Subscribe
E-Paper
(0).jpg/dims/resize/120/optimize) |
BEIJING ― International affairs surrounding Northeast Asia face a high level of unprecedented uncertainty. The U.S. under the Trump administration emphasizes "America First" and alienates its allies, disrupting an alliance system it architected.
In this time of uncertainty, North Korea has switched gears, from a nuclear brinkmanship to an epoch-making negotiation with the U.S. that could potentially lead to its denuclearization. China seeks to recover international order in the region in which North Korea is located based on the past "Sino-centralism." Meanwhile, Japan strengthens its military power with a banner of becoming a "normal country."
There is a brooding sense that "internationalism" is still preached but being replaced with "nationalism," and "free trade" is replaced with "protectionism." The sense of a world "reset" is felt more pronounced than any other time in modern history, not only due to the changes within Asia but also those in Europe including Brexit. Unfortunately, it is uncertain where the geopolitical order in East Asia is headed. Today we do not live in a world vigorously maintained by the singular American leadership.
Under the Trump administration, the U.S.' positioning away from its traditional role of exercising global leadership in the international society is clear. At the same time, China has yet to substitute the American role through its "rise." The competitive and conflicting structure between the U.S. and China for dominance in Northeast Asia is likely to persist, and unfortunately, will continue its downward spiral. It will have ramifications on the Korean Peninsula.
The U.S. and China are the two primary outside variables that influence Korean geopolitics. As such, it is necessary to understand the nature of their relationship ― its past, present, and future ― especially as there is an unprecedented uncertainty in their relationship today, amid deepening trade conflict, the Taiwan issue, the South China Sea, and cyber espionage.
There is a widening understanding that the U.S. engagement policy toward China for the past 40 years has failed. In other words, the U.S. effort to tame China into the international order designed by Washington was a failure. Moreover, some argue that it was only "wishful thinking" on the part of the U.S. that, in fact, unwittingly "allowed" China to now become the most threatening competitor to America. The sense of U.S. policy miscalculation and its perception of competition against China have expanded since the U.S. "pivot to Asia" around the late 2011 to this day.
Such is the case despite favorable personal impressions expressed by Trump toward Chinese leader Xi Jinping during their Mar-a-Lago summit in April 2017. Pundits hyped a "bromance" between Trump and Xi, but the purported romance fizzled out soon amid increasing rivalry, competition, and mistrust between the U.S. and China. The fundamental reason the U.S.-China relationship chills even further can be attributable to the fact that their relationship is increasingly becoming "locked" in a trap that is structural in nature. For instance, the old formula of mutual trade dependence no longer works as Chinese products are technologically innovative and now directly competing with American high-tech sectors.
In the security realm, the increasingly competitive nature will manifest through the issues such as the North Korean nuclear issue. Now, they are even competing in the extraterrestrial space. China is still militarily weaker than America. Therefore, China may occasionally back down in a tactful display of compromise in the short term but it is unlikely to be a sustained posture by the Chinese. China's actions could be subtle and discreet. For instance, it may affirm its continuing commitment to the U.N. economic sanctions against North Korea, while leaving a backdoor open in reality.
It should be noted that the "worsening" relations between Trump and Xi does not necessarily mean that it will inevitably lead to a war between the U.S. and China. However, even if that were the case, it does not bode well for those small and medium nations that are "stuck" between the two giants, particularly the countries in East Asia, and notably South Korea. Even a "low-level conflict" between the U.S. and China can amount to a national level challenge. The discord between Seoul and Beijing over the deployment of THAAD was a case in point. Even if it was inherently a competing power projection between Washington and Beijing over strategic dominance in East Asia, Seoul that has borne the brunt of it as China retaliated against Seoul, not Washington.
Lee Seong-hyon (sunnybbsfs@gmail.com), Ph.D., is the director, Center for Chinese Studies; and also the director, Department of Unification Strategy at Sejong Institute.
