‘? ??’? ??? ??? 美? ‘?? ??’ ‘??’ ???? 韓
???? ?? ??? ‘????’
?? ??? ??? ????? ‘???? ??’ ?? ????
??? ??? ?? ?????
??? ?? ??????·??? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ???, ?????? ??????
??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??. ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??. ‘???? ?? ???? ????? ???(CVID)’? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????. ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??. ??? ??? ???, ??, ??, ???, ??, ???? ? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???. DMZ ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ??? ?? ???.
??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??. ?? ??? ????? ?·??? ??? ??? ?????. ???? ?? ??? ??? ? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ??? ???? ????. ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??. ?? ? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???.
? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? CVID? ???? ??. ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???. ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ????? ??? ? ?? ??? ???? ??. ????? ???, ??? ??? ? ????? ????? ????. ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???. ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????. ??, ?? ??, ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ? ? ??. ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ? ?????? ?? ???? ??. ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???. ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????.
?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??. ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??. ????? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ? ? ??? ?? ??. ??? ?? ? ‘??? ??? ?? ????’? ????. ????? ??? ?? ?? ??, ?? ?? ??, ?? ??, ?? ???? ??, ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ????. ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????. ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????. ??? ???? ? ???? ????, ??? ?????, ?? ???? ????? ??.
??? ? ? CVID? ?? ??? ??? ?????. ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?·??? ??? ??? ??? ? ???. ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?·???? ? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???. ?? ??? ? ?? ????? ??? ????. ?????? ??? ???? ? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ? ???. ?? ??? ???? ???? ? ???. ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??. ???? ??? ????? ???? ???. ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????, ????? ???? ?? ? ???. CVID? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???.
??? ??? ? ? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??. ? ?? ? ???? ??? ??? ? ??? ? ? ??, ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ? ?? ??. ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???, ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??.
CVID ????? ?? ???? ?? ????. ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???. ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??.
???? ?? ???? ????? ???(CVID)? ???? ????? ???. ‘???(complete)’? ??? ?? 50? ? ?? ??? ? ? ????? ????? ?? ????. ?? ?? ???, ?? ?? ???, ??? ??? ???? ?? ???, ??? ??, ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???. ‘?????(verifiability)’? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???. ‘?????(irreversibility)’? ??? ? ????? ???? ???? ? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????. ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ? ??????. ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???. ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??. ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ? ???. ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????.
????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ??. ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???. ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????, ??? ? ??????? ???? ???. ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???. ??? ??? ? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??. ? ???? ??? 2012~2017?? ???? ??? ??. ?? ? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ????. ? ???? ??? ????? ??? ? ?, ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????. ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???.
??? ???, ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???. ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?????. ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ? ???. ??? ???? ? ??? ??? ???? ???.
??? ?? ??????·??? ?????? ??
▼ ?? ?? ▼The US-South Korea Debate over North Korea: Arms Control or D?tente?
Since this year‘s outreach to North Korea began, the US and South Korea have increasingly pursued separate tracks. The Americans focus almost exclusively on nuclear weapons and missiles. It was the American side that pushed hard for complete, verifiable, irreversible disarmament (CVID) to be at the heart of the Singapore summit. The South has followed a more broad-based approach. The government of President Moon Jae In seeks a wide front of engagement - sports, culture, education, infrastructure, diplomacy, joint economic projects, and so on. Moon has talked of security issues too. His government is now seeking a North Korean artillery pullback at the DMZ closest to Seoul. But that is just one element.
There is now a pretty clear divergence between the US and South Korean approaches to this year’s outreach. In the American media and in much US elite discourse, there has been an overwhelming focus on nuclear missiles. This is likely because North Korea is the first country in decades to be able to newly strike the US mainland with a nuclear weapon. Where South Koreans and Japanese have long since adapted to the North Korean threat, it is new for Americans. This is likely the reason for the extraordinarily belligerent US rhetoric last year.
