미중정책연구소

아주대 중국정책연구소 정책분석회의 2020-7

시   간: 2020년 09월 21일

참여자: 과숙한, 김찬중, 서민혜, 안슬기, 이창주, 장기현, 전태동, 최연실  

주   제: 미중 전략경쟁에 따른 분야별 최근 이슈

AMBASSADOR VERMA: Thank you for that. Let me ask you two follow-up questions that will be helpful. Would there be any attempts to formalize the Quad Plus that you just described? And secondly, for people who say, look, both the Quad, the Quad Plus, the larger strategy is all about counterbalancing the rise of China, is this about kind of a countering China effort, or is there more to it?

DEPUTY SECRETARY BIEGUN: … The – it is a reality that the Indo-Pacific region is actually lacking in strong multilateral structures. They don’t have anything of the fortitude of NATO or the European Union. The strongest institutions in Asia oftentimes are not – not inclusive enough, and so it is certainly – there is certainly an invitation there at some point to formalize a structure like this.

But I think your second question ties in very much to that, which is the question of for what purpose. And obviously the benefits are sustained, regular communication between countries with those shared interests and values. I don’t think responding to the threat of China in and of itself or any potential challenge from China in and of itself would be enough of a driver, though. It also has to have a positive agenda. And so here it can be – they’re sides to the same coin.

The purpose here can be to create a critical mass around the shared values and interests of those parties in a manner that attracts more countries in the Indo-Pacific, and even from around the world, to be working in a common cause or even ultimately to align in a more structured manner with them. I think this was very much the initiative of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. And – but I’m afraid what happened with TPP is the ambitions got too big and ultimately it fell under the weight of excessive ambition, so I think also we have to be careful and modest here.

*자료의 출처 및 자세한 내용은 첨부파일을 참조하시기 바랍니다.