서구 지식계가 대북 전략 및 북한 연구를 주도하고 있는 현실을 극복하고 보다 균형 있는 북한과 한반도 문제 연구 및 통일전략과 동아시아전략을 복원하고자 EAI는 2018년 대북복합전략 영문 종합 웹사이트 구축을 기획하여 웹사이트를 지속적으로 관리 및 운영하고 있다. 대북복합전략 영문 종합 웹사이트 Global North Korea (Global NK)는 아카이브 성격의 웹사이트로써, 제재(Sanctions), 관여(Engagement), 자구(Internal Transformation), 억지(Deterrence)로 구성된 4대 대북복합 프레임워크를 기반으로 주요 4개국인 한국, 미국, 중국, 일본에서 발간한 자료들을 보다 체계적이고 종합적인 접근법을 통해 분류한다. 또한, Global NK에서 제공하는 통계치를 통해 웹사이트 이용자는 주요 4개국의 북한에 대한 인식 차이 및 변화를 확인할 수 있게 하였다. 본 웹사이트는 외부 기관의 북한 관련 발간 자료를 한 곳에 수집하는 역할 뿐만 아니라 자체적인 전문가 코멘타리(Commentary)를 발간함으로써 보다 분석적이며 전략적인 방식으로 북한 문제에 대한 방향을 제시하고자 한다.

웹사이트 바로가기: www.globalnk.org

논평이슈브리핑
[Global NK 논평] North Korea-China Relations and the Role of China in the COVID-19 Crisis

.a_wrap {font-size:16px; font-family:Nanum Gothic, Sans-serif, Arial; line-height:26px;} ■ 본 Global NK 논평의 원문 보기 및 PDF 다운로드는 Global North Korea 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능합니다.  [바로가기]    Editor's Note The COVID-19 crisis has not only affected each country domestically, but also changed the diplomatic relations of numerous countries, often disclosing hidden routes of communication. Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, North Korea and China have boasted the continued stability in their bilateral relations through exchanges in verbal messages. Professor Dong Ryul Lee of Dongduk Women’s University, however, argues that the current pandemic also discloses how North Korea and China have “different dreams” with regard to how they prioritize their domestic and regional policies, even if they may share the “same bed.” He points out that although both China and North Korea confirm the need to develop their relations, North Korea is more focused on bilateral relations while China sees their bilateral relations as a part of a larger framework that includes regional stability and international contributions. He adds that South Korea should prioritize strengthening its capabilities and secure its position and role in this uncertain situation rather than over-relying on China’s role within the region.     New Trends in North Korea-China Relations during the COVID-19 crisis The leaders of North Korea and China are utilizing 'verbal messages’ as a new mode of communication in order to portray the robustness of and willingness to develop their bilateral relations. Although North Korea is undergoing economic difficulties due to sanctions, it closed its border with China—its most important trade partner—on January 22. Hence the exchange in letters between the two leaders displays their prioritization of developing North Korea-China relations even in the face of the COVID-19 crisis. However, when looking closely at the communication methods and contents between the two leaders, there also seems to be a subtle difference in their approach. The verbal correspondence was initiated by Chairman Kim Jong-un, to whom President Xi Jinping responded. Chairman Kim Jong-un sent a consolation letter to Xi Jinping regarding the spread of COVID-19 on February 1, and congratulated China’s quarantine efforts within a verbal letter three months following, on May 7. Considering North Korea’s insistence on “self-reliance and head-on strategy” after the failure of Hanoi Summit, this could be interpreted as a challenging signal for cooperation with China. In the correspondence, Chairman Kim actively expressed his intimacy by using words including “members of one family”, and “flesh and blood.” President Xi Jinping has engaged in “telephone diplomacy” with leaders worldwide since the outbreak of COVID-19. However, North Korea is the only case in which he has communicated through verbal messages. Based on China’s announcement made on the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, President Xi Jinping is believed to have responded to Chairman Kim’s letter as a courtesy. The spokesman of the Ministry has only provided basic responses such as “China and North Korea are close neighbors, and we will work with North Korea to advance bilateral relations.” Furthermore, Xi Jinping also mentioned attentive statements such as “China stands ready to strengthen cooperation with the DPRK to fight COVID-19 and provide support in line with the DPRK's needs within its capability.” He also stated that “Comrade Chairman, under your leadership, the party and the people of the DPRK have adopted a host of measures against the virus and achieved positive outcomes. I am pleased and heartened by your efforts,” confirming the success of North Korea’s quarantine efforts. At the same time, the statement also sends an important message apart from that related to quarantine. For instance, Xi Jinping emphasized the “enhance strategic communication” between the two countries that “take forward China-DPRK relations in the new era” and especially its “contributions to peace, stability, development and prosperity of the region.” Although North Korea and China agree their need to develop their bilateral relations, they pursue different approaches: while North Korea focuses on bilateral relations, China shows subtle differences by seeing the bilateral relations within a larger framework of regional stability and international contributions.   