[제언]흘러간 5년, 그리고 다가 올 5년~ > 통일게시판

[제언]흘러간 5년, 그리고 다가 올 5년~

페이지 정보

작성자 고슴도치
댓글 1건 조회 5,217회 작성일 13-01-11 22:53

본문

[제언]흘러간 5년, 그리고 다가 올 5년

글쓴이 : 박문재 박사

날자 : 2013-01-11 (금)

[사진은 필자, 박문재 박사]

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

[제언]흘러간 5년, 다가 올 5년

*글 : 박문재 박사

"개혁진보진영은 박근혜 당선자에 할 말 있다"

*다음 글은 박문재 박사가 “Korean Quarterly” (Winter, 2013 Vol.17 NUM 02)에 영문원고를 기고한 내용을 요약하여
번역한 우리말 글이다. 민족통신 편집진이 영문원고를 의역한 요약문임을 밝힌다.(민족통신 편집실)

이명박 정부 5년은 한마디로 어두웠던 시간들이다. 경제, 사회, 그리고 정치적으로 너무나 재난이 수준이 깊었다.
특히 한반도의 남북관계는 전례없이 최악의 시대였다고 돌이켜 본다.

이명박 정권의 대선약속들은 그 어느 것 하나 지켜진 것이 없다. 그의 남은 임기안에도 아루것도 이뤄질 전망이 없다.
그의 한가지 업적이라면 또다른 보수정권을 창출해 냈다는 것 뿐이다.

지금 개혁진보 진영은 분단조국의 남과 북이 더 멀어지고 있다는 것을 생각하고 있는 것 같다. 이들은 어두운 5년을
안타까와 하면서 김대중 정부와 노무현 정부와 같은 개혁정부가 탄생할 것을 고대했으나 그 결과는 실망으로 끝나고
말았다. 더군다나 박정희 군사독재의 딸이 대선에서 승리했다는 사실에 말 할 수 없는 충격을 받았다.

그러나 그 실패 때문에 한탄하고 좌절한들 무슨 소용이 있겠는가. 국내외 많은 동포들은 이번 대선을 통해 진정으로
나라를 위하고, 조국의 평화와 통일을 위해 희생할 애국적 지도자를 무한히 갈망했다. 그렇지만 보수진영의 박근혜를
이기고 승리할 그러한 인물이 없었다는데 대해서 허탈감을 느끼고 있다.

박근혜와 문재인, 이 두후보의 차이는 크지 않았다. 5.16% 대 48%에 불과했다.이것은 절반에 가까운 득표를 얻는 야권
단일화 후보가 근소한 차이로 패했다는 뜻이다. 사실상 야권 단일화 후보가 선정되는 과정에 실책들이 많았다. 그리고
문후보와 무소속 후보간에 일어난 일들을 생각하면 지금도 답답하고 안타까운 마음 뿐이다. 바보같은 생각마져 지울수
없다. 후보를 양보하며 얼마든지 좋은 일들을 할 수 있었는데 그렇지 못했던 자세에 대하여 분노마져 느끼게 했다.
중국의 손유첸이나 필리핀의 막사사이 혹은 호세 리잘, 또는 터키의 Gemal Pasha 같은 인물들은 없었는가 하고 자문해
보기도 한다.

이제 좌절과 패배감에만 머물수 없다. 중요한 것은 앞으로 5년이다. 이 시간들을 어떻게 대응해 나갈 것인가가 아주
중요하다고 생각한다. 다시 말하면 새누리당을 배경으로 한 새 보수정부가 어떻게 정치를 할지, 그리고 이에 대한
개혁진보 진영이 그 정치에 대해 어떻게 응전할 지 이것이 중요한 대목이라고 보는 것이다.

(1)남북관계 문제:

6.15남북공동선언이 공표된지 10년이 넘었다. 10.4평화번영을 위한 선언이 발표된지도 6년째로 접어든다. 이선언들은
개혁진보 진영 지도자들이 이룩하여 놓았지만 그 이후 이명박 정권은 이 선언들과 관계된 사업들을 모두 짓밟아 버리고
말았다. 이 때문에 남북관계와 그 주변국들 관계도 변하지 않을 수 없었다.

그럼으로 북녘의 새 지도자 김정은 제1위원장과 남녘의 새 지도자 박근혜 대통령당선자가 현 상황에 기초하여 새로운
차원의 남북관계 개선을 요구받고 있는 것이 오늘의 정세라고 진단한다.

