YouTube 링크 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG8KnCe5QfY

동아시아연구원(EAI)은 [코로나 19와 신세계질서] 온라인 세미나 시리즈의 여섯 번째 회의로 “한미 지역협력의 현재와 미래: 쿼드를 어떻게 볼 것인가”를 개최하였습니다. 강한 “중국 헤징(China hedging)” 이미지로 인하여 많은 국가들은 쿼드 참여에 소극적인 태도를 가지고 있으며, 쿼드 내부적으로도 많은 갈등이 발생하고 있습니다. 더 많은 국가들의 쿼드 참여를 위해 쿼드 국가들은 안보 외 다양한 이슈와 비전통안보 이슈에 대한 협력을 강화해야 합니다. 본 세미나에서는 쿼드의 과제, 한미가 바라보는 쿼드, 그리고 미중 양국과의 우호 관계 유지를 위한 한국의 정책 방향에 대하여 심도깊은 논의를 하였습니다.

• 일시: 2021년 05월 06일(목), 9:00–10:00 (KST)
• 발표자: 에반 파이겐바움 (카네기 국제평화재단 부원장), 위성락 (前 주러시아 대사), 박재적 (한국외국어대학교 교수)
• 사회자: 마상윤 (가톨릭대학교 교수)
• 개회사: 손 열 (EAI 원장; 연세대 교수)

요약문:

쿼드 (쿼드 플러스)의 함의와 한국의 정책 방향

I. 쿼드의 내구성

쿼드의 “역할”과 “기능” 개념화

• 지난 20년 동안 아시아 내 다자협력 기구 혹은 지역포럼은 아시아 역내 주요 문제 해결을 위한 메커니즘이었다. 에반 A. 파이겐바움 카네기 국제평화재단 부원장은 아시아 내 시급한 문제와 결함들, 그리고 이미 존재하는 경제적 동맹 관계를 위한 아키텍처를 통해 아시아의 정책 담론 내에서 `형태`가 과도하게 `기능`을 견인했다는 점을 알 수 있다고 강조하며, 이러한 메커니즘의 비효율성에 대하여 설명한다. 예를 들어, 역내 포괄적 경제 동반자 협정(Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, RCEP)과 포괄적•점진적 환태평양 경제동반자 협정(Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP)은 인도와 미국을 포함하지 않으며, 이는 아시아 정책 내 "형태가 기능을 이끈다"는 주장을 분명히 보여주고 있다.
• 아시아 전역에 걸친 소규모 안보 네트워크인 쿼드는 회의를 개최하고, 다양한 공동 이니셔티브를 논의하며 점차 공식화되어가고 있다. 파이겐바움 부원장은 과거 네트워크 연합이 실패한 것과 같은 방식, 즉 쿼드의 공식화가 네트워크 관련 문제에 대한 성공적인 해결책을 이끌어낼 것이라는 인식으로 인하여 쿼드가 실패할 수 있다고 분석한다. 협력 국가들이 탄력적인 지역 아키텍처의 견고한 중심으로 기능할 수 있는지 여부는 해당 연합의 역량을 입증하는 데 있어 핵심 과제이다. 이와 관련하여, 파이겐바움 부원장은 쿼드가 아시아에서 가장 시급한 이슈에 대한 연합의 기능적 행동으로 초점을 전환하여 그 효용성을 보여줄 필요가 있다고 주장한다.
• 그러나 이는 쿼드가 반드시 각 사안별로 다른 회원국과 논의하는 단기 협력을 목적으로 하는 연합으로서 기능해야 한다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다. 쿼드 회원국은 공통된 이해를 공유해야 하며, 다른 협력 국가들이 문제 해결 능력을 발전시킬 수 있도록 앞장서야 한다. 기후변화, 반마약 (counter-narcotics), 해양 능력 배양, 인프라 문제와 같은 시급한 현안들은 쿼드 회원국들만으로 해결될 수 없으며, 불가피하게 더 많은 국가들의 참여를 요구하게 된다.

쿼드의 목적: 중국 견제 vs 지역 협력 촉진

• 쿼드는 중국을 견제하고 억제하는 안보 네트워크이자 미국 주도의 동맹과 안보 파트너십을 연결하는 미국 전략의 산물이라는 특징을 가지고 있다. 그러나 쿼드의 정체성에 대한 인식은 쿼드 내 회원국마다 차이가 있다.
• 박재적 교수는 쿼드가 "쿼드 딜레마"에 직면해 있다고 설명한다. 미국은 쿼드를 중국 억제의 도구로 유지하려고 노력하지만, 그러한 목적을 감추는 방식으로 쿼드를 운영해야만 목적을 달성할 수 있다는 것이다. 사실상 쿼드는 응집력이 있는 다자연합이 아니다. 인도와 호주는 쿼드가 중국을 억제하는 메커니즘으로 인식되는 것을 달가워하지 않는다.

II. 쿼드 플러스 참여에 대한 한국의 입장

한국, 미중 사이 균형을 어떻게 유지할 수 있을 것인가?