The Bilateral Strategy of “Same Bed, Different Dreams” as Seen through the Outbreak of COVID-19 There is a subtle difference in the motives of North Korea and China in regard to the development of their bilateral relations. What North Korea immediately needs to do is to resume dialogue with the U.S. and overcome its economic difficulties by easing U.S. sanctions and hostile policies towards North Korea. North Korea sends cooperation signals to China in order to achieve these two purposes. In other words, it seems necessary for North Korea to open its border with China and resume bilateral exchanges to overcome its urgent economic difficulties. Although North Korea preemptively closed its border with China due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the North Korean economy has faced grave difficulties with the prolonged pandemic. Due to its closed border, North Korea’s trade level with China decreased by 91 percent in March compared to that of the previous year. North Korea is also reportedly facing major difficulties with Pyongyang residents stocking up on grocery. Resumption of bilateral trade with China is hence a priority concern. In addition, U.S.-North Korea dialogues have been stalled for a while, and the possibility of resuming dialogue before the U.S. presidential election decreases with time. Moreover, North Korea has already given up its hopes for South Korea’s role in changing the tough stance of the U.S. Under these circumstances, North Korea has high hopes towards China, its traditional ally, as an alternative method for persuading the U.S. to return to dialogue. Conflicts between the U.S. and China are escalating as the two countries are engaged in a fierce battle over the responsibility of the COVID-19 crisis. Therefore, under these circumstances, North Korea is able to draw international attention towards itself by developing its bilateral relations with China and provoking the Trump administration. On the other hand, China’s support and cooperation are also important for North Korea considering how difficult it would be to resume dialogue with the U.S. following its presidential election. On the other hand, the Xi Jinping administration has not changed much in its management of North Korea, China’s strategic buffer, in terms of its basic policy stance towards the Korean Peninsula; such stance includes “stabilization through the maintenance of the status quo on the Korean Peninsula” and “balanced diplomacy on two Koreas.” Xi Jinping’s response letter to Chairman Kim also mentioned “peace and stability” out of courtesy. China’s North Korea policy and North Korea-China relations, of course, are not only concerned with stability and continuity. There are situations and variables that lead to tactical changes. For instance, China has shown tactical changes when there have been unexpected changes on the Korean Peninsula, including shifts in U.S.-North Korea relations and inter-Korean relations, as well as situations in which it interprets North Korea as suffering crises in maintaining its regime. Such characteristics of China’s North Korea policy and North Korea-China relations can be seen through patterns in bilateral summits. An annual summit between the two countries lies at the background of the special bilateral relations between North Korea and China. However, the regularity by which the two countries held summits since the establishment of diplomatic ties between South Korea and China in 1992 has been broken in actuality. Nevertheless, due to the nature of North Korea and China’s political sys-tems, the summits still serve as an important barometer in determining the status of their bilateral relations. For instance, China’s economic aid to North Korea, which has been suspended since the establishment of South Korea-China diplomatic relations, has been resumed since 1995 when North Korea underwent major food shortages. The summit between North Korea and China also resumed for the first time in eight years in May 2000, just before the inter-Korean summit. In the run-up to the hereditary succession of Kim Jong-un, three summits were held in an unusual manner for a year since May 2010 with Kim-Jong-il‘s visits to China. After Kim Jong-un took power, seven years passed without bilateral summits after which they were held five times within a year and a half time frame with the inter-Korean summit and the U.S.