empirical analysis on these theories at the systemic level. Especially, we test hypotheses related to polarity, power concentration and the outbreak of great power war. The findings show that in unipolarity great power war is less likely to occur. The results also suggest that in unipolarity when capabilities are concentrated to the hegemonic power war is less likely to break out. These findings have an important implication on international as well as regional security order. If the current hegemonic order is transformed into bipolarity or multipolarity war among great power in the system is more likely. 세력균형 이론 및 세력우위 이론과 관련된 최근까지의 경험적 연구는 거의 모두 국가쌍 수준에서 진행되었다. 본 연구에서는 양대 이론의 핵심 논쟁을 국제체제 수준에서 경험적으로 검증하는 데 주안점을 둔다. 특히, 어떤 형태의 극 체제(polarity)가 가장 안정적인 체제인지, 체제 내에서 국력 집중도(concentration)가 강대국 간의 전쟁발발 가능성에 어떤 영향을 미치는지에 관한 연구를 시도한다. 본 연구의 결과는 일극체제일 때가 일극체제가 아닐 때보다 강대국 간의 전쟁이 일어날 가능성이 낮음을 보여준다. 또한, 일극체제의 경우라 하더라도 상대적 국력이 최강대국에 집중되어 있을수록 전쟁 가능성이 낮음을 입증한다. 이러한 결과는 국제질서와 동아시아 지역 안보질서에 관해 중요한 함의를 제시한다. 현재의 국제체제가 양극체제나 다극체제로 변한다면 강대국 간의 전쟁 발발로 인해 체제 안정성은 현저하게 떨어질 수 있다는 것을 역설한다.