• 미중 경쟁 문제에 있어 한국의 애매한 입장은 제한적인 성공을 거두었다. 박재적 교수와 위성락 대사는 현재의 정치 환경이 미중 경쟁 속에서 한국이 정책수립에 대한 적절한 원칙을 정립해야한다는 것을 분명히 했다고 말한다.
• 위성락 대사는 "쿼드 불참은 고려사항이 아니다"라고 강조하며, 미국이 역내에서 추진하는 신흥 다자협력구조를 한국이 개방적으로 받아들여야 한다고 제언한다. 이런 점에서 위 대사는 미국과 중국 사이에 한국의 위치를 비유적으로 묘사한다. 미국은 동맹국이고 중국은 동맹국에는 못 미치는 파트너라는 점에 주목하면서, 미국이 한국을 3시 방향으로 끌어당기려 하고 중국이 9시 방향으로 끌어당기려 한다면 한국은 미국에 더 가까운 1시나 1시 반 방향으로 정책 노선을 선택해야 한다고 주장한다.
• 외교정책 논의에서 한국이 현재 취하고 있는 메커니즘은 일관성 있는 정책을 내놓지 못하고 있다. 정책 결정은 중국과 미국의 압력에 의해 좌우되어 왔다. 이와 같은 의도적인 방향 설정은 중국, 미국과 더 건강한 관계를 구축하는 데 도움이 될 것이다.
• 한국이 쿼드 불참을 선택할 경우 미국 주도의 동맹 네트워크 내에서 2순위로 밀려날 것이라는 것이 박재적 교수의 설명이다. 반대로 한국이 쿼드 플러스 참여를 선택한다면 불필요하게 중국을 자극하고 북핵 문제에 대한 중국의 참여를 저해할 것이다. 그러나 박재적 교수는 쿼드와 쿼드 플러스가 아시아 지역 안보를 위한 수많은 메커니즘 중 하나일 뿐이며 그에 비해 지나치게 부각되어 왔다고 주장한다. 예를 들면, 한국은 미국의 부재에도 불구하고 중국이 포함된 아세안+3에 참여해왔다. 이를 고려하면, 한국은 중국의 부재로 인해 쿼드 플러스 가입을 거부해야 한다는 압박을 느끼지 않아도 되는 것이다.
• 그는 한국이 미국 주도의 쿼드 전략에 기여하는 한미일 3국 안보 협력망과 같은 미국의 안보 네트워크 강화의 관점에서 쿼드 문제에 접근해야 한다고 강조한다. 이를 공고히 함으로써 한국은 협력적 입장을 취했다고 주장할 수 있다.
• 박재적 교수는 또한 한국이 쿼드 플러스에 참여하는 것을 공론화해야 한다고 강조하는데, 이는 한국이 쿼드 회원국과의 적절한 조율을 통해 동북아시아 문제에 있어 중국과의 협력을 가능하게 할 것이기 때문이다.

한미동맹의 미래에 대한 시사점

• 바이든 대통령 취임 이후, 한미간 주요 이슈의 쟁점은 양자 간의 문제였다. 미국은 현재 미중 관계의 프리즘을 통해 아시아를 보고 있지만 중국에 집중하기 전에 아시아 정책을 우선시 해야 한다. 이는 또한 한미관계를 바라보는 데에 있어서도 마찬가지이다.
• 쿼드 플러스는 아직 비공식적인 기구로, 미국은 한국의 쿼드 플러스 참여를 요청하지 않았다. 미국은 쿼드 플러스의 초석으로서 한미일 동맹 강화를 위해 한일관계 복원을 요구할 것으로 예측되지만, 한국의 쿼드 참여를 요구할 가능성은 낮다.

비(非)전통적 안보 영역

• 참여국 간의 다양한 이해관계를 고려할 때, 쿼드는 주제별 기능적 분야 및 비(非) 안보 분야에서의 집단행동 문제와 관련이 있다. 박재적 교수는 쿼드는 사실상 회원국들의 다양한 관심과 위치에 있어서 단수가 아닌 복수라고 강조한다.
• 박 교수는 쿼드 참여와 불참 사이에는 미세한 차이가 있다고 강조하며, 협력 분야 선택에 있어 매우 까다로워야 한다고 말한다. 예컨대, 해양 능력 배양에서 운송수단 및 정보 감시•정찰 (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; ISR) 자산을 제공하는 미국과의 공동 이니셔티브는 중국에 한국이 미국과 적극적으로 협력하고 있다는 인식을 심어줄 수 있다. 그러나 이것은 종종 수여국으로의 무기 수출로 이어지기 때문에, 한국이 해양 능력 배양에 참여하도록 하는 엄청난 경제적 동기가 된다.
• 한국은 비전통적 안보 이슈에 중점을 둔 쿼드 플러스에 적극적으로 관여함으로써 참여를 정당화할 수 있다. 위성락 대사는 한국이 경제•보건•환경•인도적 문제에 대해 초기 단계에서는 쿼드와 협력할 수 있다고 주장하며, 쿼드가 극단적인 반중(反中) 동맹으로 발전하지 않도록 쿼드 내에서 건설적인 역할을 할 수 있을 것이라고 주장한다.
• 박재적 교수는 기존의 쿼드 회담 외에도 쿼드 플러스를 확장할 수 있는 아홉 가지 잠재적 방법이 있다고 덧붙였다. 그가 나열한 방안은 최고 정책 결정자 간 공식 회의, 인프라 투자(코로나 이후 경제 재건), 해양 능력 배양, 백신 전문가 그룹, 기후변화, 주요 신흥 기술, 공급망 다양화, 규범 선언, 가치•민주주의, 그리고 기존 쿼드 군사 훈련에 대한 참여이다.
• 파이겐바움 부원장은 또한 한국이 마주할 수 있는 몇 가지 중대한 도전 사례들을 제시한다. 이러한 사례에는 공급망 복원력, 데이터 액세스 (access) 및 전송 (transfer) 교차 활용 합의, 허위 정보 방지, 공공 보건 및 생의학 공유, 그린 본드 (green bonds)및 그린 크레디트 (green credit) 상품의 사용 다양화가 포함된다.

III. 쿼드 체계의 미래

쿼드의 과제: 단합력과 포괄성의 부족

• 파이겐바움 부원장은 쿼드와 쿼드 플러스는 아직 발전하는 단계에 있기 때문에 그 미래를 예측하기는 이르다. 쿼드의 의제가 역내 주요 국가들의 관심사를 반영하지 않기 때문에 쿼드의 파워나 영향력을 단기간 내에 예측하기도 어렵다. 또한, 인도와의 집단안보 설립의 가능성이 희박하기 때문에 쿼드와 쿼드 플러스는 본질적으로 제한적일 수밖에 없다.
• 현재 쿼드 국가 간 데이터 액세스와 전송 모델 활용에 관한 합의가 부재한 것을 통해서도 역내 국가 간의 단합이 부족하다는 것을 알 수 있다. 비(非) 안보적 협력이 이루어지지 않는 것은 문제점으로 지적되며, 협력이 부재할 경우, 국제 연합의 가능성 또한 미비할 것이라고 설명한다.
• 그럼에도 불구하고 박재적 교수는 협력의 경험과 신뢰를 축적해 나갈 수 있고, 필요할 때 신속하게 전통적인 안보의제로 전환할 수 있기 때문에 쿼드를 유지해야 한다고 주장한다.