-North Korea summit in 2018. In short, China has had strategic communication with North Korea through summit talks to stabilize the situation on the Korean Peninsula and maintain China’s influence while managing North Korea.   New Variables in North Korea-China Relations and the North Korean Nuclear Problem caused by the COVID-19 Crisis The North Korean regime is destabilizing in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis. Therefore, China should begin managing North Korea both directly or indirectly through economic aid to stabilize the North Korean regime. However, the current situation is complicated and uncertain for China to focus only on managing North Korea. Currently, China’s internal situation is still difficult due to the COVID-19 crisis and U.S.-China tensions are rising with a low possibility for resumption in U.S.-North Korea bilateral talks. From China’s point of view, strategic thinking has become inevitable due to new situations and complex and flexible variables. China is actively promoting its activities related to the COVID-19 crisis such as sending medical supplies to 125 countries and conducting COVID-19 video conferences with 150 countries. However, aid to North Korea has not been officially mentioned. China appears to be in consideration of a complex strategy under new circumstances. First of all, it is difficult for North Korea to accept quarantine assistance from China when it claims to have succeeded in preventing COVID-19. China has taken into account North Korea’s complex position. In addition, although quarantine aid may be humanitarian, China may refrain from sending aid since it does not wish to aggravate conflicts with the U.S. over the potential controversy of violating UN sanctions, especially when its tensions with the U.S. are high. Lastly, it is possible that in the current situation in which U.S.-China relations and North Korea-U.S. relations are volatile and uncertain, China may judge that the crisis in North Korea has not yet reached a critical point, and that the possibility of a high-intensity provocation by North Korea is comparatively low. If it is true that the Sino-North Korean border has partially opened and the New Yalu River Bridge constructions have resumed, China may have decided that it is necessary to cooperate with North Korea even on a limited basis to stabilize the North Korean regime and deter provocations. Despite its relatively early recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, the Xi Jinping administration still has challenges to resolve. First of all, concerns remain over the spread of COVID-19, and China faces the task of improving its national image, which has been damaged by its poor initial responses to the virus outbreak and responsibility over the origination of the “Wuhan virus.” In particular, as the basis for its communist legitimacy still lies in economic growth, China faces a difficult task of improving its economy, and doing so in a rapid manner. Chinese leaders are historically aware that a regime crisis could occur when internal and external challenges overlap(內憂外患). Therefore, since China is currently unstable due to COVID-19, there is a high possibility that its focus will be on stabilizing the situation near its borders. In other words, for a considerable period of time, China will be wary of potential security instabilities originating from North Korea in order to stabilize the surrounding circumstances and resolve the economic difficulties raised by the COVID-19 crisis. Therefore, China will abstain from seeking an active and forward-looking role in resolving the North Korean nuclear issue if is not an immediate cause of imminent security instabilities. China has been prioritizing the “U.S. variable” in considering the North Korea nuclear problem. While China agrees with North Korea that the issue should be resolved through bilateral discussions between North Korea and the United States, China has sought to avoid conflicts with the U.S. due to North Korea nuclear problem . With the COVID-19 pandemic adding to U.S.-China competition and further halting denuclearization talks between the U.S. and North Korea, both China and North Korea have been highlighting each other’s traditional strategic values. North Korea is strategically important as a buffer zone for China, while China serves as a “back-up supporter” for North Korea. However, differences that the two countries pursue in their strategic purposes also limit North Korea and China from returning to their previous special relations. North Korea eventually needs the “China card” to push the U.S. back onto the negotiating table. For China, the incentive to stabilize North Korea as its buffer zone increases as its tensions with the United States aggravate. But on the other hand, it will still look towards avoiding increased tensions with the U.S. when it comes to North Korea and its nuclear issue.   