나는 우선 이러한 현실을 극복해 나가는 방법으로 남과 북의 새 지도자들이 관계개선을 위하여 정상회담에 임해야
한다고 제언한다. 그 정상회담도 1회에 그칠 것이 아니라 정규화되어야 하고, 1년에 두번 정도 진행하면서 후퇴한
남북관계를 정상화 관계로 회복시키고, 한편으로는 남북의 각계각층 전문가들로 구성한 상설협의체를 만들어 여기에
남북 양측에서 각각 전문가들 10명 정도 참여시키면서 계층별, 분야별 통일문제에 대해 주간별 회의를 통하여
현안 문제들을 타개해 나가기를 제안하는 것이다.

이 상설기구는 남북 양측 최고지도자들이 임명하는 방법으로 경제, 과학기술, 정부, 군사, 교육, 문화, 국제 및 역사에
조예가 깊은 전문인사들로 구성하면 좋겠다. 그리하여 정상회담과 상설기구가 유기적인 관계로 서울과 평양에서
번갈아 가면서 진행되거나, 혹은 남과 북의 적절한 제3의 장소를 이용하여 지속적으로 진행되기를 기대하고 있다.

(2)한반도 평화문제:

한반도의 군사충돌 상황은 1950대와는 그 사정이 많이 다른 것 같다. 그렇기 때문에 개혁진보 진영에서는 남과 북을
향해 적어도 10% 정도의 군비삭감을 촉구하면서 동시에 남북불가침 협약을 맺도록 요청할 필요가 있다고 생각한다.
이것이 발전하게 되면 남과 북이 핵억제력 체계를 공동소유, 공동관리하는 방향으로 남북간의 협의가 이뤄질 수 있지
않을까 예견해 보기도 한다.

나는 또 우리 민족이 지정학상 핵무기를 소지한 강대국들에 의하여 둘러 쌓여 있기 때문에 우리가 전쟁의 소용돌이에
말려들지 않으려는 목적과 취지에서 남북이 공동소유하고 공동관리하는 핵억제력을 소유하는 것이 나쁘지 않다고
보는 입장이다. 지금 일본은 극우성격의 신조 아베총리 체제로 되면서 향후 한반도에 위협적인 상황이 도래할 것이라고
우려한다. 그는 멀지 않아 그 동안 전범국으로 재무장하지 못하게 하였던 평화헌법 9조를 폐기하고 다시 군국화하려는
움직임을 보이고 있어 한층 더 우려스럽다.

지금 한반도의 상황은 남한의 박근혜가 대선에 승리하여 향후 5년 집권을 하게 되며, 북한의 새 지도자 김정은 체제는
적어도 30년은 집권할 것으로 예상한다. 그렇기 때문에 박근혜의 남한 당국과 김정은의 북한 당국이 서로 불가침협약,
군비예산삭감, 그리고 그 다음에 핵억제력 공동소유 및 관리체계로 전환되어 남북이 영세중립국을 선언하는 동시에
통일국가를 이루는 수순으로 발전해 갈 수 있기를 기대하고 있다.

여기에서 중요한 것은 영세중립국 통일국가로 갈 때 주변 강대국들에 의해 보장받아서는 안된다고 생각한다. 이 문제는
반드시 남과 북 양자간에 이뤄져야 외세의 영향과 방해를 받지 않게 된다.

역사적으로 우리민족은 주변국들의 대외정책을 신뢰할 수 없었다. 통일조국을 위한 영구중립국안은 이미 김일성 주석에
의해 여러차례 제기되어 온바 있었다.

(3)경제적 통일문제:

동북아 지역은 지난 30년 동안 경제발전의 보검지역으로 주목받아 왔다. 그 동안 특정한 일부 나라들에 의해 주도되어
왔지만 지금은 그 상황이 많이 달라졌다. 다시 말하면 미국과 같은 한 나라가 이지역의 정치, 군사, 경제를 좌지 우지하는
시대는 끝난 것으로 보아야 한다. 지금은 중국, 코리아, 일본이 지리적, 경제적 축이 되어 부상하고 있다.

비록 오늘날 한-일간, 중-일간 영토분쟁으로 조그만한 섬을 놓고 서로 으르렁거리고 있지만 장기적인 측면에서 본다면
이런 문제들이 그리 중요하지 않았다고 보는 시대가 도래할 것으로 관망된다. 앞으로 경제문제가 가장 두드러지게
대두될 것이기 때문이다.

