시사
장성민의 시사탱크
세상을 듣는 귀!
세상을 보는 눈!
시사토크의 새로운 장이 열린다!
장성민의 시사탱크 - 참여 게시판
|
영자신문에 장성민 앵커 칼럼있네요 -이스라엘을 통해 북핵 해법을 말한다!
|
|---|
| 2016.01.23 김*희 조회수 261 |
|
영자신문 코리아타임스
이스라엘 경험을 통한 북핵 해법 제시 http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=195780 2016-01-19 17:13 Applying Israel rule to NK nuclear program By Jang Sung-min The positions on North Korea’s hydrogen bomb test vary among members of the six-party talks. But all they have in common is they have kept a passive response to the test and misunderstood the nature of the North Korean regime. They set their own positions on the danger of the North Korea’s nuclear test in terms of national interest and strategy. Therefore, each country adjusts the level of sanctions against the North based solely on a diplomatic and military standpoint. Although the North is upgrading its nuclear technology day by day, neighboring countries including the ROK have not changed their passive and defensive position acting just like a bystander. The Obama administration has kept “strategic patience” on the North Korea’s nuclear issue. It refers to a policy of “waiting in patience” until the North gives up its nuclear development and returns to the negotiating table by itself. As a result, the Obama administration has failed to present any direct and active solutions to resolve the North’s nuclear problem for the last four years. The U.S. has tried neither an aggressive contact, nor a strategic negotiation. This policy can be called as “strategic neglect.” President Obama’s “strategic neglect” was also kept in his final State of the Union address. He did not mention any single word regarding the North Korea’s nuclear program. Keeping “strategic neglect,” Obama showed that his administration would not be entangled with the North’s strategy that attracts the attention of the U.S. However, it’s hard to deny that the Obama administration’s passive policy on the North caused the development of the nuclear technology up to the level of hydrogen bomb. It would be recorded as a failure of Obama’s policy on North Korea. x China and North Korea maintain an alliance “forged in blood.” China can hardly discard the North in view of geopolitics. China also does not have any effective tools or policies to force the North to abandon its nuclear development. Though having enough leverage on North Korea, China has refrained from exerting its leverage on North Korea. Why? The answer is simple. That is because China has a fear that the growing uncertainty and instability of the periphery due to the collapse of the North could endanger the mainland. So, China thinks that keeping the North Korean regime with nuclear weapons stable would be much better for their national interest than the chaos caused by regime collapse. China has a view that mass confusion in North Korea would cause a chaotic situation in China. And, it believes a threat of regime collapse is a much more fearful nightmare for them than the nuclear threat. Therefore, though consistently asserting denuclearization on the Korean peninsula, China has always kept a position that this should be done in a peaceful manner. But, the North Korea's recent hydrogen bomb test showed that China's denuclearization policy has also failed. Let’s turn the eyes to Russia, another military power that shares a border with the North Korea. Russia has been under a strong economic embargo from the US and international society since they occupied Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula. The North and Russia may be in the same situation in that both are suffering from international sanctions. It appears that Russia does not consider the North’s nuclear development as a big threat. So, like China, it did not present a policy or strategy to resolve the North’s nuclear problems to speak of. Moreover, Russia, like China, has a certain sense of kinship with North Korea as former socialist countries. That’s why Russia seems to believe that they would not be a target of the North’s nuclear weapons. But, Pyongyang’s counterparts overlooked that their misjudgment made a “historic mistake” that allowed the North to be a nuclear power. They not only underestimate the nuclear threat of the North, but misjudge the nature of the North Korean regime. In this respect, the US is not an exception. The U.S. believes that it is not possible that long-range nuclear missiles can strike the U.S. mainland unless the North succeeds in nuclear arms miniaturization. So, the U.S. also underestimates the North’s nuclear threat and misjudges the nature of the North Korean regime. The first target of the North’s nuclear attack would be the ROK and the next would be Japan. But, in an excessive reliance on their strong ally, the U.S., both countries do not realize the seriousness of the nuclear threat and seem to dump this problem on the U.S. Pyongyang’s counterparts, including the ROK, need to realize that their passive policy on North Korea overlooked the seriousness of the nuclear threat and misjudges the intention of the North. The current world system is disintegrated post-Cold War system and is dominated by terrorism and counter-terrorism. The more isolated and the poorer the North Korea, the more radical and hostile the North’s regime becomes. Their nuclear weapons could have smaller and lighter warheads and you can never tell when they could be portable. That’s why we should not remain a mere onlooker. Once succeeding in getting smaller and lighter warheads, the North could transfer them to terrorist groups. Pyongyang’s counterparts and international society should take this point seriously. Now, the U.S. is fighting with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (IS). The U.S. ought not to ignore or neglect the seriousness and danger of these terrorists can obtain the nuclear weapons from the North. China also should not ignore the possibility that the North’s nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of partitionists in Tibet and Xinjiang Uyghur. Russia ought not to overlook the transfer of the North Korea’s nuclear weapons to Chechen rebels as well. On Jan 6, the Korean Central News Agency announced an official statement about a hydrogen bomb test and it included the following part: “The DPRK, a responsible nuclear-weapons state, will neither be the first to use nuclear weapons nor transfer relevant means and technology under any circumstances as already declared, as long as the hostile forces for aggression do not encroach upon our sovereignty.” However, international society has to realize that the North’s claims are not true. It is based on the following historical experience. Israel struck a nuclear facility at al-Kibar in Syria on Sep. 6, 2007. Then, Israel announced that “they found the nuclear reactor was built with support of North Korean technicians and the building cost of ten to twenty billion dollars was provided solely by Iran. AFP reported that a foreign ministry statement of Israel, the Middle East’s sole but undeclared nuclear power, said “Israel condemns North Korea’s nuclear test and a clear message must be sent (to North Korea) that such activities are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.” Israel’s strong denunciation is based on past experience that North Korea had technological cooperation with Muslim countries that are seeking to develop nuclear weapons in order to overthrow Israel, such as Iran, Syria and Iraq. The ROK government needs to assert the hold of the five-party talks ― except North Korea ― to urge the members not to misjudge the seriousness of the North’s nuclear weapons in an age of terrorism, and set out an agreement for the abandonment of the nuclear program. A part of the agreement needs to be a diplomatic and peaceful proposal based on the “9.19 Joint Statement” and the other needs to include a way to enforce the North to give up their nuclear program. So, ROK government could usher in a peaceful time in the world and Northeast Asia. In this respect, the ROK government should take the initiative in inter-Korean relations by setting an order of priority in its foreign and security policy, and explore a new age on the Korean peninsula to open a period of denuclearization. Only then, will a gate for a unified and strong Korea be open. Jang Sung-min is former member of the National Assembly and president of the World and Northeast Asia Peace Forum. |
댓글 0
댓글등록 안내
첫번째 댓글을 남겨주세요