The result is CVID - an intense US focus on disarming North Korea, whether by force or negotiation. Importantly, this is arms control, not d?tente. Along the lines of US-Soviet deals during the Cold War, Washington is seeking a bargain which would, at minimum, cap the North Koreans at their current number of nuclear warheads and missiles. Ideally, the US would like to roll back the North Korean program - that is, actually physically remove missiles and warheads from North Korea. What the US will give North Korea in exchange for this is quite controversial. Should we give aid, sanctions relief, a peace treaty? Should we simply buy the warheads outright? It is not clear what a final bargain might look like. But it is important to note that this is a far more narrow effort than the Moon government‘s d?tente. The US is not looking to engage North Korea, draw it out, change it, push it over human rights, and so on. It is just looking for an arms control treaty.
The Moon government by contrast is pursuing d?tente - a general softening of relations between the two which would ultimately end the long Korean stalemate. It is much more confident than Washington that North Korea can and will change. I attended the Jeju Peace Forum last month where many sessions talked in depth about development proposals for the North, agricultural improvements, joint rail, access to international financial institutions, foreign investment, and so on. There was enormous optimism that North Korea was changing and opening, and that South Korea should stand ready with a plethora of engagement approaches. In this discourse particularly, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is not an orwellian tyrant, but a Swiss-educated reformer. I have heard, from dovish friends and commentators, Kim compared to Deng Xiao Ping, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Nelson Mandela.
The American fixation on CVID then is unnecessary. The nuclear and missile problems will be submerged in a rising tide Korean harmony and cooperation. If the stalemate is ended and North Korea is brought in from the cold, then its nuclear missiles are no longer a threat, because North Korea itself is no longer a threat. The way to achieve this breakthrough is a robust d?tente culminating in a peace treaty. Two Korean states will then live in peace side by side. They might later federate into some loose union, slowly integrating over time. Unification would grow organically from this. In such a scenario, neither North Korean nuclear weapons, nor US Forces Korea would be needed. The threat demanding CVID and fine-tuned arms control would simply fade away.
These two models of this year’s outreach both have obvious problems. It is not clear that either will work, and if the US purses the former, while South the latter, it could induce an alliance crisis. Trying separate diplomatic tracks for awhile could produce creative solutions, but the US-South Korea alliance, given its intense focus on North Korea, will require unanimity at some point.
The problem with CVID arms control is quite obvious - no one believes the North Koreans will ever give up everything. Even if they were to consider that, they would ask for concessions so enormous - the end of the US-South Korean alliance, billions of dollars - that Seoul and Washington would likely reject such a trade.
CVID is an extraordinary demand. ‘Complete’ would mean the surrender of a program North Korea worked on for fifty years - dozens of warheads, hundreds of missiles, an unknown number of facilities, plants, uranium mines, test sites, and so on. ‘Verifiability’ would mean foreign inspectors in an extremely closed, rigid society. ‘Irreversibility’ would mean the departure of the technicians, and their families, who built the programs. Nothing this thorough has ever happened in the history of arms control. Even if we could get the North Koreans to build down somewhat, they will never go to zero. Realistically, we must accept a nuclear North Korea - and we will whether we want to or not, because the alternative is war.
D?tente is similarly heroic. North and South Korea are dramatically different polities. US-Soviet d?tente always struggled, as did the first Sunshine Policy effort. The North Koreans did not make any genuinely costly concessions during Sunshine, and it is not clear why this time will be different. The Moon government is betting an enormous amount on the hope that Kim is a reformer, but there is not much evidence to suggest that. Certainly his 2012-2017 behavior does not suggest that. And even if he is, there is little evidence that anyone on the State Affairs Commission is a reformer either. So even if Kim wants to be Deng, does he have a reformist coalition around him to push back on conservative factions in Pyongyang‘s elite? Again there is just no evidence of that.
The unfortunate truth is that North Korea is a nuclear weapons state which arms control might limit but will never eliminate. So our best hope is some kind of d?tente. But if this year’s Sunshine effort looks like the last Sunshine Policy, with few reciprocal concessions from the North, then the same hawkish critique of Sunshine Policy I - that d?tente is just appeasement - will re-emerge. This is Moon‘s challenge.
Robert E Kelly (@Robert_E_Kelly) is a professor of international relations in the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy at Pusan National University. More of his work may be found at his website,AsianSecurityBlog.wordpress.com.
[??★???] ??????? ?? ‘???’???!
??? ??? ??? ??