Can the North Korean Nuclear Problem Call Forth a New ‘China Role’? With both U.S.-North Korean talks and developments in inter-Korean relations at a stalemate, there is a growing necessity for a new breakthrough in resolving the North Korean nuclear problem. With prolonged economic sanctions and the shutdown of Sino-North Korean borders, there have been rising concerns over whether North Korea will find its own breakthrough using high-stake provocations. With such uncertainty and instability, “China's role” in the crisis will gain further attention and serve as a feasible alternative. Cooperation has helped to restore South Korea-China relations and North Korea has also not been shy to lend a helping hand to China. As such, the South Korean government—faced with time constraints—has a growing expectation towards “China's role” in helping to resolve the North Korean nuclear problem. However, South Korea has experienced problems caused by over-reliance on and over-negligence of the “role of China.” South Korea's over-reliance on China has raised concerns of its “inclination towards China,” causing negative impacts on South Korea-U.S. relations, and eventually leading to a deterioration in South Korea-China relations. On the other hand, overlooking China’s role in midst of progress in U.S.-North Korean talks and inter-Korean discussions have also raised concerns that South Korea is “alienating China,” limiting China’s necessary support towards South Korea. With high uncertainties in U.S.-China relations, North Korea-China relations, and inter-Korean relations, it is important to prioritize the improvement of South Korea's role in the long-run rather than over-rely on China’s role based on short-term improvements in South Korea-China relations.     Dong Ryul Lee has been a professor in the Department of Chinese Studies at Dongduk Women’s University since 1997. He was President of The Korean Association for Contemporary Chinese Studies in 2018 and now serves as a policy advisor to the ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His research interests include Chinese foreign policy, international relations in East Asia, and Chinese nationalism and minorities. He was a visiting scholar at the Weatherhead East Asian Institute at Columbia University from 2005 to 2006. He received his Ph.D. in international politics from Peking University.   담당 및 편집: 백진경 EAI 연구원             문의: 02 2277 1683 (내선 209) I j.baek@eai.or.kr  

이동률 2020-06-05조회 : 11660
논평이슈브리핑
[Global NK 논평] Thinking Slow about North Korea

.a_wrap {font-size:16px; font-family:Nanum Gothic, Sans-serif, Arial; line-height:26px;} ■ 본 Global NK 논평의 원문 보기 및 PDF 다운로드는 Global North Korea 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능합니다.  [바로가기]    Editor's Note Controversies were raised over Kim Jong-un's status and health during the period of time he did not appear in public. The situation was then further aggravated by people who were quick in their analyses and arguments about the future of the Kim regime. Professor Jihwan Hwang from the University of Seoul points out that while the North Korea issue requires urgency, it is also important to “think slow” about North Korea since the issue has problems related to disinformation and lack of information. Furthermore, Professor Hwang argues that North Korea has existed in its current political form throughout the past 75 years and will continue to exist as a nation even after Kim Jong-un. His argument is supported by an interview he conducted with a high-ranking North Korean defector.  He also suggests that we need to think slowly on how the current COVID-19 situation will affect the Korean Peninsula, especially with changes in U.S.-China relations.     Thinking Fast and Slow In his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2002 Nobel Laureate in Economics, explained two sys-tems by which we think: Sys-tem 1 and Sys-tem 2. Sys-tem 1 is a fast, intuitive and emotional way of thinking, operating automatically with little effort and no voluntary control. On the other hand, Sys-tem 2 is a slow, lazy and logical way of thinking that requires intentional and effortful mental activities. According to Kahneman, we are vulnerable to a cognitive bias of thinking fast and are likely to be strongly influenced first by Sys-tem 1. Regarding the North Korean issue, thinking fast is common both at home and abroad. This is because, despite the importance of the North Korean issue, there is a lack of information on North Korea and a flooding of disinformation. When Chairman Kim Jong-un disappears for a few weeks, impromptu analysis and interpretation of the possibility of the collapse of the North Korean sys-tem outpour. When North Korea conducts a nuclear test, discussions on North Korea's nuclear capabilities and threats are active. It is also important to analyze the changes in North Korea’s major exports and rice prices at Jangmadang within a short period of time. It is also true that the North Korean issue often requires urgency, and in cases where a quick response is needed, the need to rely on intuition increases. However, it is important to understand the structure of the North Korean regime, the changes that are taking place in the long term, and the key variables. Given the importance of the North Korean issue, it is clear that thinking fast is a critical and necessary task. However, it is necessary to think as slow as we think fast. That is why Kahneman's argument about thinking slowly is important for studies on North Korea.   