2013, Vol.28, No.2

The Journal of Northeast Asia Research 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.75

pISSN : 2005-4432
https://journal.kci.go.kr/inas

This paper asserts that America’s strategic initiatives, “Rebalancing” towards the Asia-Pacific region and “Pivot to Asia”, has had a great influence on major states in Northeast Asia such as China, Russia, and North Korea. In order to contain China and Russia, the United States has proceeded to carry out two global strategies, namely NATO’s Enlargement in the East and Rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific region throughout the 21st Century. In response to the these strategic initiatives, China and Russia have not only built a strong solidarity, built also continuously reinforced overall cooperation in the region. Especially, the Chinese Government undoubtedly regards this rebalancing strategy as a kind of containment policy to block China from emerging in the Asia-Pacific. Under this circumstance, China has consistently attempted not only to avoid conflict between the US and China , but also to establish and manage so called a “New Type of Great Power relations” among them under the Xijinping’s Regime. In addition, on the one hand, it is urgent for the China and Russia to strengthen a bilateral relationship between two nations. On the other hand, China, Russia, and North Korea as Continental power have been demanded to build a trilateral relationship in order to deter tighter trilateral military cooperations between the U.S. Japan, and South Korea as Sea power. However because of America’s intervention on this region using rebalancing strategy, it would be unpromising that China, Russia, and North Korea could establish and consolidate a firm and stable trilateral architecture of security. So as far as I see, these trilateral relations seem to be transient and unstable. They would be no more able to build a regime as a stable institution than an expectation.

The United States’ Asia-focused strategy will bring about competition among East Asian nations according to the realist perspective. As the U.S. tries to engage in a number of territorial disputes in the East Asian Seas, there has emerged a “U.S, vs. China” competition, or, broadly, “maritime power vs. land power.” Due to such competition, the uncertainty in East Asian maritime security has escalated more than ever. The U.S.’ pivot to Asia is likely to bring about significant change in East Asian maritime security environment in that such a stern pose is prone to end up in competition between the U.S. and China to become the maritime hegemon. The stronger the U.S. poses the Asia-focused strategy, the more careful South Korea should be in choosing its strategy. Under such a circumstance, South Korea needs to come up with a maritime strategy that enables its intention to be portrayed.

This article clarifies disagreement and conflict among Stalin, Mao Ze Dong and Kim Il Sung in the period of Korean Military Armistice Conference, using the materials of Russian Archives. Disagreement and conflict had mainly occurred between Mao Ze Dong and Kim Il Sung. In the period of seeking a cease-fire, internal disagreement among the communist side occurred between Mao Ze Dong, who recognized the need for the cease-fire, and Kim Il Sung, who wanted to continue the warfare. On the other hand, In the period of Military Armistice Conference Conflict had occurred again between North Korea and Mao Ze Dong’s China with respect to set the Military Demarcation Line and exchange the prisoners of war. However since Chinese troops committed the war, China had taken over leading role toward the war and North korea had to play the adjuvant role, even though the war was going on in the North Korea’s territory. Furthermore, the Soviet Union also supported the China’s intention. As a result, China’s intention naturally overwhelmed North Korea’s willingness. Therefore from the beginning the Korean Military Armistice Conference forced on the interest of Soviet Union and China, and North Korea’s interest was not the subject of consideration.