그 시대를 준비한다는 것은 평화번영의 시대를 준비하고 예비한다는 뜻이 된다. 그렇기 때문에 남이나 북이나 모두
그 토대를 만들어 놓아야 미래의 기회를 잃지 않는다는 말이다. 부언하면 남과 북이 안정과 평화로운 환경에서 번영의
시대를 맞으려면 무엇보다 분단의 역사를 마감해야 한다는 뜻이다.

이런 환경에서 미국은 동북아 패권을 놓치지 않으려고 북을 몰아치며 중국을 견제하기 위하여
'아시아 중점 정책( Asia Pivot Policy)'에 몰두해 왔다. 그것을 위해 미국은 이른바 한-미-일 3각군사동맹을 강화하려고
안간힘을 써 왔다. 이것은 참으로 위험한 발상의 정책이다. 그 위험은 한반도 뿐만 아니라 중-미간의 대결 분위기를
조장시켜 동북아 지역 경제발전의 전체 분위기에 재를 뿌려 놓을 위험한 패권정책이라고 지적하지 않을 수 없다.

나는 경제통일이 정치통일 보다 앞설 수 있다고 생각한다. 사실은 이런 전략은 정치적 통일을 촉진시키는 촉매적
역할을 한다고 볼 수도 있다. 이 경제통일 전략은 정치통일을 유도하면서 한편으로는 남북간의 경제적 차이를 줄여줄
수 있는 구상리라고도 볼 수 있다.

따라서 박근혜 당선자와 김정은 제1위원장은 하루 속히 정상회담을 통해 거국협의체 성격의 상설기구를 구성하여
지하자원, 인력자원, 기술자원, 자본 등을 상호협력하여 남북의 경제발전 동력을 확대 재생산시켜 나아갈 것을 간절히
제안하고 싶다.

이렇게 되면 통일조국 건설 뿐만 아니라 코리아의 총생산량(GDP)을 증폭시킬수 있다고 믿는다. 이 길은 곧 이른바
한강의 기적이 아니라 '한강-대동강의 기적'이 창조되는 구상이라고 강조한다.

마지막으로 우리는 현실을 인정하는 조건에서 남녘도 잘되고, 북녘도 잘되는 구상을 가시화하여 이것이 현실화되면
좋겠다고 다시 한번 제언한다. 지난 5년 동안에 긴장과 갈등으로 어두웠던 시대를 청산하고 새로운 5년의 시대를
평화번영의 시대, 평화통일의 시대로 만들기 위해서는 남과 북이 서로 협력하여 공동경제 개발, 공동정치개발,
공동통일개발을 통해 21세기 새 역사를 창조해 내야 할 것이다. 이것이 흘러간 5년이 아니라 다가 올 5년의 이정표가
되어야 한다.(끝)

*필자는 미시간주 디트로이트에서 내과의사로 활동하는 한편 재미동포전국연합회 수석부회장이며 북미의료지원
단체의 대표를 맡고 있다. 연락처: 이멜 주소는 mjpak1000@yahoo.com, 그리고 연락전화는 248-656-7711

-
-
***영문 원로를 보려면: http://www.minjok.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=eng_korea&wr_id=2476

이전글[분석]재일동포 평론가가 본 2013년 조국반도 정세 13.01.12
다음글선거소송인단의 증거자료 13.01.11

댓글목록

고슴도치님의 댓글

고슴도치 작성일 13-01-11 22:54

Past Five Years, Next Five Years

=Liberals can have a say in the new conservative Park government=

By Moon J. Pak, PhD, MD

The last five years in South Korea under a conservative government led by Lee Myung-bak was marked by series of disasters, economically, socially, and particularly by political failures in the relationships of North and South on the peninsula. Virtually none of Lee’s campaign promises will have been fulfilled at the end of his term this year! The single achievement of his party, if one can call it at that, would be the recent election of Park Geun-hye, a conservative successor to his regime.

Progressive and liberal South Koreans have been witnessing, with deep sadness, the regression of their country in many different areas, most importantly the move away from reunification of the two Koreas. This population was anticipating ardently the rebirth of a liberal regime in the country, to continue the work of such progressives as former Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun. There was profound disappointment and shock in the outcome of the December 19 election, through which the daughter of the former dictator Park Chung-hee became the president-elect.