North Korea has existed as a dictatorship for 75 years Looking back on North Korea's 75-year history since 1945, it can be seen that North Korea has made great efforts with regard to regime stability. North Korean leaders have appeared to be men of a long-term and cautious national strategy, and not reckless men of impulse. They have been evil but very good at calculating their benefits and costs and clear in understanding North Korea’s place in the world. Seventy years under Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il and a quite stable leadership succession to Kim Jong-un clearly show the durability of the North Korean sys-tem. The leaders know how to control the nation as dictators. They are malign but not mad, rather quite rational in calculation. In this sense, Kim Jong-un is not an exception. If he were a reckless man, he would more likely gamble. But since he is not reckless, he has shown capability of calculating the benefits and costs. In the early 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, many observers predicted that the Kim Il-sung regime would not survive. When Kim Il-sung died in 1994, they also speculated that the regime would collapse soon because no one could replace him in North Korea. However, Kim Jong-il had little difficulty in succeeding to his power. During the period of "Arduous March" in the mid-1990s, many predicted again that the Kim Jong-il regime would not survive. After Kim Jong-il died in 2011, they believed that Kim Jong-un, then a 27 year-old young and inexperienced leader, would not be able to save the regime. However, none of the predictions have been realized. Many unification scenarios by the U.S. and South Korea are based on the regime collapse of North Korea. However, there has been no report of the North Korean regime being threatened by a popular revolution or by a military coup. With North Korea being a typical dictatorship, Kim Jong-un has made use of the dictator’s control toolbox. In order to prevent military coup, Kim Jong-un, like his grandfather and father, has heavily relied on security forces, restrictive social policies, manipulation of ideas and information. Even if the military conducts a coup, it would be very difficult for them to take power in North Korea because they do not have political legitimacy. Kim Jong-un has executed many military and political figures throughout the last 8 years, even killing his uncle. If Kim Jong-un had failed in consolidating his power, he could not have executed him.   North Korea will continue to exist as a nation. Diverse predictions on Kim Jong-un’s recent absence seemed to be based on disinformation on North Korea and on a certain group’s wishful thinking. Even if Kim Jong-un dies suddenly, North Korea is more likely to continue existing as a nation. A new leader or power group may emerge by force or claim power with the support of the North Korean people. It is possible that a new leader or power group may rise after a series of fierce power struggles and replace the Kim Jong-un regime. According to a high-ranking North Korean defector, Kim Yo-jong and Kim Jong-chul—Kim Jong-un’s younger sister and elder brother—may cooperate with each other to stabilize the North Korean domestic situation even when Kim Jong-un is unable to sustain his power.[1] Since North Korea is de facto Kim’s dynasty, the North Korean people have not yet had the opportunity to experience democracy. Therefore, it is not strange for Kim Jong-il’s son and daughter to become North Korea's leaders. In a democratic country like South Korea, a national leader’s political legitimacy is derived from elections and popular support. But in North Korea, political legitimacy is based on the Kim family’s Baekdu bloodline. If North Korea’s domestic situation is stabilized, there is no reason for China and Russia to disapprove its new regime. The two countries support the continuation of North Korea rather than its regime collapse, and will welcome the rise of a new leader—whoever it may be—and support the rebuilding of a new regime in North Korea. They may accept North Korea’s regime collapse, but