동아시아지역 세력균형논리의 지속 여부에 관한 김양규 • 스티븐 레인저(Stephen Ranger) EAI 아시아안보연구센터 연구원의 기고문, " The Balance of Power in a "Complex" Northeast Asia"가 "Northeast Asia: Business as Usual or a New Departure?"를 주제로 국제정치안보네트워크(International Relations and Security Network: ISN)가 기획한 특집호(Special Feature) 시리즈에 게재되었습니다.

김양규 • 스티븐 레인저 연구원은 기고문을 통해 동아시아지역 내 세력균형논리를 지속시키는 요인들을 지적하고, 향후 이 지역이 단순 세력균형논리를 넘어 보다 다양한 형태의 질서들이 복합적으로 투영된 질서로 변환된 것임을 미중관계의 복합성을 중심으로 설명하였습니다.

스위스의 취리히 연방공대(Swiss Federal Institute of Technology: ETH Zurich) 산하 안보연구소(Center for Security Studies)는 1994년부터 국제정치 및 안보 연구의 발전을 위해 유관 연구기관 및 전문가들의 연구 결과물을 공유하는 '국제정치안보네트워크' 디지털 플랫폼을 구축하고 운영해 왔으며, EAI는 2011년 10월부터 EAI의 연구결과물을 ISN을 통해 세계 지식 공동체와 공유하고 있습니다.

The Balance of Power in a "Complex" Northeast Asia

Are China, Japan and South Korea "locked in" to a traditional balance of power dynamic, or does another future path exist?

By Stephen Ranger and Yang Gyu Kim for the ISN

Aaron Freidberg predicted at the end of the Cold War that "Europe’s past could well be Asia's future". Whereas Europe was once defined by a traditional balance of power, a deepening of economic and political ties has allowed most of the continent to overcome historical animosity and tension. By contrast, Northeast Asia continues to be associated with balance of power dynamics that seemingly overlook increased regional economic integration. Yet does this mean that Northeast Asia is predestined to be defined by the same old balance of power politics? For economic as much as geopolitical reasons, the region’s states may increasingly gravitate toward China to form a more hierarchical system resembling the past regional order. If so, then the future of Northeast Asia though may not resemble either Europe’s past or its own historical order. What will likely emerge is a more "complex" order reflecting the megatrends of globalization, democratization, and IT revolution as well as - more significantly - the shifting power in the region between China and the US.

Why does Balance of Power persist in Northeast Asia?

In understanding how the balance of power dynamic continues to persist in the region, three factors need to be considered. The first is the role of the US in the region as an "offshore balancer". Until the US became involved in Northeast Asia, China was historically the uncontested regional power. The tianxia or hierarchical system was for hundreds of years the only system in the region where countries simply recognized the dominant position of China. In this unipolar system, actors tended to bandwagon with the hegemonic power rather than balance against it. Accordingly, the very existence then of an "offshore balancer" provides structural explanation for why the balance of power game continues to be played in Northeast Asia and why a return to the old order is unlikely.

The next factor concerns the so-called "memory wars" among the countries of Northeast Asia. In particular, Japan's coercive colonial rule over the region is often regarded as major obstacle for regional cooperation. Indeed, although its colonial exploits came to a halt with the end of the Second World War, the most contentious war crimes committed by Japan still remain the most sensitive issues today. Controversies such as the Nanjing massacre, human experimentation and biological warfare, forced labor, and comfort women have still not been properly discussed or resolved. And visits by Japanese political figures to the Yasukuni Shrine and the publication of textbooks that downplay past atrocities, raises concerns that Japan is actually paying tribute to its past actions. Accordingly, the historical legacies of the past continue to shape international relations of the present. What makes this a more complicated factor to overcome is that it is mainly driven by popular sentiment in each country which implicitly views such issues as connected to national identity.

As a result, nationalist politics and ideologies continue to shape the Northeast Asian region. Although the countries of the region have a long and rich history, it has only been since the end of World War II that these countries have been able to embrace the concept of the nation-state. In that sense, the persistence of nationalism is a reflection of the fact that most countries in the region still have not completed the full task of building the nation-state. This can be seen in the way China’s "core interests" focus on sovereignty and territorial integrity, the fact that Korean Peninsula remains ideologically divided, and that Japan seeks to be a "normal country"....(Continued)