[Viewpoint] The Expansion of US-China Hegemonic Rivalry and Korea's Choice

Lee Yong-jun, Former Ambassador for North Korean Nuclear Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The flames of the US-China (美中) hegemonic rivalry, which had been quiet for a while, are spreading again. Following the recent order to close the Chinese Consulate General in Houston, the US-China confrontation has expanded beyond the realm of trade wars into diplomatic warfare. Beyond this stage, the next phase is the military domain. Due to the inviolability of national sovereignty, there is no international public authority capable of punishing a country even if it commits offenses. Therefore, in reality, countries mostly resort to economic, diplomatic, and military means to retaliate against illegal acts by other nations on their own.

In the past, the expulsion of diplomats or closure of diplomatic missions, frequently used during the US-Soviet (美蘇) Cold War era, fundamentally stemmed from hostile state relations. Although the frequency decreased after the end of the Cold War, diplomat expulsions remain a useful diplomatic punitive measure even today. In recent years alone, in 2017, Russia expelled as many as 755 US diplomats in retaliation for the US adopting the 'Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act' against Russia, and the US responded by closing the Russian Consulate General in San Francisco. The following year, in response to the attempted poisoning of a former Russian double agent in the UK, about 100 Russian diplomats were expelled by 20 countries including the US and the UK. Russia retaliated by closing the US Consulate General in Saint Petersburg and expelling diplomats.

Such diplomatic retaliations are customarily reciprocal and equivalent, regardless of who is the aggressor or victim. Therefore, debating who won in the recent US-China consulate closure dispute is meaningless. What is important is that the US, after expelling two Chinese diplomats on espionage charges last year for the first time in 32 years, has now escalated its retaliation by ordering the closure of a consulate. This signifies that the US, which previously regarded China as a 'partner country' or a 'country to be civilized,' has begun to consider China as an 'enemy.' It also indicates that the US has chosen the path of 'escalation' in the current US-China conflict, which has so far remained at the level of a trade war. Currently, there is unanimous agreement in the US establishment that all means must be used to prevent China's rise as a hegemonic power, and if the Democratic Party comes to power, the China policy is expected to become even tougher.

China faces three major dilemmas amid this deepening predicament. First, unlike in the past, the US shows no sign of easing its offensive against China or seeking compromise. Second, if the bilateral relationship moves toward an 'all-out confrontation,' China's chances of victory are very uncertain. China’s national power is still significantly inferior, especially its military strength, which cannot be compared to that of the US. Moreover, unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, China’s economy parasitizes on the US and its allies, which are its 'enemies,' so if they enforce decoupling from China, it will be difficult for the Chinese economy to avoid collapse. Third, if the US and China enter a long-term 'camp confrontation,' there are few countries willing to join China’s camp. China has lost many allies due to excessive territorial ambitions and selfish foreign policies, and the situation has worsened due to suspicions of covering up the COVID-19 outbreak and the Hong Kong crisis.

In the current situation where the US and China are heading toward direct confrontation, which side South Korea will take is a matter of national destiny. Depending on South Korea’s stance, the US-China confrontation boundary in Northeast Asia could become the military demarcation line on the Korean Peninsula or the Korea Strait. The complacent notion that security can rely on the US and the economy on China will no longer be valid, and a binary choice is inevitable. Depending on the choice, South Korea could cling to the declining Chinese market and lose all advanced capitalist markets, becoming a vassal state of China, or it could abandon the Chinese market and enjoy a blue ocean in advanced capitalist markets where Chinese goods are excluded. This is why the Moon Jae-in administration’s blind submissive diplomacy toward China must be promptly reconsidered at this point.