아시아 내에서 미국의 역할

• 파이겐바움 부원장은 중국과 일본이 협력하여 안보체계를 구축하지 않는 이상, 아시아 안보의 주요 제공자는 미국이 될 것으로 전망된다. 그러나 역내 미국의 리더십은 안보에만 치중될 것이 아니라 안보와 경제 양면에 바탕을 두고 있다는 것을 인지할 필요가 있다.
• 그러나 인도태평양 지역에서 미국의 경제적 영향력은 서서히 감소하고 있다. 미국의 투자는 절대적인 총량은 증가하고 있지만, 상대적 총량은 감소하는 추세다. 이는 미국의 영향력이 줄어들고 있음을 시사한다. 미국은 표준 설정 국가(standard-setting nation)로의 재확립을 숙고해야 한다. 만약에 쿼드가 이러한 역할을 할 수 있고 미국이 쿼드를 통해 다양한 표준 설정 의제를 적용할 수 있다면, 미국은 다시 표준 설정 국가으로서의 위상을 되찾을 수 있을 것이다. 이를 통해 쿼드의 안보와 경제 전략의 불일치라는 문제를 다룰 수 있을 것으로 전망된다. ■

IV. 발표자 및 사회자 약력

• 에반 파이겐바움_ 카네기 국제평화재단 부원장, 버지니아 대학교(Virginia University) Miller Center of Public Affairs 前 James R. Schlesinger 특훈교수 (2019-2020), 現 시니어 펠로우. 스탠퍼드 대학에서 중국 정치학 박사 학위를 취득하였으며, 정부기관, 싱크탱크, 민간 부문, 아시아 3개 지역 분야에서 활동하였다. 2001년에서 2009년까지 활동으로, 미(美) 국무부 남아시아 부차관보 (2007-2009), 미(美) 국무부 중앙아시아 부차관보 (2006-2007), 동아시아, 태평양 정책기획담당 (2001-2006), 로버트 졸릭(Robert B. Zoellick ) 미(美) 국무부 차관보의 중국 분야 고문(adviser)을 역임하였다. 저서로는 “The United States in the New Asia,” “China’s Techno-Warriors: National Security and Strategic Competition from the Nuclear to the Information Age” 등이 있다.
• 위성락_ 現 국립외교원 방문교수, 前 주 러시아 대사. 서울대학교에서 국제관계학 학사, 석사를 취득하였으며 미국 캘리포니아에 있는 미(美) 국방성 산하 DLI에서 러시아학을 연수하였다. 러시아 국제 경제 정치 연구원에서 정치학 박사를 취득하였다. 35년간 외교관으로 근무하였으며 미국 관련 업무와 북핵 관련 업무에 다년간 종사하였다. 외교통상부 북미국 국장, 6자 회담 수석대표, 주미 한국대사관 정무공사, 외교통상부 한반도 평화교섭본부 본부장을 역임하였다. 북방외교 업무와 우수 보고서 작성으로 각각 대통령상과 외무장관상을 수상한 바 있다. 그의 저서로는‘새로 쓰는 러시아 리포트’와 ‘한국 외교 업그레이드 제언’등이 있다.
• 박재적_ 한국외국어대학교 국제지역대학원 교수. 호주국립대학교(Australian National University)에서 국제관계학 박사학위를 취득하였다. 외교안보연구원 객원교수, 통일연구원 부연구위원 등을 역임하였다. 전공분야는 인•태지역 미국 주도 안보 네트워크, 지역안보질서, 소다자 안보 협력, 미국-호주 동맹, 호주 안보 정책 등이다
• 마상윤_ 가톨릭대 국제학부 교수. 서울대 외교학과에서 학사 및 석사과정을 마친 후 영국 옥스포드대학에서 1960년대 한국의 민주주의 문제를 둘러싼 미국의 국내정치개입에 대한 연구로 국제정치학 박사학위를 취득하였다. 2016년부터 외교부 정책기획관으로 부임하였다. 가톨릭대 국제교류처장을 역임하였으며, 미국 부르킹스연구소 및 우드로윌슨센터에서 방문학자로 선발되어 연구하였다. 주된 연구분야는 미국외교정책, 한미관계, 냉전외교사이다. 최근 출간된 논문으로는 “자유민주주의의 공간: 1960년대 전반기 <사상계>를 중심으로,” “미중관계와 한반도―1970년대 이후의 역사적 흐름,” “‘적(敵)에서 암묵적 동맹으로: 데탕트 초기 미국의 중국 접근적(敵)에서 암묵적 동맹으로: 데탕트 초기 미국의 중국 접근,” “한국군 베트남 파병결정과 국회의 역할” 등이 있다.

• 담당 및 편집: 윤하은EAI 연구원
• 문의: 02 2277 1683 (내선 208) hyoon@eai.or.kr

영상 스크립트

hello and welcome to east asia's online seminar uh i'm your son president of east asia institute eai today's topic is present and future of rok us regional cooperation perspectives on quad this is part of the series uh the post-corona world order series uh today's topic what uh quadrilateral security dialogue is a mini lateral security network across the region that draws lots of attention to these days as its role and function have been hotly contested for example as a as a china balancing coordination

i mean coalition versus a functionally oriented one um that uh deals with the challenges uh ranging from uh security i mean non-traditional security uh issues from economic to the pandemic accordingly and uh more than ever the positioning of south korea vis-a-vis the court is hotly contested within the policy circle in in this country as we will discuss today uh the quad actually is still uh in the making so uh the issue for for example our south korea whether uh the country enters the quad or not

must move beyond an immediate cost-benefit analysis of entry but to be projected in a broader and longer-term perspective considering the future of quad uh great power rivalry and south korea's long-term foreign policy to discuss this topic today uh i'm honored and and and pleased to be able to host excellent panelists from the united states and korea we feature three speakers our first speaker is dr evan feigenbaum who is vice president for studies at the carnegie institute for international peace he is also a

practitioner senior fellow at the miller center of public policy at the university of virginia with phd in chinese politics are from stanford his career has been spent you know government services think tank private sector and three regions of asia from 2001 to 9 he served at the u.s state department as deputy assistant secretary of state for south asia and deputy assistant secretary of state for central asia and the member of the policy step uh planning staff with uh principal uh responsibility for east asia and the

pacific um and he's been uh he was an advisor on china to uh deputy secretary of state robert selig he is the author of three books and many monographs including uh united states in the new asia and china's techno warriors as well as numerous articles and essays uh so uh thank you uh so much for joining us uh our second speaker uh is ambassador uh sungla um a career diplomat and i should say that a foremost strategic thinker within the ministry of foreign affairs he served in the ministry for 35 years and most recently he was the

ambassador to russia he served as a director general for the north american affairs bureau uh chief negotiator in the six party talks and a special representative for the korean peninsula peace and security affairs his you know major publications include a russia report and proposal to upgrade korean diplomacy a phd in political science he is currently a visiting uh professor at the korea national diplomatic academy uh thank you so much for uh you know joining i'm sharing this time uh with us and our

third speaker uh is professor jejuck park a professor at the graduate school of international and area studies uh at the hanguk university of foreign studies dr park is is a phd at uh from uh australia national university and he worked as a visiting professor at the institute of foreign affairs and national security and a research fellow uh former research fellow at the korean institute for national unification he's an active member of eai with research including u.s led alliance network in the region regional security order

australian security politics and u.s north korean relations last but not least professor sanyon ma at of catholic university of korea is moderating today's panel dr ma served uh foreign ministry as director general for uh policy planning from 2016 to 19.

um he was a visiting fellow at brookings and a public policy scholar at the woodrow wilson center before and he served as a dean of international affairs at the catholic university of korea his main interest of research in closed east asian politics u.s foreign policy diplomatic history and the history of cold war with that well before passing the mic to the moderator let me express my gratitude to the ministry of foreign affairs rok for sponsoring this event then let me pass the mic to sanyon mar who is coming uh very soon

hello everyone good morning and good have good evening i i'm very much honored to moderate this very important session today the quad is kind of a hot uh potato in a foreign policy discussion in seoul and i think in washington as well we have three distinguished panelists to present their views on hard and related issues uh without further ado i will ask uh dr evan feigenbaum to present their his view i'll give him about 13 minutes first well thanks everyone and uh good to see everyone in seoul obviously i miss korea i miss all my

many friends but it's good to be with you uh virtually and i'm grateful to the east asia institute for sponsoring this and for inviting me to join you um let me let me just start by telling you what i think the key problem is not just for the quad but for asian geometry of all kinds and to put it simply it's this too much form too little function or to put that a little differently the key problem as i see it over two decades of forming pan-asian and trans-pacific groups of all kinds varieties and sizes

is that the form of the thing which is to say holding meetings issuing joint statements formalizing a process has tended to predominate and so the groups that have formed including but not limited to the quad too often find themselves meeting regularly but then groping for purpose and there's an irony in that because we often hear that asia unlike europe has too little architecture but my own view is that the region in fact has too much architecture but mostly of the wrong kind it's got a lot of

variable geometry but not a geometry that's been especially purposeful and certainly not always effective now the problem at least analytically i think seems pretty simple that too many groups too often fail to pool the efforts of those with the greatest capacity in a focused and problem-solving endeavor and so what we've ended up with is a lot of emphasis on what i would call variable geometry the geometry of bilaterals or trilaterals or quadrilaterals or sometimes more than quadrilaterals accompanied by

a two easy presumption including by the way here in the united states that if you just formalize a group and you pull up seats around a table somehow you will get meaningful solutions to asia's most pressing problems but the fact is that at least in my experience the reverse has often been true and so in too many of the pressing crises that we've seen since the 1990s from the east timor crisis to the avian influenza epidemic to the myanmar cyclone and even frankly in the asian financial crisis uh

formalized groups have played either too little or too ineffective or in some cases no problem-solving role at all and so instead what we end up with is what i would call ad hoc regional coalitions often assembled by the united states that have helped to spur collective action so with that as context that brings me to the quad because as i see it we now risk with the quad falling into the same trap and this is an argument that i've been making in washington on the american end now that would be ironic because it is

not in fact how the quad grouping began uh after all in 2004 17 years ago the initial informal quad which is to say a quad with a lowercase letter q instead of a formalized capital letter q launched a joint response to a very tangible very definable functionally specific and urgent crisis which was the 2004 indian ocean earthquake and tsunami and so that group provided rapid and effective relief to injured and displace people all around the indian ocean rim but remember that that group had no formal meetings

it did not hold summits it did not issue joint communiques it did not have a secretariat in fact it celebrated its incredible success how by putting itself out of business and disbanding after nine days so today by contrast when i look at the quad that's emerging it is rapidly becoming much more formalized uh it's turning into a quad with as i said a capital q it holds meetings it's discussed a variety of joint initiatives but the group as i said has in my view too often grow for purpose and instead of a lowercase q

quadrilateral that responds jointly to specific challenges the four have been united at least in the last few years largely by their shared suspicion of the rise of chinese power in particular and the fact that they meet and get together to discuss it so the true test for the quad therefore will be whether the group can work together as what i would call the firm core of an elastic regional architecture in other words a group that works jointly and not just alone as a spur to regional collective

action on an array of specific and real-world functional challenges by increasing areas of alignment and cohesion with a larger community of potential problem-solving partners now that is not the same thing to my mind as what people are calling quad plus quad plus with a capital q and a capital p which again to me is much more focused on the form than on the function rather if you focus on the function it means reconceptually reconceptualizing the quad as kind of the core of a set of ad hoc coalitions that bring in a

changing cast of partners where needed depending on the issue and depending on who has the capacity and the will to help solve an actual functional problem now there are a lot of problems like that in the indo-pacific and we can talk about that and the quad summit in my view made a good start the one that president biden convened by picking out a few of those issues supply chain resilience uh vaccine distribution climate change and green technology and there's a pretty good set of other examples in the region of how

mission-focused groupings that begin in an informal but as i said function specific way then grow over time the best example of that i think is the way that the so-called comprehensive and progressive trans-pacific partnership began if you remember it began with another group of four first movers within the larger apec forum brunei chile new zealand and singapore because they sensed correctly that other countries might have an interest in liberalizing trade but we're not yet ready to move and so the four as first movers became a

kind of spur to subsequent regional collective action with others by pushing forward a positive original agenda not just a negative one and then inviting others to subsequently join so that brings me to my conclusion and then i'll stop now in the quad case what that means is that the issue to me is not so much whether korea would join in the sense of joining a standing group which is the way you framed it but rather whether and how on specific issues and functions the four will find the wherewithal and

the will to reach out to korea and then whether in turn korea wants to be the driver on specific functions lending its very considerable capacity and will to the quad effort on some of those challenges and sometimes spurring the quad to action so illustratively those that best implicate the interest and capacity of korea i think are maybe these five one supply chain resilience two the governance of cross-border data access and transfers three countering disinformation for sharing public health and biomedical

best practices and sometimes not so best practices and then fifth scaling green technologies and diversifying the use of green bonds and other green credit products so to conclude the bottom line for me is this if it's going to endure which it may not and if it's going to meaningly solve meaningfully solve problems which it yet may not the quad ultimately needs to figure out how not just at one summit but on a sustained basis to shift its focus from form to function because if other countries in asia

starting with but not limited to korea view it as little more than a talk group to discuss the risk posed by china's rise while occasionally holding joint military exercises i personally think it's unlikely that anybody else in the region will see the utility two to three years hence or view it as a model for their own choices and conduct so my view is it needs to be as i said the firm core of an elastic architecture that is function specific and that looks for areas of alignment and cohesion and

if it does that that's the best interest that's the best path in my view for advancing the functional interest of the quad but also promoting development in the indo-pacific and that i think that's where korea's opportunity is um and that's frankly where the multilateralism in the region needs to go in time so why don't i stop there and i hope that's a basis for you poking at me a little bit i'll stop okay very good thank you very much uh for sharing your uh invaluable thought i think uh you're uh raising questions

about the nature of the quad is very important and i think we can follow up in the in the following uh discussions as well okay now we will move on to ambassador sungla we ambassador we thank you mr moderator allow me to uh begin with a broader perspective on the subject before i zoom in on the quad issue korea has taken an ambiguous position amid the u.s china competition for a long time which has led the u.s and china to try to pull korea on their side whenever an issue arises korea takes sides with the u.s or

china on a case-by-case basis as a result the u.s has grown dissatisfied with its stance of allies south korea china has raised expectations that it can pull korea further the third episode is a graphic example of this phenomenon now that the u.s china competition is an overall and overwhelming external environment in asia it is becoming more and more difficult for korea to settle on an etiquette ambiguous uh behavior the situation requires korea to settle on an on a guiding principle for policy

options between the u.s and china that would prevent korea from facing intensified push and pull from the u.s and china that would also help korea develop a healthy relations with the us as well as china on top of that a carefully designed guiding principle would enhance the soul's bargaining position vis-a-vis washington over peninsular issues now seoul is trying to talk the biden administration into flexibility to restore the u.s north korea diagonal if seoul works out a principle on policy direction between the u.s and

china that could reduce in induce a good will from washington seoul's argument on the north korea related issue would be more persuasive to washington's year the first thing to keep in mind when korea tries to set the principle between the us and china is that the u.s is an ally and china is a partner that falls short of an ally the next thing to consider is that the united states is much closer to korea than china in terms of value the last thing to consider is the geopolitical reality surrounding

the peninsula so etiquette stands for seoul will be one that is closer to washington but not too distant from beijing figuratively speaking if the u.s tries to pull korea in the direction of three o'clock and china tries to pull korea in the direction of nine o'clock korea should choose a policy line closer to the ally the u.s at one o'clock or 1 30.

it does not necessarily mean that korea should choose either the us or china but rather the coordinate and direction of its own this work will give korea's policy consistency and predictability uh thus stabilizing source of relations with china and the u.s that said let's talk about uh quad keeping in mind the one o'clock or 130 direction i would advise that korea should remain basically open to emerging multilateral architecture promoted by the united states in the region of course there is a cost of joining

quad considering the negative stance of the chinese toward quad however there could be a more cost of being out of quad so non-participation in part is not an option of career therefore it is appropriate for korea to work with quad one way or another it's worth noting that japan australia and india are all participating in what even though they have different coordinates and positions between the us and china because of the differences among the participants quad focuses on collective actions in

functional and non-security areas such an approach seems to be useful to gain wider support and participation further if quad maintains the current form of the loose forum the chinese reaction would be unmanageable having said that i would suggest that korea could be either a second-year participant in the format of quad plus or work with a quad on a thematic basis in the initial stage korea can work with quad on economic health environmental humanitarian issues as to the cost of the chinese reaction

korea could manage it by making a constructive role within quad so the quad will not evolve in the extreme direction of an anti-china alliance in the same vein korea has to participate in the emerging economic architecture in the region it is not a good thing that south korea did not participate in the tpp recently president moon jae-in said korea should take part in the cptpp it is related but still a good judgment however korea needs to make its own efforts to prevent such an organization from pursuing excessive

anti-china solidarity let me stop here thank you thank you very much ambassador we uh members ambassador we talked about the the one o'clock or 130 stands with regard to the quad and other regional competition issue between washington and beijing i think this is another very important and very interesting point that it can follow up in the later discussion our third panelist is uh professor jajok park professor park and now flow is yours thanks uh professor mark and i'd like to thank eai for inviting

me to this important event now given the time constraint of eight minutes i'll like uh i'd like to get down to my presentation without any further ado as uh two previous speakers presented we can't deny that quad is an element of china containment also in our claim that at the same time quad is a product of u.s strategy of linking among u.s ladder alliances and security partnerships therefore if south korea would not participate in quad plus south korea would become a second-year ally within the network while japan

will remain as a part of its core group you know we all know that japan has been enhancing security cooperation with some european states like uh great britain and france as well as other quad members u.s india and australia on the other hand if south korea would participate in the quad plus that the current south korean government is concerned that south korea would unnecessarily provoke china as a result of which china might not be cooperating with south korea on resolving the north korean nuclear crisis therefore south korea

should work very fine line between participation and making reservation and participating in the quad class that said a good news is that quad plus is not singular but plural as previous two speakers presented now since november of 2017 when president trump announced the u.s in the pacific strategies there have been a dozen other official quad meetings said at each of the meetings the quad states discussed not only freedom of navigation in south tennessee but also uh such functional issues as infrastructure building maritime

capacity building maritime domain awareness cyber security so on and so forth so then so forth also quad quads does not necessarily mean that all the four states all the four quad states should be involved two or three of the quad states can work with other non-quad members therefore given the variety of issues and the various combination of participating states quad plus for sure is not singular but plural it is wrong to describe quad plus as south korea in south korea joining the quad as fifth members

so in the in my talking points i submitted to eas i listed i listed nine potential of part plus and i discussed these quotes and benefits associated associated with each of them the nine uh quad potential problems are official meetings among highlighting officers for the second infrastructure investment slash post-kobe economic reconstruction third maritime capacity building slash maritime domain awareness for vaccine export group five climate change six critical and emerging deter technology seven codeplus to diversify

supply chain eight quad plus declare universal norms values and democracy nine chord plus to add participants in the existing quad related military exercises so given the time constraint i would not discuss each of them but i would like to make a three points the first point is that quad and quad plus are just one of the many mechanisms for regional security in this region china is also engaged in mini security cooperation example is rick russia china russia india and china also china has been exploring the

possibility of trilateral or quadrilateral security cooperation among china russia india iran and pakistan and also south korea has been participating in asean plus three in which china is present but u.s is not present therefore you know south korea should not feel compelled to shun thought plus just because china is not present the second point i would like to make is that south korea should publicize south korea's participation in various called plus tomorrow now south korea's good record of participating in

cod plus would enable south korea to engage with china in northeast asia so for example south korea and the united states has been have been coordinating on their investment for infrastructure building in the in the in the pacific in the context of final nexus between south korea's new southern policy and united states indo-pacific strategy since south korea has been cooperating with the united states in infrastructure investment south korea was able to join china's bri conditionally if south korea had not cooperated

coordinated with the united states in in in infrastructure building if n and south korea joined had joined the china's pri the united states would have perceived or misperceived that uh south korea trying to uh till toward the chinese strategic orbit likewise in the case of maritime capacity building if south korea in a coordinates with quad members for maritime capacity building in the region that will enable south korea to engage with china in northeast asia even security wise south korea can conduct joint military

exercises with china in lucis asia under the name of responding to non-traditional security issues the third point i'd like to make is that we should approach the quad and quad plus from the angle of strengthening u.s led security network in that sense you know restoring the south korea japan united states trilateral security cooperation should be considered as south korea effort to contributing the u.s quad plus strategies now by strengthening it south korea can can claim that can claim to the united states that uh

south korea indeed cooperate with the united states with respect to the quad and the quad plus so given the time constraint i stopped here and looking for the our discussion okay thank you very much professor park uh prophet park professor bach uh raised uh an issue of uh the quad plus and he emphasized that quad plus is not a singular one rather it is a more uh plural one and and and in which there are uh many rooms uh for cooperation that uh south korea can part take part in okay uh i'd like to thank all of the uh

presenters uh for sharing their insightful insights with us and now i'd like to begin addressing some of the questions that our audience raised during the seminar and invite our speakers to respond to them uh our first question to the panelists is the the relationship between the issues of quad and south korea and united states uh alliance how those two are uh linked and uh with regard to that uh additional question is how the quality issue will be featured in the upcoming uh the the summit between president

biden and president moon jae-in scheduled in uh later this month i think all of the the participants may address the questions why don't mr feigenbaum start with well i'm not uh so i would i was going to suggest some luck take this one i mean i i um i think the principal issues for the visit for president moon are largely bilateral in nature i think there's a lot of work actually that needs to be done on the alliance and particularly with the new administration and it's important to to shore up some of to shore up and

and address some of the issues that have emerged over the last couple of years um so to my mind that's really where the priority needs to be uh and then of course the new administration is about to announce the results of its north korea policy review um and that'll feature heavily in the discussion i don't think the quad will be front and center notwithstanding the attention we're giving to it now and i don't think the central issues between the us and korea right now really involve uh multilateral architecture in the

region i think the priority is and should be on the alliance itself the united states frankly it the u.s phase we could talk about this later if you'd like but i think the united states faces a broader set of structural challenges in the region that it's adjusting to and part of the problem it has now is that it's viewing asia increasingly through the prism of u.s china relations and of its issues with china rather than the other way around whereas my former boss rich armitage used to say the former deputy secretary

said if you want to get asia right sorry if you want to get china right and you're american you need to get your asia policy right but over the last few years increasingly the us has made relationships policies and initiatives in asia derivative of its agenda and priorities with china and i think it would be a mistake uh to look at the us korea bilateral in that context and so my view is that's really where the hard work has to be on the upcoming visit okay thank you very much uh ambassador we what do you think about

