By Song Kyung-jin
Not just trade but also semiconductors, batteries, artificial intelligence, aerospace, and various climate technologies are increasingly becoming critical strategic factors determining the national security of a country beyond its economic strength. National and corporate investment decisions take into account security elements more than ever before. Economic issues are inextricably intertwined with foreign affairs and security issues.
This new national security environment has emerged directly because of the power struggle between the U.S. and China. The U.S.-China competition is being manifested in many realms, including non-conventional ones pertaining to security.
It is driving the expansion of a values-based rule of law around the world, putting more emphasis on responses to climate change, human rights and labor standards. A couple of persuasive examples include the European Union proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism expected to take effect in 2026 and the U.S. ban on imports from Xinjiang, China since 2021.
Unilateral trade restrictions are often imposed for alleged breaches of national security when the countries concerned are in conflict such as Japan's export control measures and China's THAAD retaliatory measures, respectively against Korea. It consequently undermines the multilateral trade system and makes trade less of an economic issue and more of a security and foreign affairs matter.
China's application for accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) one week prior to that by Taiwan was aimed at strengthening its influence in the Indo-Pacific. The US, caught off guard by China's application for CPTPP, put forward a new initiative called the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, under the Free, Open Indo-Pacific to bring its allies to the framework.
In an effort to restructure supply chains in their own interest, the U.S. and China are competing fiercely to strategically align themselves with allies and friends in a move called ally shoring. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or the QUAD, with a growing number of working groups and initiatives under its umbrella is a conduit for ally-shoring. The same tenet applies to investment decisions on infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region.
In the midst of a changing geopolitical and economic security landscape where security and foreign affairs are overwhelming trade and economic issues, is the Korean government properly structured to deal with the changes and best serve the nation's economic and security interests? Given the current state of the Korean government's organization, it does not bode well.
The current government structure has security and foreign affairs under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and trade under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy in isolation. When trade and economic issues are becoming security and foreign affairs issues, it is utterly inadequate to keep the two subjects fragmented in two different government ministries working in silos, without the prime coordinator in the Blue House. In this setting only a paltry sense of expertise and accountability is witnessed in the ministries concerned.
I recently attended an international conference in Washington, D.C. which provided a valuable opportunity to discuss the Indo-Pacific, global supply chains, trade, technology and climate, among others, with colleagues from around the world. From the U.S., officials from the Department of State joined the discussions.
One of the State Department officials that came holds a Ph.D. in chemistry and deals with technology and climate. It made much more sense in this new security environment. The prime coordinator in the U.S. administration is clearly the National Security Council in the White House. Japan's Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, created a new ministerial post and appointed an advisor for economic security soon after taking office in October 2021.
The President-elect on March 9 needs to immediately look into this critically essential matter of comprehensive and balanced government reorganization and take action in order to be able to best adapt and respond to the new security environment. The National Security Council (NSC) in the Blue House should be made the prime coordinator for economic security in the new government.
An economic security adviser in the NSC overseeing and coordinating the related ministries may be worth considering. The government must recruit experts with diverse backgrounds and experience from both public and private sectors to deal with a wide range of issues that come under economic security. In this endeavor, government organizations of allies and friends will provide useful reference points to build on.
Also, one too many conventional foreign affairs and security experts who still fail to digest that the world has changed must do away with the silo mentality and adapt to the new national security environment. Trade and economic affairs, science and technology, and security and foreign affairs no more stand on their own working in silos. It is a thing of the past. They must broaden their view accordingly and quickly as they might be called in to advise the President and the government.
Dr. Song Kyung-jin (kj_song@hotmail.com) led the Institute for Global Economics (IGE), based in Seoul, and served as special adviser to the chairman of the Presidential Committee for the Seoul G20 Summit in the Office of the President. Now, she chairs the international cooperation committee called the Innovative Economy Forum.
 |
This new national security environment has emerged directly because of the power struggle between the U.S. and China. The U.S.-China competition is being manifested in many realms, including non-conventional ones pertaining to security.
It is driving the expansion of a values-based rule of law around the world, putting more emphasis on responses to climate change, human rights and labor standards. A couple of persuasive examples include the European Union proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism expected to take effect in 2026 and the U.S. ban on imports from Xinjiang, China since 2021.
Unilateral trade restrictions are often imposed for alleged breaches of national security when the countries concerned are in conflict such as Japan's export control measures and China's THAAD retaliatory measures, respectively against Korea. It consequently undermines the multilateral trade system and makes trade less of an economic issue and more of a security and foreign affairs matter.
China's application for accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) one week prior to that by Taiwan was aimed at strengthening its influence in the Indo-Pacific. The US, caught off guard by China's application for CPTPP, put forward a new initiative called the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, under the Free, Open Indo-Pacific to bring its allies to the framework.
In an effort to restructure supply chains in their own interest, the U.S. and China are competing fiercely to strategically align themselves with allies and friends in a move called ally shoring. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or the QUAD, with a growing number of working groups and initiatives under its umbrella is a conduit for ally-shoring. The same tenet applies to investment decisions on infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region.
In the midst of a changing geopolitical and economic security landscape where security and foreign affairs are overwhelming trade and economic issues, is the Korean government properly structured to deal with the changes and best serve the nation's economic and security interests? Given the current state of the Korean government's organization, it does not bode well.
The current government structure has security and foreign affairs under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and trade under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy in isolation. When trade and economic issues are becoming security and foreign affairs issues, it is utterly inadequate to keep the two subjects fragmented in two different government ministries working in silos, without the prime coordinator in the Blue House. In this setting only a paltry sense of expertise and accountability is witnessed in the ministries concerned.
I recently attended an international conference in Washington, D.C. which provided a valuable opportunity to discuss the Indo-Pacific, global supply chains, trade, technology and climate, among others, with colleagues from around the world. From the U.S., officials from the Department of State joined the discussions.
One of the State Department officials that came holds a Ph.D. in chemistry and deals with technology and climate. It made much more sense in this new security environment. The prime coordinator in the U.S. administration is clearly the National Security Council in the White House. Japan's Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, created a new ministerial post and appointed an advisor for economic security soon after taking office in October 2021.
The President-elect on March 9 needs to immediately look into this critically essential matter of comprehensive and balanced government reorganization and take action in order to be able to best adapt and respond to the new security environment. The National Security Council (NSC) in the Blue House should be made the prime coordinator for economic security in the new government.
An economic security adviser in the NSC overseeing and coordinating the related ministries may be worth considering. The government must recruit experts with diverse backgrounds and experience from both public and private sectors to deal with a wide range of issues that come under economic security. In this endeavor, government organizations of allies and friends will provide useful reference points to build on.
Also, one too many conventional foreign affairs and security experts who still fail to digest that the world has changed must do away with the silo mentality and adapt to the new national security environment. Trade and economic affairs, science and technology, and security and foreign affairs no more stand on their own working in silos. It is a thing of the past. They must broaden their view accordingly and quickly as they might be called in to advise the President and the government.
Dr. Song Kyung-jin (kj_song@hotmail.com) led the Institute for Global Economics (IGE), based in Seoul, and served as special adviser to the chairman of the Presidential Committee for the Seoul G20 Summit in the Office of the President. Now, she chairs the international cooperation committee called the Innovative Economy Forum.