not the collapse of North Korea as a nation. Both China and Russia would not like to see North Korea’s regime collapse lead to the unification on the Korean Peninsula under the U.S. and South Korean leadership. In this sense, North Korea’s time-horizon is long and appears to be longer than we may expect. That is why it is important to think slowly when dealing with the North Korean issue. There are many factors that we overlook when thinking fast about North Korea. Since North Korea recognized itself as a de facto nuclear weapons state when it declared it completed nuclear deterrence in 2017, there have not yet thought slow about how the situation on the Korean Peninsula is likely to change. We have not yet thought slow about how denuclearization and peace regime talks are likely to proceed since they have remained stagnant after the 2019 Panmunjom summit. COVID-19 is fundamentally changing the world order, but we have not yet thought slow enough about how the pandemic is affecting North Korea. U.S.-China relations are changing rapidly, but we have not thought slow enough about how this will affect the Korean Peninsula. This is why it is more urgent to think slow about North Korea despite the spread of disinformation and some wishful-thinking.   [1] Interview conducted by the author.     Jihwan Hwang is professor of international relations at the University of Seoul in South Korea. He was a year-long visiting scholar at the Catholic University of America and an instructor at George Washington University in 2017. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Colorado, Boulder.   담당 및 편집: 백진경 EAI 연구원             문의: 02 2277 1683 (내선 209) I j.baek@eai.or.kr  

황지환 2020-06-05조회 : 13385
논평이슈브리핑
[Global NK 논평] The International Order and Inter-Korean Relations after COVID-19

.a_wrap {font-size:16px; font-family:Nanum Gothic, Sans-serif, Arial; line-height:26px;} ■ 본 Global NK 논평의 원문 보기 및 PDF 다운로드는 Global North Korea 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능합니다.  [바로가기]    Editor's Note One of COVID-19's greatest impacts has been that on the global economy. Due to the pandemic, unemployment rates have rapidly increased all around the world while economic growth rates in many countries including the United States and China are suffering from a decline. Dr. Soo-hyung Lee, a senior fellow of the Institute for National Security Strategy, points out three major phenomena that will appear after COVID-19. These include the strengthening of countries’ strategic autonomy, heightened self-reliance, and the international community's shared recognition of the need for international cooperation through a multilateral system. For North Korea, Dr. Lee argues that COVID-19 does not only threaten the lives of the North Korean people but also its regime security. While North Korea continues to rely on China, it is likely for the regime to seek for dialogues with South Korea if the COVID-19 threat continues for the long-term. He also suggests that South Korea carefully devise a North Korea strategy for building new dynamics in inter-Korean relations in case Pyongyang reaches out to Seoul.      There are various prospects and predictions about the world after the coronavirus (COVID-19) and changes in future strategies toward North Korea and inter-Korean relations remain an area of primary concern.    Division of the Global Economic Bloc and the Centrifugal Force of Capitalism One of COVID-19's greatest impacts has been that on the global economy. The United States suffers from the world’s highest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and death toll. Its economic downturn has also overshadowed the boom that continued until the end of last year. The overall prospects remain dim, and it has been predicted that the U.S. economic growth rate will reach only around 20 percent this year, leaving 20 million people unemployed with the unemployment rate rising to 10 percent. China's economic growth rate also fell to minus 6.8 percent throughout the first quarter of 2020, which is a record low since 1992, when its official quarterly gross domestic product (GDP) was first recorded and announced. This is also a huge drop from China's GDP last year, which remained at 6 percent up until December 2019.  