the questions um let me put these two questions together and try to answer all together because these two issues are linked in one way or another let me begin with uh biden administration's uh major concern in asia biden administration is trying to rebuild america's leadership in asia and the the main focus of this to policy is uh on china in order to lead competition with china in its favor the united states is trying to um build up alliance relationship and refresh alliance relationship among them uh rob us alliance

so in the upcoming summit meeting between president moon jae-in and president joe biden the u.s will try to strengthen bilateral alliance with south korea and the ultimate direction beyond this effort is to to strengthen its asia policy to be more precisely speaking a china policy and quad in american strategic thinking is a part of its asia policy or china policy so quad is in the american thinking is related to the iraq u.s alliance and that could be a subject of discussion in the upcoming summit

if not the the key agenda items what i want to say is that the quad issue will be handled in the upcoming summit by the united states in the context of asia policy china policy and a rough u.s alliance issue that is why i'm suggesting that korea has to settle specific directions in the course of u.s chinese competition if not that will weaken the korea's bargaining position with the united states more specifically in the upcoming uh u.s summit meeting thank you all right uh professor park your turn

uh yes uh south korea's official position has been so far that u.s has never asked south korea to join the club plus i don't think in the upcoming summer meetings between president biden and president moon i don't think the president biden would ask south korea to join the quad class indeed quad plus is not a formal institution as uh dr fagenbaum uh commented quad plus is quad is in the process of being formalized but yet quad does not is not a formal institution so that i don't think the u.s can uh can

join south korea so u.s can access korea during the quad plus that said again i think we should approach the quad while the quad plus with a larger angle of us linking among the us led alliances and security partners so very likely that at the upcoming summit meeting president biden would ask president moon jae-in to restore the relationship between south korea and japan so that are strengthening the trilateral security cooperation between japan and united states and south korea so we should understand this

as a part of you know quad plus thank you okay here is our second question from the audience there's a suggestion that south korea may take part in cooperation with quad in the field of non-security cooperation trying to avoid getting in to the security agenda do you think this is possible and and in what kind of an areas are promising for and south korea's participation i think some of the questions are already addressed by uh professor park so i would like to ask uh professor bach to speak first

now there again i mean there are functional areas uh south korea can uh participate in without a walking eggshell around china it's like infrastructure building and maritime capacity building vaccine climate change those are functional areas now in case of the climate change in a president xi jinping agreed to participate in the conference organized by the united states but there are areas of between traditional security and non-traditional security issues a i think they did the casing point in body time capacity building because u.s

has been providing uh not only uh used ships and uh airplanes but also isr intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets to regional states if south korea joins them in providing them to regional states china might think that south korea has been fully cooperating with the united states but the thing is that south korea also huge economic interest in contributing to maritime capacity building because you know it often leads to south korea's export arms to to regional states so again so that there are areas south

korea can participate in without walking eggshells around china and you know there are areas that south korea should be cautious so south korea should be very selective in this right so professor spock suggested there there can be a kind of selectivity that south korea uh can uh get into uh cooperation with quad uh uh ambassador we uh do you do you agree with him with uh does the the opinion from professor paul uh yes i agree with professor park and further with uh evan mr evan feigenbaum both presenters suggested

a very useful and nitty gritty area of non-traditional cooperation i believe there are many many issues for korea to work with quad in various forms particularly non-security areas are less sensitive and more useful to begin with the key question here is whether uh region could work out a collective action platform that can deal with a potential problems the region requires to face in that sense quad with non-security area cooperation is a good platform for for the country in the region right uh the same question to mr faye

gumball well i think all three of us are agreeing i mean obviously there's a basis for functional cooperation in korea and some of those functions ought to be part of it and the reason for that as i said is very simple i mean there there's not really a single functional problem in asia that only those four countries in the quad can solve working by themselves climate change you need other players in counter narcotics you need other players in maritime capacity building you need other players in infrastructure the operations

that matter are addition and multiplication not subtraction and division so actually you want more players in so i think the rationale is there i think the problem is twofold one even among the quad there are areas that ought to be ripe for cooperation but there actually isn't cohesion even among the four give an example i talked about cross-border data access and transfers you know increasingly we're moving toward a digital economy people in korea understand that very well and on issues like data localization

where india increasingly is trying to localize all data but also on cross-border data access and transfers even among the quad countries there are distinctive models and there's no agreement you may recall that prime minister abe introduced the so-called osaka initiative which was a cross-water data initiative in the g20 context when japan was in the g20 chair who refused to sign up to it india refused to sign up to it and another member of the team free and open indonesia also refused to sign up to it

so the first problem is there's insufficient cohesion even on some of the non-security issues that ought to be promising and that are going to be front and center the second problem is that there's already an existing architecture in some of these economic areas you just look at trade for the next generation regional trade and investment standards are going to be set by two agreements the regional comprehensive economic partnership the rcep and the cptpp the comprehensive and progressive tpp that don't include who doesn't include

india or the united states in either agreement so for all the talk about an indo-pacific from the united states as the basis of american strategy in the region in the economic area at least trade and investment standards are being set through agreements that don't include the largest economy in the indo and also don't include the largest economy across the pacific so what is it to talk about in indo-pacific when both the indo and the pacific are out really asia needs to be really at the center of that conception so i think

that's that's what i mean in my setup remarks when i talk about form driving function we need to think functionally about this and the challenge is first to try to forge cohesion second to pick the players in a way that reflects capacity and will and third my view is really to focus on standard setting in the infrastructure area for instance if you're a recipient country you don't necessarily want just a chinese package or then a u.s indian japanese package you want multiple packages because as i said

addition and multiplication are the name of the game so the issue there i think is really to forge common infrastructure standards standards around finance standards around environmental provisions standards around things like environmental impact assessment so that's the kind of thing that the quad can do in partnership with other major donors and and financiers and korea as professor park said is that it has a major role to play there so that's the challenge but that's also where korea can play