It is of course of no use to lament on the strategic failure of the liberal politicians in their candidate election and campaign strategy. Apparently, none of the self-described liberal candidates were successful in presenting themselves convincingly to the South Korean people. They needed an altruistic patriot whose only dedication was to the people of Korea, country of Korea and unification of Korean peninsula, and it seems that no one rose to the challenge.

Indeed, one candidate clung to the candidacy until the last minute, and in doing so, failed to fill the role of a candidate who could deliver for South Korean progressive voters. His lack of political experience as well as the lack of party affiliation made him clearly a hopeless candidate to beat Park Geun-hye.

Now is the time for liberal progressive Koreans whether in South Korea, North Korea or overseas to critically evaluate the situation and ponder deeply what plan of action should be implemented over the next five years to promote peace and re-unification of the Korean peninsula

.
The December 19 election was a very close one; Park Geun-hae won the Blue House with only 52 percent support. In other words, 48 percent of voters went for Moon Jae-in. That means about half of South Koreans voted for the liberal progressives; this in spite of the vicious and unethical name calling sparked by the desperate right’s campaign tactics.

Yes, for whatever reasons, conservatives won the South Korean presidential election but it would be prudent for them to remember that there is a limit to the people’s tolerance for stupidity; continued provocation at the risk of armed conflict on the peninsula, reliance on foreign powers for its defense posture, and refusal to communicate with its northern brethren. Similarly, that there are consequences for ignoring the need to address economic inequality and for sacrificing democratic principles, hard-won by the nation’s youth in the streets. In the long term, these will not be tolerated by South Korea’s people, although they voted for them today due to disunited liberal progressives!!.

It is essential to keep this in mind, and further solidify this political power in the next five years by maintaining political initiatives, even at the street level, and also by providing a strong leader, who could be Jae-in Moon. Liberals can no longer afford to be led by a scattered leadership, whose ambition is limited to winning the Blue House. It is also important for the liberals to remember, that regardless of their feelings, they must add their influence and voice their opinions on many critical issues that will be facing the Saenuri Party and the new conservative administration.

History abounds with examples of conservatives making momentous non-partisan decisions and allowing the influence of liberals who ask to be included in the process. In other words, the time is now for the liberals to become a strong, cohesive and unified entity and work with Park Geun-hye’s new administration. Progressives will have opportunities to voice opinion, oppose, protest, negotiate and have a hand in cooperative solutions to many problems facing the country, including the following issues.

South-North Interaction

The so-called 6-15 Agreement, which laid the groundwork for a cooperative relationship between South and North is now more than a decade old, and the 10-04 Agreement, made six years ago, were both established and promulgated under liberal leaders who are now all deceased. The situations between South and North, and the international dynamics around it, have gone through tremendous changes since then.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Park Geun-hye must meet and develop a new relationship based on new philosophy, ideology and political realities of both North and South under the current circumstances. Summit meetings should be held on a regular basis yearly or semiannually. In the meantime, there should also be a permanent body of a Council under both leaders composed of ten members from each Korea, meeting weekly to discuss unification-related issues.

This body (perhaps called the Supreme Council on Peninsula Reunification) will have members appointed by the two leaders for their expertise in the areas of economy, science and technology, government, military, education and culture, international relations and history. It will exclude any politicians with regional or political party obligations. The Summit meetings as well as the Council meetings should be held alternately between Seoul and Pyongyang or any other new neutral location in either North or South.

Peace in the Peninsula

Armed conflict in Korean peninsula is absolutely unconscionable and un-imaginable. U.S. today is not like in 1950. It cannot and will not sustain any military support to South Korea. The liberals should urge President Park to establish a non-aggression pact between South and North, followed by a mutual and gradual 10% annual defense budget cut. This discussion should also include the idea of establishing a joint control and ownership of nuclear weapon system between the two Koreas. A shared facility from which to control nuclear technology could be set up in an area between the two Koreas, perhaps near so called Iron Triangle Area.

A nuclear Korea is essential. After all, Korea is a country surrounded by three greatest nuclear powers. Japan may be a particular threat under arch-conservative Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Japan watchers have said that it is only a matter of time until Japan abolishes its Article Nine of the peace constitution and become a nuclear power.

Park Geun-hye will lead South Korea for five years, but Kim Jong-un could be in power for well over 30 years! After achieving the peace in peninsula, with non-aggression pact, reducing its defense budgets and becoming a joint, de facto nuclear power, the two Koreas can declare themselves to be a permanently neutralized and unified entity. Such permanent neutrality will be guaranteed by no foreign powers but by itself; with a small high-tech army, blue water navy, highly advanced global air force, cutting-edge missile and rocket force and nuclear power.

From even a casual glance at Korean history, it is apparent that Korea cannot trust any of its neighbors for its national independence. The permanent neutrality of a unified Korea was proposed by Il-sung Kim many times during his life time.

Economic Unification

In the past 30 years, Northeast Asia has gone through a remarkable economic conceptual metamorphosis. It is no longer possible to have any one country, including the U.S., to claim military-political-economic hegemony in the area. The China-Korea-Japan axis has emerged as a geographic, economic complex with a formidable weight now and future. The current dispute between Japan and Korea and also between Japan and China over a few small rocky islands, and some sore feelings among them over Japan’s past harsh colonial rule, none are important in the context of long-term international relations.

However with divided Korea in the middle, it has become increasingly clear that the two Koreas must strive quickly to become a single economic entity for the continued peaceful and stable development of the Northeast Asia. In this context, the new U.S. “Asia Pivot Policy” to contain China by strengthening her alliance with Japan and South Korea and driving North Korea further into a China camp is extremely dangerous. The danger is not only to the Korean peninsula, since it could become again a ground for contest between the two foreign powers, but also runs entirely against the concept of Northeast Asia economic co-prosperity.

The economic unification of Koreas could certainly precede political unification. As a matter of fact, such a strategy would diminish the current economic disparity between the two Koreas into a level more conducive to political unification. President Park Geun-hye and the first secretary Kim Jong-un, in cooperation with the new Supreme Council could initiate cooperative sharing of natural resources, human resources, technological resources and capital resource as well as infrastructure re-building in North Korea. Such effort is essential to increase the combined GDP of Koreas to become a fully advanced and united country. Instead of the “Han River Miracle,” a nickname for the economic gains of South Korea, we may soon be referring to the “Han and Daedong River Miracle.”

A Park Chung-hee -style export-driven economic effort could be an effective model to follow. This would require the cooperation of the major (about 30) South Korean conglomerates (Chaebols) which represent over 85 percent of the country’s total exports. This represents half of South Korea’s $ 1 trillion total economy. It is obvious that no economic unification is possible without the full support of these powerful companies. Of course, their support is predicated on profit incentives rather than altruism and patriotism. Economic democracy, including fair income distribution is important, but will only come after a successful economy is achieved.

Lastly, yes, for whatever reasons, conservatives won the South Korean presidential election but it would be prudent for them to remember that there is a limit to the people’s tolerance for stupidity; continued provocation at the risk of armed conflict on the peninsula, reliance on foreign powers for its defense posture, and refusal to communicate with its northern brethren. Similarly, that there are consequences for ignoring the need to address economic inequality and for sacrificing democratic principles, hard-won by the nation’s youth in the streets. In the long term, these will not be tolerated by South Korea’s people.

***Moon J. Pak is a physician and internal medicine specialist in Detroit, Michigan. He is the senior vice-president of the Korean American National Coordinating Council (KANCC) which facilitates scientific and cultural exchanges with North Korea, and the chairman of a special medical outreach program within KANCC, the U.S.-DPRK Medical Science Exchange Committee (UDMEDEX).

mjpak1000@yahoo.com
811 Oakwood Drive #201
Rochester, MI 48307
248-656-0177

“Korean Quarterly”
(Winter, 2013 Vol.17 NUM 02)

________________________________________________
Moon J. Pak, M.D., Ph.D.
em: mjpak1000@yahoo.com
office phone: 248-656-7711
webpage1: http://www.ko-amleague.org/
webpage2: http://www.koreapeacenetwork.info/

Past Five Years, Next Five Years

=Liberals can have a say in the new conservative Park government=

By Moon J. Pak, PhD, MD

The last five years in South Korea under a conservative government led by Lee Myung-bak was marked by series of disasters, economically, socially, and particularly by political failures in the relationships of North and South on the peninsula.  Virtually none of Lee’s campaign promises will have been fulfilled at the end of his term this year! The single achievement of his party, if one can call it at that, would be the recent election of Park Geun-hye, a conservative successor to his regime.
 
