[Interview] S. Korea no longer needs to act like a shrimp among whales, China expert says

Assessing recent mega-FTAs, Kang Jun-young said that South Korea should take on more of a leadership role and pursue diversified interests

China expert Kang Jun-young speaks to the Hankyoreh from his office at HUFS on May 26. (Kim Young-bae/The Hankyoreh)

“We’re ranking seventh in the world for trade. Has anyone ever seen a ‘shrimp’ that big?”

While South Korea’s recent decision to join the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) has some questioning whether it may be in for some difficulties, professor Kang Jun-young of the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (HUFS) said, “We don’t need to see ourselves as a ‘shrimp,’ and we don’t have to keep acting like a shrimp [in light of South Korea’s higher economic stature].”

“When it comes to the economy, we obviously need to be taking advantage of diverse sources of profit,” added the 60-year-old China expert.

The announcement of the IPEF’s launch as a US-led economic framework with aspects of an economic security alliance has prompted China to express its discontent with the participants, South Korea included. This has led to some analysts predicting that it could find itself in the tough position of being caught between two superpowers.

The IPEF was launched on May 23, with 13 countries taking part, including South Korea, the US, Japan and Australia.

The Hankyoreh spoke with Kang on Thursday at the HUFS faculty hall.

Kang is a China expert who earned a doctoral degree in political economics from Taiwan’s National Chengchi University. Since joining HUFS’ Graduate School of International and Area Studies as a professor of Chinese studies in 1999, he has served as director of the university’s Institute of Chinese Studies and Center for International Area Studies. He currently heads the HK+ National Strategies Research Project Agency.

In 2019, he returned as director of the HUFS Center for International Area Studies, overseeing 14 local institutes in places such as the US, China and Japan. He is currently directing a project for the expansion and reorganization of institutes.

When asked how much of a threat China perceives the IPEF as being, Kang said, “China is already aware that it’s heading in that direction.”

“The US may not have singled China out by name, but China knows it’s targeting them. South Korea must have also seen it heading in that direction, which may explain why [recently inaugurated President] Yoon Suk-yeol indicated during his election campaign that he wanted to strengthen the South Korea-US alliance,” he added.

At the same time, he said he does not foresee China raising overt objections or implementing retaliation measures for now.

“It’s more at the level of expressing concern about the overall trend,” he said. “It would be one thing if China was stable internally, but they’ve been going through some difficulties due to their pandemic response.”

“I think they want to do fewer outward shows [of disgruntlement],” he added.

“They may respond directly when it comes to issues like Taiwan, but I don’t expect them to do much more than to keep bringing the IPEF up as an issue until it takes shape as an official framework in November 2023,” he predicted.

Characterizing the Joe Biden administration’s global strategy as centering on the two main objectives of “establishing new supply chains that shut China out” and “enacting new technology standards,” Kang said Washington was working to achieve such goals “by pressuring China and Russia with an emphasis on democracy, freedom, markets, and human rights.” According to this analysis, IPEF is a means of achieving the two goals jointly with the US-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC).

“The US strategy is to use the IPEF to hem in China while using the TTC to choke out Russia,” he explained.

“The TTC, which was launched in October 2021 as a US organization for containing China within Europe, has also been serving since the Ukraine invasion as a platform for containing Russia,” he added.

Did South Korea make the right decision in joining the IPEF from its inauguration?

“We’ve never been part of the process of organizing the [trade] order from the outset before,” Kang observed.

“We weren’t part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the Barack Obama presidency. After the US pulled out of it during the [Donald] Trump presidency, the TPP became the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which centered around Japan,” he said.

“South Korea has never been one of the ‘rule makers,’ but now we’re able to talk about directions for finding ways of thriving going forward,” he continued.

“In my view, it would be a bad idea to join it once it’s already cemented into a framework for containing China. We need to take action and join from the outset,” he added.

“This is not something for us to approach passively. It isn’t good for us to lose out on the opportunity to join or for us to get dragged around.”

Commenting on South Korea’s decision to join the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) during the Moon Jae-in administration, Kang said, “That’s something we can use as strategic leverage for making our case to China [about participating in the IPEF].”

“The urea water solution shortage showed us how tough things can get when we rely too much on any one country. We can always tell [China], ‘What’s wrong with working with other countries in the process of reorganizing supply chains?’”

Indeed, the other participants in IPEF include seven of the 10 members of ASEAN, which is part of the Chinese sphere of influence. One of them, Singapore, is considered to be one of the leading pro-China countries.

“Depending on the US for security and China for the economy isn’t the right approach for us,” Kang suggested.

“When it comes to the economy and livelihood issues, we have the option of diversifying. Now we’re hearing people talking about ‘US for security, the world for the economy’ or ‘US for security, follow the profits for the economy,’” he added.

“While there is definite antagonism between the US and China, we can and should manage things so that it doesn’t turn into antagonism between South Korea and China. We have the [semiconductor] technology.”

Will the IPEF follow in line with Washington’s intentions?

“Completely under US leadership? That seems unlikely,” Kang replied.

“All we have now is 13 countries coming together to declare its launch. For that to translate into concrete action, they’re going to need to establish rules,” he explained.

“We can expect a tug-of-war to take place all the way up to the formal establishment of a meeting framework in November 2023. In that sense, we don’t need to frame things too much in terms of ‘antagonism’ — that only reduces our room for maneuvering,” he continued.

“The US’ intentions could carry the day, or they may be neutralized by another country’s influence.”

Noting that the pursuit of the IPEF was based on an executive order by Biden, Kang said, “That shows the sense of urgency in the US.”

“They don’t think there’s time for going back and forth to win ratification from Congress. But since it is an approach that doesn’t require congressional ratification, that also raises questions about what becomes of it when a new leader comes into office.”

By Kim Young-bae, senior staff writer

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]