and i think uh that's why i said a firm core of an elastic architecture provides a good basis for some ad hoc functional cooperation okay we have uh 10 minutes left i think we can deal with one or two questions more let me ask a question to dr feigenbaum first and and and to uh dr park uh what will be the future of the quad i think uh quad is still in the process of evolution well there are many discussions whether or not card is a kind of coalition of countries to mainly uh contain china or not or as you just suggested

quad can be a kind of vehicle for corp to promote corporations among the regional countries what direction do you think quad will be taking uh in the future and what will be the end state of uh the quad uh in in in in ten years time uh dr uh park first uh let's make uh two points on that question first is now what i call the quad quad dilemma is that the united states want to maintain it as a china containment but dilemma is that in order to maintain a china in order to retain it as a china containment mechanism

united states should operate it uh in a way that not to perceive as a china containment you know as uh dr uh fergan baum uh pointed out it's very incohesive mini lateral uh cooperation among the four states so india and us area would like to see i would like to make a quad to be perceived as a china containment so that uh us is going to activate many made a number of quad plus uh based up for the cooperation on non-functional issues that's my first point the second point is that quad and quad plus in 10 years would be just

one of again many many uh regional mini lateral security cooperation i think uh quad uh and quad plus have been uh highlighted out of our out of proportion uh now so we should pay i would say less attention to quad or quad plus but we should approach this in a larger context of u.s strengthening u.s led mini lateral license and security partnerships all right thank you very much uh related question to mr feigenbaum uh you have uh suggested that the card should be more like an ad-hoc coalition of

among among uh countries rather than being a more formalized uh platform but then how how can those uh countries you know with an adult uh nature uh can coordinate their uh you know uh directions uh as a kind of a common entity well i think you heard me a little bit wrong i don't mean that the foursome itself will be ad hoc that's why i called it the firm core of an elastic regional function-specific architecture so my thought is that the four ought to have some cohesion but then strive to be first

movers working with other rotating coalitional partners depending on the function to actually develop some tangible problem solving capacity and i think that goes to your last question that professor pocket dressed because if i i think it's too early to say what it's going to be you know i think it's still evolving and i think american thinking about it is still evolving if two years from now it's just a group of four that gets together and whines about china it's not going to amount to much first of all because that region doesn't

implica that agenda doesn't implicate the interest of much of the region and i'm thinking here particularly about the asean countries except in specific and distinctive ways and second because there's really no basis for collective security within the in the traditional sense of collective security um that kind of nato sense of collective security so if you think about it that way it'll be intrinsically self-limiting and i think frankly the problem the united states has is that it's in danger of becoming what i sometimes call

the hessians of asia i don't know if you know the hessians but the hessians were the german mercenaries that the british used in the american revolution they were kind of a security provider the american role as a security provider in asia is assured over the long term because until there's collectives there's no basis for collective security until china and japan have a french german kind of moment and until that time the united states was is and as far as i can see going to continue to be a major security provider

for many many countries in the region but u.s leadership and role in the region shouldn't just be premised on a security pillar it needs an economic pillar too and the u.s role is a demand driver compared to 10 15 20 years ago is shrinking uh you know u.s trade investment is growing in absolute terms but it's shrinking in relative terms which means the u.s needs to lean on its other traditional economic role which is as a standard center but the u.s has lost that function it's withdrawn from the tpp it's not coming

back um and so the u.s needs to rediscover its role as a standard setting nation and that's why i said to the extent that the quad can play that role and the u.s can inject a standard setting agenda in that on infrastructure on investment on environmental standards it actually has the potential to reinvigorate its role in the region in ways that i think would be far-reaching and enduring and and and address some of that problem of uh the mismatch between security and economics and its strategy but i think it's too early to say how

that's going to evolve and i think the thinking about the quad is very much encoded at this point all right thank you very much my our last question to ambassador we uh related to the previous ones uh what kind of korea's national interest can be served by taking uh as you just mentioned one o'clock and 130 kind of position or stand between china and united states what kind of concrete national interest of korea will be served by taking one o'clock or 1 30 position or stance right the reason why i

suggested that kind of figurative comparison is that figurative comparison gives us very simple and precise directions if we talk of one o'clock direction as our policy guideline um the reaction that participation in the quad is not a good idea cannot be made because we are leaning slightly toward the ally in that case the initial reaction to quad would be let's study if there is any area of possible cooperation or let's study if there's any way for korea to work with the quad uh without having that kind of guiding

directions korea is swayed between china and the united states depending upon the issues in a big way once again if i go back to the figurative comparison we took ten o'clock eruption when we handled the third issue and then we move to the two o'clock direction and then back to 11 o'clock and so on and so forth that lead us to unhealthy relationship with china and the u.s because both sides try to strengthen their pressure to pull korea to their side so some kind of guiding principle will help us

some may argue that other countries like japan or australia or india haven't suggested anything like this but they have their own coherent consistent policy directions between the us and china i would counter argue this way japan may take a 12 action figuratively between beijing and washington australia now somewhere around 2 30 india 12 30.

in those countries there haven't been any such suggestions to go in that direction of 2 o'clock 2 30 or 12 30 but the national discussion on this particular issue works out the kind of general consensus but in case of korea our process of national discussion over foreign policy and national security is flawed our mechanism cannot work out proper consistent coherent policy directions in our mechanism depending upon the situation policy choices will be swayed by the strength of pressure from the other capitals

for example from beijing or from washington so for that matter we need artificial direction to prevent extreme sway to prevent inconsistency okay thank you very much ambassador we and uh dr feigenbaum and professor park we are running out of time now and i'd like to uh wrap up now thank you for the panelists to sharing for sharing their very insightful insights and valuable opinions with us we truly appreciate your efforts and hoping to host you again in the near future and before you leave all the audiences

are asked to fill out a brief survey about the seminar your feedback will be very helpful to improve our webinar in the future the survey can be found in the public poll option below thank you all for joining us today and we look forward to other eai online seminars in the future thank you very much thank you thank you mr moderator and participants thanks very much good to be with you do so do do do

첨부파일: TheQuadandaPathforSouthKorea.pdf