{"title":"Clashing Geostrategic Choices in East Asia, 2009-2015: Re-balancing, Wedge Strategy, and Hedging","authors":"J. Chun, Yan Ku","doi":"10.14731/kjis.2020.04.18.1.33","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to analyze a reshaping of the geopolitical dynamics in the East Asian region during the 2009-2015 period, which was mainly derived from the rapid growth of Chinese power. What strategies did the three major powers in East Asia—the U.S., China, and South Korea—adopt to maintain and promote their own and their collective interests? What impact did these strategies bring to East Asian international relations? What implications do these strategies have for the future East Asian regional order? In response to these questions, this article mainly argues that during the 2009-2015 period, the U.S., China, and South Korea took three geostrategic choices—rebalancing, wedge strategy, and hedging, respectively. In particular, this study creates the concept of a historical alliance between China and South Korea against their former common adversary, Japan. As part of China’s wedge strategy, the formation of such historical alliance played a role in weakening the U.S.-ROK-Japan security triangle. These clashing strategies have produced unstable conditions in East Asia, including intensifying U.S.-China rivalry, continuity of China-Japan and Japan-ROK tensions, and an ambivalent South Korean stance. A most important measure to alleviate these volatile conditions is for the U.S. and China to not intensify their rivalry, and instead maximize mutual cooperation in dealing with various challenging global issues, such as pandemics, global economic/ financial instability, climate change, nuclear proliferation, and war on terror. This article also suggests that under the condition of the intensifying U.S.-China rivalry, South Korea should","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2020.04.18.1.33","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
This study aims to analyze a reshaping of the geopolitical dynamics in the East Asian region during the 2009-2015 period, which was mainly derived from the rapid growth of Chinese power. What strategies did the three major powers in East Asia—the U.S., China, and South Korea—adopt to maintain and promote their own and their collective interests? What impact did these strategies bring to East Asian international relations? What implications do these strategies have for the future East Asian regional order? In response to these questions, this article mainly argues that during the 2009-2015 period, the U.S., China, and South Korea took three geostrategic choices—rebalancing, wedge strategy, and hedging, respectively. In particular, this study creates the concept of a historical alliance between China and South Korea against their former common adversary, Japan. As part of China’s wedge strategy, the formation of such historical alliance played a role in weakening the U.S.-ROK-Japan security triangle. These clashing strategies have produced unstable conditions in East Asia, including intensifying U.S.-China rivalry, continuity of China-Japan and Japan-ROK tensions, and an ambivalent South Korean stance. A most important measure to alleviate these volatile conditions is for the U.S. and China to not intensify their rivalry, and instead maximize mutual cooperation in dealing with various challenging global issues, such as pandemics, global economic/ financial instability, climate change, nuclear proliferation, and war on terror. This article also suggests that under the condition of the intensifying U.S.-China rivalry, South Korea should