The economic prospects of both U.S. and China—two nations engaged in strategic competition—are certainly key elements for the international order. However, in addition to these two nations’ strategic competition, the structural changes brought upon the global economy will have greater lasting impacts for the international community. Although there are various pictures that people have about the future global order, many agree that the world will be considerably narrower than it is now. With the COVID-19 variable causing many countries to look inward and avoid risk-averse economic engagements, the future of global interdependence—which contributed to the formation of various networks—remains in question. COVID-19 has revealed the weakness of the global supply chain, simplifying its underlying logic to the maximization of individual economic profits. Although economic globalization was already experiencing a crisis due to the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China and the upcoming fourth industrial revolution, the phenomenon of selective decoupling between the two countries is expected to accelerate due to the pandemic. By breaking up the global supply chain, COVID-19 will likely push forth the centrifugal force of global capitalism rather than contribute to its centripetal force. In the post-COVID-19 era, there is an undeniable possibility for divisions to occur amid the economies of the U.S., China and Europe, which will diminish economic interdependence and lead to security instabilities.   Strategic Autonomy, Self-reliance, Competition and Compromise in International Cooperation Although it is difficult to predict the general trend or pattern of post-COVID-19 international politics and relations, the absence of hegemonic leadership will lead to a contradictory phenomenon in which both power transition and power diffusion will occur simultaneously. Key terms that help to explain this trend include strategic autonomy, self-reliance and international cooperation. First and foremost, increased strategic autonomy among countries will be an important phenomenon for the post-COVID-19 global environment. As witnessed in the last 20th century, there is a high possibility that the strategic autonomy of regional countries will continue to strengthen since the world is experiencing less pressure and coercion from the centripetal force of the U.S.-led unipolar order. It is increasingly becoming difficult for major powers to exercise leadership in maintaining a stable international order, in addition to managing their own regional and international affairs. Due to COVID-19, the world has been brought closer to the era of "G-Zero” as mentioned by Ian Bremmer, with an interregnum in hegemonic leadership over the distribution of global public goods. The second phenomenon will be self-reliance. In the wake of COVID-19, countries will further strengthen selective cooperation by focusing primarily on their national interests over international cooperation. This prediction is not new. Since Brexit in 2016 and President Donald Trump's 'America First’ policy, reinforcement and prolonged survival of self-reliance had already been foreseen for the future of international relations. COVID-19, however, has not only strengthened the logic of self-reliance but has also reversed the existing flow of local and international affairs. As a result, the world is likely to experience limited space for multilateralism and international cooperation in addition to heightened self-reliance following COVID-19. Paradoxically, however, international relations post-COVID-19 will require even more multilateral cooperation. With respect to rising self-reliance, more countries are voicing the need for heightened international cooperation based on multilateralism. Under the current circumstances, it is difficult to imagine the reemergence of international cooperation immediately following COVID-19. For example, the European Union—a symbol of international cooperation since the mid-20th century—has only shown disappointment in its handling of the COVID-19 crisis. The international community has witnessed how fragile integration, solidarity and multilateral cooperation can be, as well as how rapidly border barriers and nationalistic sentiments can rise when faced with an unexpected crisis. However, what should be taken away from the pandemic is that there exists a common enemy of mankind that is ecological. In addition, the reversal of globalization is not the solution to this problem and instead, what is needed is a speedy establishment of a new multilateral system. The prospect of international cooperation will depend on how thoroughly and preemptively the international community recognizes these key takeaways of COVID-19.   COVID-19 as a Variable within the Political Landscape of the Korean Peninsula How will COVID-19 affect the situation on the Korean Peninsula and the strategy towards North Korea? First, there is a high possibility that North Korea’s dependence on China will increase as China’s status is strengthened both regionally and internationally. Despite its initial failure to respond to the pandemic, China boasts the fastest recovery rate in the world. The country is also emerging as a leader with respect to healthcare by exercising effective quarantine guidelines and by providing medical equipment to more than 120 countries around the world. