북한에 대한 군사적 대응은 너무 위험하기 때문에 제 3의 대안을 생각해볼 수 있다. 즉 북한에 대한 완전한 非관여 전략이다.
완전한 ‘非관여‘란 다음과 같이 하는 것이다. 1) 평양과의 모든 협의를 단절한다. 미국이라든가, 아시아 주둔 미군, 미국의 동맹국에 대한 군사적인 위협은, 격렬한 보복을 초래하게 될 것이라고 북한에 경고한다.
2)한반도에 주둔하고 있는 전 미군병력을 철수한다. 서울에는 일상화되어 있는 반미감정이라든가, 친북적 경향의 고조, 미국이 재통일을 방해하고 있다는 비난을 하고 싶어 하는 풍조 등을 이유로, 한미상호방위조약을 파기한다. 미 대통령이 이 전략을 채용한다면, 맨 먼저 해야 할 일은, 강고한 협력관계를 구축하여, 개인적으로도 친한 日本 수상에게 전략을 털어 놓는 것이다. 미국은, 한반도로부터 철수할 뿐이며, 日本의 방위의무는 완전하게 이행하겠다고 공식, 비공식으로 日本측에 보증한다. 한반도의 장래에 대하여, 미국은 南北쌍방에 대하여, 화해와 재통일 문제는 자신들이 해결해야 하며 미국의 정치적 또는 경제적 원조를 기대해서는 안 된다고 말한다. 미군은 UN軍의 기치 아래 한반도에 주둔하고 있는데, UN軍도 해산한다. 그렇게 되면 금후는 북한에 관한 UN결정의 실행은 안전보장이사회가 책임을 맡게 될 것이다. 미국으로서 非관여정책의 최대의 이점은, 한국에 있는 미군을 다른 장소로 돌리는 일이다. 미군은 세계각지에 넓게 그리고 엷게 전개되어 있어, 국방성은 한국에 있는 병력을 사용하게 되는 것을 환영하게 될 것이다. 이 병력은 이미 마찰이 생기고 있는 오키나와에 배치되는 것이 아니라, 괌이나 하와이 또는 미국본토에 배치되게 될 것이다. Disengagement from North Korea is a strategy to consider By Richard Halloran
Saturday, Feb 19, 20**
Ever since North Korea declared that it had started manufacturing nuclear arms and asserted that those weapons were no longer negotiable, leaders in Washington, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Moscow, and the UN have been scurrying to persuade, cajole, or force the North Koreans to return to the negotiating table.
Maybe that is the wrong way to confront this issue. More than two years of negotiation have proven futile. An alternative, military force, is an option that nobody in any capital wants because it would cause unspeakable death and destruction.
Perhaps it is time for the US to adopt a third option, which would be to disengage itself completely from the Korean peninsula. Complete US disengagement would mean:
1) Walking away from the six party talks in Beijing, cutting off all communication with Pyongyang, strengthening economic sanctions, and warning North Korea that any military threat to the US, to US forces in Asia, and to US allies would be met with terrible retribution.
2) Withdrawing all US forces from the peninsula and abrogating the US-South Korea mutual security treaty because of rampant anti-Americanism in Seoul, a rising tendency to appease North Korea, and a penchant for blaming the US for blocking reunification.
On the future of Korea, the US would tell South Korea and North Korea that they themselves must resolve the question of reconciliation or reunification but not to expect American political or economic help. As the UN Command in Seoul would be dissolved, the UN would be advised that its Security Council would be responsible for executing whatever policies were decided for Korea.
Elsewhere, the US assures the Japanese that the withdrawal applied only to Korea and that the US would fulfill all of its security obligations to Japan.
In addition, the US would pledge full support to Japan in dealing with North Korea on the issue of abducted Japanese citizens and would back Japan on whatever economic sanctions it decided to apply to Pyongyang.
Similarly, Washington would reassure Taiwan that the US would continue to meet its obligations to help defend that nation under the Taiwan Relations Act. The US would reassure treaty allies in the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia, and friends such as Singapore, that the US was not pulling out of Asia.
Further, the US would tell the Chinese, who have been hosts of the Six Party Talks intended to dissuade North Korea from its nuclear ambitions, that the US would quietly support Beijing´s efforts to contain North Korea.
Just as the US does not want North Korean missiles aimed at Okinawa or Hawaii, so the Chinese do not want North Korean nuclear arms facing them across the Yalu River. The consequences of the US disengagement from Korea would be several. Perhaps most telling would be a more intense isolation of Pyongyang from the outside world. That, in turn, might well increase the internal pressures for reform and even regime change within North Korea.
North Korea´s economic disasters resulting from mismanagement and natural causes are well known. Now, even though it is a hermit kingdom, hints are leaking out that not all is well politically and that dissent has begun to rumble through Kim Jong-il´s government. Perhaps the regime of the "Dear Leader" will collapse of its own misdeeds.
An American disengagement from Korea would most likely nudge Japan to accelerate its already steady move toward a more assertive security posture, which the US would welcome. There is no reason to believe, however, that this would push Japan to acquire nuclear arms
China would be faced with a critical decision. Some years ago, Chinese leaders quietly told American officials that they would do whatever was necessary to keep North Korea afloat and that they have the foreign exchange reserves, which are the world´s largest, to do it. Chinese leaders may have since changed their minds and would see Kim Jong-il´s departure as advantageous.
For the US, the main benefit of disengagement would be freeing American troops in Korea for duties elsewhere. US forces are stretched thinly around the world and obtaining the services of those in Korea would be welcomed in the Pentagon. Those troops would not go to Okinawa, where there is already friction between Japanese and Americans, but could be posted in Guam, Hawaii, or the US mainland.
The chances of this strategy coming to pass are limited because it is too unconventional and all political leaders seem to be pursuing negotiations. But maybe this is a time for imaginative, alternative thinking.
어째 개망쪼국엔 두테르테 정도의 인물도 나올 수가 없는가 ? .....이게 바로 증거 ! 저능,비굴천민들의 수준이 그러하니 ~~진짜 인물들은 사장시키고 스스로 노예를 자처하는 "가축" 화된 가련,한심한 등신민 ~~결국 고따구 인물들만 앞서거니, 뒷서거니...메주콩 키재기 ~~ 역대 대통령 선호도 순위를 보면 답이 훤히 ~~
첫댓글
들어올 때는 마음대로 왔지만,
나갈 때는 댓가를 치루고 가야지..!!
어째 개망쪼국엔 두테르테 정도의 인물도 나올 수가 없는가 ? .....이게 바로 증거 ! 저능,비굴천민들의 수준이 그러하니 ~~진짜 인물들은 사장시키고 스스로 노예를 자처하는 "가축" 화된 가련,한심한 등신민 ~~결국 고따구 인물들만 앞서거니, 뒷서거니...메주콩 키재기 ~~ 역대 대통령 선호도 순위를 보면 답이 훤히 ~~
필리핀은 투표소수개표로 알거있네요 노무현이 실행한 전자개표가 진행되는한 그런 인물들은 나오기 힘듭니다 ......