Progressive and liberal South Koreans have been witnessing, with deep sadness, the regression of their country in many different areas, most importantly the move away from reunification of the two Koreas. This population was anticipating ardently the rebirth of a liberal regime in the country, to continue the work of such progressives as former Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun. There was profound disappointment and shock in the outcome of the December 19 election, through which the daughter of the former dictator Park Chung-hee became the president-elect.  
 
It is of course of no use to lament on the strategic failure of the liberal politicians in their candidate election and campaign strategy. Apparently, none of the self-described liberal candidates were successful in presenting themselves convincingly to the South Korean people. They needed an altruistic patriot whose only dedication was to the people of Korea, country of Korea and unification of Korean peninsula, and it seems that no one rose to the challenge.
 
Indeed, one candidate clung to the candidacy until the last minute, and in doing so, failed to fill the role of a candidate who could deliver for South Korean progressive voters. His lack of political experience as well as the lack of party affiliation made him clearly a hopeless candidate to beat Park Geun-hye.
 
Now is the time for liberal progressive Koreans whether in South Korea, North Korea or overseas to critically evaluate the situation and ponder deeply what plan of action should be implemented over the next five years to promote peace and re-unification of the Korean peninsula
 
.
The December 19 election was a very close one; Park Geun-hae won the Blue House with only 52 percent support. In other words, 48 percent of voters went for Moon Jae-in. That means about half of South Koreans voted for the liberal progressives; this in spite of the vicious and unethical name calling sparked by the desperate right’s campaign tactics.
 
Yes, for whatever reasons, conservatives won the South Korean presidential election but it would be prudent for them to remember that there is a limit to the people’s tolerance for stupidity; continued provocation at the risk of armed conflict on the peninsula, reliance on foreign powers for its defense posture, and refusal to communicate with its northern brethren.  Similarly, that there are consequences for ignoring the need to address economic inequality and for sacrificing democratic principles, hard-won by the nation’s youth in the streets.  In the long term, these will not be tolerated by South Korea’s people, although they voted for them today due to disunited liberal progressives!!.
 
It is essential to keep this in mind, and further solidify this political power in the next five years by maintaining political initiatives, even at the street level, and also by providing a strong leader, who could be Jae-in Moon.  Liberals can no longer afford to be led by a scattered leadership, whose ambition is limited to winning the Blue House. It is also important for the liberals to remember, that regardless of their feelings, they must add their influence and voice their opinions on many critical issues that will be facing the Saenuri Party and the new conservative administration.  
 
History abounds with examples of conservatives making momentous non-partisan decisions and allowing the influence of liberals who ask to be included in the process.  In other words, the time is now for the liberals to become a strong, cohesive and unified entity and work with Park Geun-hye’s new administration.  Progressives will have opportunities to voice opinion, oppose, protest, negotiate and have a hand in cooperative solutions to many problems facing the country, including the following issues.
 
South-North Interaction
 
The so-called 6-15 Agreement, which laid the groundwork for a cooperative relationship between South and North is now more than a decade old, and the 10-04 Agreement, made six years ago, were both established and promulgated under liberal leaders who are now all deceased. The situations between South and North, and the international dynamics around it, have gone through tremendous changes since then.
 
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Park Geun-hye must meet and develop a new relationship based on new philosophy, ideology and political realities of both North and South under the current circumstances.   Summit meetings should be held on a regular basis yearly or semiannually. In the meantime, there should also be a permanent body of a Council under both leaders composed of ten members from each Korea, meeting weekly to discuss unification-related issues.
 
This body (perhaps called the Supreme Council on Peninsula Reunification) will have members appointed by the two leaders for their expertise in the areas of economy, science and technology, government, military, education and culture, international relations and history.  It will exclude any politicians with regional or political party obligations.  The Summit meetings as well as the Council meetings should be held alternately between Seoul and Pyongyang or any other new neutral location in either North or South.
 
Peace in the Peninsula
 
Armed conflict in Korean peninsula is absolutely unconscionable and un-imaginable. U.S. today is not like in 1950. It cannot and will not sustain any military support to South Korea. The liberals should urge President Park to establish a non-aggression pact between South and North, followed by a mutual and gradual 10% annual defense budget cut. This discussion should also include the idea of establishing a joint control and ownership of nuclear weapon system between the two Koreas. A shared facility from which to control nuclear technology could be set up in an area between the two Koreas, perhaps near so called Iron Triangle Area.
 
A nuclear Korea is essential. After all, Korea is a country surrounded by three greatest nuclear powers. Japan may be a particular threat under arch-conservative Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Japan watchers have said that it is only a matter of time until Japan abolishes its Article Nine of the peace constitution and become a nuclear power.
 
Park Geun-hye will lead South Korea for five years, but Kim Jong-un could be in power for well over 30 years! After achieving the peace in peninsula, with non-aggression pact, reducing its defense budgets and becoming a joint, de facto nuclear power, the two Koreas can declare themselves to be a permanently neutralized and unified entity. Such permanent neutrality will be guaranteed by no foreign powers but by itself; with a small high-tech army, blue water navy, highly advanced global air force, cutting-edge missile and rocket force and nuclear power.
 
From even a casual glance at Korean history, it is apparent that Korea cannot trust any of its neighbors for its national independence. The permanent neutrality of a unified Korea was proposed by Il-sung Kim many times during his life time.
 
Economic Unification
 
In the past 30 years, Northeast Asia has gone through a remarkable economic conceptual metamorphosis. It is no longer possible to have any one country, including the U.S., to claim military-political-economic hegemony in the area. The China-Korea-Japan axis has emerged as a geographic, economic complex with a formidable weight now and future.  The current dispute between Japan and Korea and also between Japan and China over a few small rocky islands, and some sore feelings among them over Japan’s past harsh colonial rule, none are important in the context of long-term international relations.
 
However with divided Korea in the middle, it has become increasingly clear that the two Koreas must strive quickly to become a single economic entity for the continued peaceful and stable development of the Northeast Asia. In this context, the new U.S. “Asia Pivot Policy” to contain China by strengthening her alliance with Japan and South Korea and driving North Korea further into a China camp is extremely dangerous. The danger is not only to the Korean peninsula, since it could become again a ground for contest between the two foreign powers, but also runs entirely against the concept of Northeast Asia economic co-prosperity.
 
The economic unification of Koreas could certainly precede political unification. As a matter of fact, such a strategy would diminish the current economic disparity between the two Koreas into a level more conducive to political unification. President Park Geun-hye and the first secretary Kim Jong-un, in cooperation with the new Supreme Council could initiate cooperative sharing of natural resources, human resources, technological resources and capital resource as well as infrastructure re-building in North Korea. Such effort is essential to increase the combined GDP of Koreas to become a fully advanced and united country.  Instead of the “Han River Miracle,” a nickname for the economic gains of South Korea, we may soon be referring to the “Han and Daedong River Miracle.” 
 
A Park Chung-hee -style export-driven economic effort could be an effective model to follow. This would require the cooperation of the major (about 30) South Korean conglomerates (Chaebols) which represent over 85 percent of the country’s total exports. This represents half of South Korea’s $ 1 trillion total economy. It is obvious that no economic unification is possible without the full support of these powerful companies. Of course, their support is predicated on profit incentives rather than altruism and patriotism. Economic democracy, including fair income distribution is important, but will only come after a successful economy is achieved.  
 
Lastly, yes, for whatever reasons, conservatives won the South Korean presidential election but it would be prudent for them to remember that there is a limit to the people’s tolerance for stupidity; continued provocation at the risk of armed conflict on the peninsula, reliance on foreign powers for its defense posture, and refusal to communicate with its northern brethren.  Similarly, that there are consequences for ignoring the need to address economic inequality and for sacrificing democratic principles, hard-won by the nation’s youth in the streets.  In the long term, these will not be tolerated by South Korea’s people.
 
***Moon J. Pak is a physician and internal medicine specialist in Detroit, Michigan.  He is the senior vice-president of the Korean American National Coordinating Council (KANCC) which facilitates scientific and cultural exchanges with North Korea, and the chairman of a special medical outreach program within KANCC, the U.S.-DPRK Medical Science Exchange Committee (UDMEDEX).
 
mjpak1000@yahoo.com
811 Oakwood Drive #201
Rochester, MI 48307
248-656-0177
 
“Korean Quarterly”
(Winter, 2013 Vol.17 NUM 02)
 
________________________________________________
Moon J. Pak, M.D., Ph.D.
em: mjpak1000@yahoo.com
office phone: 248-656-7711
webpage1: http://www.ko-amleague.org/
webpage2: http://www.koreapeacenetwork.info/

답변