Historically, the Korean Peninsula has been chained to regional great power politics. From the ancient days to the Middle Age, the peninsula was frequently subject to invasion and interference from China, Japan and other great powers in East Asia. Crises and conflicts on the Korean Peninsula are heavily impacted by the strategic calculations of core powers such as the U.S., China, Japan, and Russia to this day. Among such, the U.S.-China strategic competition for hegemony has had a substantial impact on the two Koreas. This is evident provided that South and North Korea have established alliances with the U.S. and China, respectively. This article discusses how the U.S.-China rivalry affected peace on the Korean Peninsula.

First, escalating tensions and competition between the U.S. and China aggravated regional political instability in East Asia, which ultimately causes security anxiety on the Korean Peninsula. Historically, all great powers assumed supremacy by first seeking hegemony in the region, then throughout the world. Similarly, China has attempted to dominate the Asia-Pacific, principally East Asia; this, however, has been met with U.S. countermeasures. In the end, heightened security anxiety in East Asia, precipitated by the U.S.-China conflict, influenced peace on the Korean peninsula – it has inevitably been involved in the great power competition.

Additionally, the Korean Peninsula is geopolitically located at the intersection of continental and maritime powers. The U.S., representative of maritime power, and China, of continental power, are engaged in a fierce military and security confrontation over the western Pacific – the peninsula is located at the junction. Washington has no choice but to use the Korean Peninsula as an important strategic base to contain and exert pressure on Beijing. On the other hand, for China, the Korean Peninsula is not only a buffer zone against a direct confrontation with the U.S., but also a springboard for advancing into the western Pacific. As such, stability and peace on the Korean Peninsula are bound to fluctuate depending on the geopolitical deliberations and strategies of Washington and Beijing.

Finally, it is key to consider that while South Korea is allied to the U.S., North Korea is allied to China. Characteristics of the confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War have been passed down to the U.S.-China conflict in the post-Cold War era. The two conflicts are parallel in that the fundamental structure of confrontation between the two camps remains the same. Therefore, Washington and Beijing cannot easily weaken or give up their alliance structures on the Korean Peninsula. They will prefer to maintain the status quo on the peninsula, which remains unstable, provided that they can manage tension and conflict between the two Koreas.

The advent of the U.S.-China conflict and competition for hegemony has narrowed the scope of Seoul and Pyongyang’s choices in the regional political landscape. Washington and Beijing will increasingly push Seoul to opt for strategic clarity and take a side. In fact, Washington has officially and unofficially demanded Seoul to participate in major issues concerning U.S.-China conflict, such as the Indo-Pacific Strategy, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), clean-network, advanced science and technology cooperation in 5G and semiconductors, and supply chain issues.

South Korea will continue to face dilemmas concerning the U.S.-China rift and be pressured to choose a side. Based on its strategic goal to improve inter-Korean relations and promote peace on the Korean Peninsula, Seoul can either take both sides or tilt towards Washington or Beijing. Seoul’s actions should be based on a clear understanding of the significance of great power politics on peace on the Korean Peninsula based on historical experience and the circumstances it poses today. Under U.S-China competition, Seoul should aim to achieve peace on the peninsula with diplomatic flexibility and clear judgment. Above all, it needs to accurately comprehend the confrontational nature of U.S.-China relations to manage and respond to situations in a manner that does not allow the peninsula fall into a state of instability and war as a result of great power politics.

Under such circumstances, what principles and policy directions should Seoul pursue to achieve peace on the Korean Peninsula? Our strategic choices must open up leeway for independent movement in a calm and balanced manner. Under transformation, “external factors are the conditions of change, while the internal factors are the backbone of change.” In other words, the two Koreas are the internal factors that play a decisive role in realizing peace, reunification and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula – South Korea must lead this change. As Korea had been placed under the influence of great powers throughout modern and contemporary history, it has not been able to acquire the conditions necessary to achieve independence and peace. However, it now meets the minimum capabilities for self-reliance and peacebuilding despite the influence of great powers. Seoul must execute its will and strategic wisdom to take the lead.

Above all, in order to achieve peace on the Korean Peninsula amid U.S.-China competition, Seoul should secure autonomy by providing issue-based support and adhere to the consistency of principles. In other words, it should refrain from backing specific countries, but instead make choices based on a close analysis of the great power competition and national interest. This means that Seoul should identify the nature and cause of the rift between Washington and Beijing and express support according to the issue rather than orienting towards specific countries.

In order to provide issue-based support, Seoul should uphold its ▲ national interests ▲ international inclusivity ▲ conformity to international norms and ▲ consideration for allies. Only then can South Korea seek support on an issue-specific basis in the event of conflict between the great powers. On top of that, Seoul can secure autonomy and ward off external influence claiming that its position has been always been consistent. In particular, it should strive to maintain consistent principles by setting a clear red line concerning core interests such as security, sovereignty, North Korean nuclear weapons, and unification. Through such policies, South Korea must expand its autonomy from neighboring countries. 

■ Byung Kwang Park is a Director of the Center for International Cooperation at the Institute for National Security Strategy (INSS) of Korea. Dr. Park received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the Fudan University in Shanghai, China (1998). He is currently a Member of the Evaluation Committee for Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs (KMOFA), a Member of the Advisory Committee for Korean Air Force (R.O.K.AF), and a Standing Committee Member of the National Unification Advisory Council (NUAC). He was a 33rd President of the Korean Association of Area Studies (KAAS), an Inviting Research Fellow at the Institute for Oriental Culture of Tokyo University (1998-1999), a Post-Doc Fellow of Seoul National University (2000-2001), a Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of International Relations at National Chengchi University in Taiwan (2012) and Inviting Research Fellow of ASAN Institute for Policy (2013). His main research field focuses on China’s foreign policy toward North-East Asian Counties including the China’s relationship with the Korean Peninsula. Dr. Park has published numerous articles and book chapters on contemporary China’s foreign policies and East Asian Security issues.

■ Typeset by Seung Yeon Lee, Research Associate
    For inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 205) | slee@eai.or.kr