In October of last year, US President Biden officially announced the establishment of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) at the East Asia Summit hosted by video.
However, no one knows what form the IPEF will be in or what content it will be filled with.
It is different from the general FTA.
The name 'Agreement' is not even included.
There are many observations that it will become a loose multilateral consultative body that sets norms or rules to be followed by participating countries in four major areas: trade, taxation, and anti-corruption.
A high-ranking diplomatic source
also commented, "It
seems that the United States does not seem to know exactly what kind of picture it is drawing on its own ."
Under this circumstance, the Office of the President announced that President Yun Seok-yeol would attend the IPEF inauguration summit scheduled for the 24th.
Government officials have expressed an ambiguous position of 'participation review', but the President's Office confirmed its participation in the IPEF.
Naturally, there is an observation that this summit will focus on economic security centered on IPEF.
A summit that weighs on economic security... Gap between South Korea-US policy priorities
A high-ranking official from the presidential office said,
"If there is an additional North Korean provocation before the summit, the North Korean issue, otherwise, economic and security issues such as the semiconductor supply chain will be emphasized at the summit
."
This suggests that this summit was originally planned with an emphasis on economic and security issues rather than traditional security issues such as North Korea.
The fact that the U.S. Secretary of Commerce accompanies President Biden, but the Secretary of State and Defense are not accompanied to this summit is also a starting point for predicting where the weight of the agenda is placed.
This situation presents several challenges and challenges for the Yun Seok-Yeol government.
First, there is the issue of the difference in priorities between South Korea and the United States on the North Korean issue.
It is a well-known fact that the US government, especially the Biden administration, has left or dropped the North Korean issue from the US government's foreign and security policy priorities.
The fact that this summit was planned with a focus on economic issues is also interpreted as reflecting the will of the US side.
On the other hand, the North Korean issue is still a top priority in our country.
As President Yun said in his address to the city government, this is even more so in that the circumstances of North Korea's additional nuclear tests are being understood.
The presidential office said that the restart and revitalization of the 'Expanded Deterrence Strategy Consultative Group (EDSCG)' will be the agenda for this summit.
In the event of a nuclear threat from North Korea, the US will discuss restarting a channel that discusses providing a so-called nuclear umbrella, which is expected to become the core of the security agenda for this summit.
Restarting and revitalizing the dialogue channels that have been suspended for four years are meaningful enough, but this alone is insufficient to show that the importance of the security agenda in this summit has increased compared to the previous summit.
How to bridge the gap between the two countries' policy priorities on the North Korean issue is expected to be one of the biggest issues of the summit.
The IPEF is not meant to contain China, but…
Enlarging an image
The biggest challenge related to IPEF participation is also establishing a strategy to minimize the expected backlash from China.
Government officials have repeatedly emphasized that the IPEF is not intended to contain or encircle China.
Kim Tae-hyo, first deputy director of the National Security Office, met with reporters yesterday and said,
"(IPEF) is a new economic and trade cooperation organization focusing on new trade issues such as supply chain, digital, and clean energy, unlike the existing traditional trade agreements that aim to open markets for goods and services.
He
emphasized that “I
am
not rejecting China here .”
“In the course of discussing the follow-up agreement for the Korea-China FTA, we are even discussing market opening with China to smoothly exchange sensitive supply chains with each other
,
” he said.
No,”
he added.
Another high-ranking government official
said,
“The US has
never mentioned the IPEF as an anti-China alliance.
work”
It is also explained
China applied for CPTTP membership, but considering the level of sophistication of CPTPP services and other fields, it seems that China has no intention of actually joining CPTTP. it means not
Another government official said,
"The IPEF is basically open to China
, "
and emphasized
that "If China can guarantee mutual trust in participating countries, the IPEF cannot be considered to exclude China ."
In response to the observation that the IPEF is being pursued with the purpose of excluding China from the supply chain of key components such as semiconductors and batteries, some question whether it is
realistically possible to completely exclude China
.
Considering the reality that many Chinese-made parts are being used for intermediate goods, it is to the point that it is impossible to exclude China from the supply chain issue just like removing the bones of a fish.
International relations where how the other party perceives the intention is important
However, in
diplomatic and security issues, how the other party understands and accepts the other party's intentions that are different from the actual intentions is important, and the perception of the other party's intentions can define the relationship.
The arms race was also a result of the repeated process in which the expansion of arms for defense was perceived as an offensive intention by the other party.
Contrary to the intention, how the other person perceives it is important.
Despite the repeated emphasis that the IPEF is not for containment against China, China is opposed to the IPEF, saying it is for containment against China.
Regarding the IPEF, spokesperson Zhao Lijian of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China said at a regular briefing on the 12th, "In keeping with the current trend of peace and development, we will promote mutual trust and cooperation among regional countries, and strive for openness, transparency, inclusiveness, equality, mutual trust and mutual benefit. We must maintain the principles of respect for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs,” he said.
Enlarging an image
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in a phone call with Foreign Minister Park Jin, "We must oppose the negative trend of 'decoupling' and keep global industrial and supply chains stable and smooth," the Chinese Foreign Ministry said.
This was an exceptionally sharp remark that came out of the first meeting of the nature of the meeting, and it was a check and a check on Korea's participation in the IPEF.
The question is the possibility of China's economic retaliation.
Diplomats
observe that “since the IPEF is a multilateral cooperative, the possibility of China retaliating by pinpointing only certain countries is low”
, but from the perspective of South Korea, which has suffered economic retaliation for the deployment of THAAD, it is difficult to predict it as if it were someone else’s.
it's difficult.
The other's perception of the intention is not fixed.
Therefore, it is necessary to explain the meaning of IPEF participation well to the Chinese side and to persuade them not to accept the IPEF as an anti-China check.
However, even for only one possibility, when China takes economic retaliation against a specific country participating in the IPEF, it seems necessary to prepare a joint response plan for the IPEF participating countries.
Although the deployment of THAAD was more important than the needs of the US, the US did not step in when China retaliated economically against South Korea with the THAAD deployment.
(Photo = Captured from the homepage of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, Yonhap News)