간접지원: 미-중 전략경쟁 시대 한국의 대응전략

Then it is rational for South Korea to provide indirect support for the United States in its competition with China. The strategy of indirect support clearly conveys South Korea’s intent to support the United States, but it also signals that South Korea will do that in an indirect manner. Table 1 provides conceptual definition of indirect support. First, South Korea supports the US positions on the issues that are relatively less sensitive to China. For example, Seoul can invest resources in the US-led efforts on global health security or climate change, even if South Korea’s position conflicts with China’s interests. Second, Seoul may refrain from criticizing China unilaterally or bilaterally with Washington, but it should not hesitate to add voices in multilateral settings. For example, Seoul may not criticize China’s policies in Xinjiang or Hong Kong alone, but it can express the criticism together with multiple countries in G-7 meeting or the United Nations. This approach helps South Korea to distribute the risk of retaliation. Third, Seoul should shape the self-image of supporting the US vision of liberal international order, not the hegemonic interest of the United States.

Washington should accommodate South Korea’s strategy of indirect support from the perspective of regional stability. Among the US allies, South Korea is the closest to China in proximity and connected on land without luxury of “the stopping power of the ocean” that Japan or Australia enjoys. South Korea is also more vulnerable to China’s economic pressure compared to other US allies. This means that South Korea is more directly exposed to China’s tools of retaliation, and the US credibility will be at stake when South Korea is in need of help before China’s retaliation. Since South Korea is situated at the forefront of the US-China competition, the country would better to provide support from the second-line for the purpose of risk management for the alliance system as a whole. The strategy should be acceptable to Beijing. Although South Korea clarifies its intent to support the United States, its indirect manner should signal Seoul’s desire to avoid conflicting with China as much as possible. Seoul can also convey its resolve to expand the unity with US and allies if Beijing retaliates despite Seoul’s self-restraint.

How can the South Korean government implement the strategy of indirect support at policy level? Take Taiwan issue as an example. South Korea can support US efforts to defend Taiwan by engaging with Taiwan in non-military areas first. South Korea can expand its diplomatic ties through senior officials’ visits with each other. It can expand economic cooperation as well, especially in the area of semi-conductor. For example, South Korea’s trade representative to Taiwan remarked that South Korea’s semiconductor exports to Taiwan are mostly memory chips while its imports from Taiwan are mainly non-memory chips. This implies that they can not only compete but also become partners to pursue synergy effects in technological innovation. If a contingency occurs in Taiwan Strait, South Korea can provide rear-area support such as non-combatant evacuation. According to the logic of indirect support, President Yoon should have met with the US congresswoman Nancy Pelosi during her visit to South Korea in August. All the leaders of Malaysia, Singapore and Japan met with her. President Yoon’s meeting with Congresswoman Pelosi could have showcased South Korea’s support of Taiwan in a kind of multilateral setting in practice.

Intent, Signaling and Trust

Critics might argue that the strategy of indirect support is not much different from the Moon Jae-in government’s “strategic ambiguity.” But the strategy of indirect support is distinguished because it clarifies South Korea’s intent to support the US-led efforts in Indo-Pacific region. At the same time, the strategy takes the need of risk-management with China’s potential retaliations more seriously than the Yoon government’s “strategic clarity” approach. In short, the strategy of indirect support is clearer than “strategic ambiguity,” and more prudent than “strategic clarity.” Figure 1 below visually summarizes this observation.

Figure 1. Spectrum of South Korea’s positioning between the United States and China

Last but not least, the strategy of indirect support leaves a room for breakthrough to improve the US-China relationships. As the competition intensifies, the opportunities for strategic dialogue have significantly diminished between the two countries. There are less and less meetings between government officials, military officers, and even think tanks between the US and China. On the contrary, South Korean government agencies and academic institutes still hold events with Chinese counterparts on a regular basis. If one can agree that all US allies do not always have to pursue hard-balancing against China at the same time, then South Korea can reserve a room to broker a deal between the US and China. For these reasons as well, it is optimal for South Korea to take the strategy of indirect support of the US with “soft-balancing” against China rather than direct support with “hard-balance.” However, even to conduct such a “broker” diplomacy, Seoul needs to establish a good line of trust with Washington first. Communicating the strategy of indirect support should be the first useful step.

* The views in this article are author’s only and should not be construed as carrying the position of the US Department of Defense or the US Government.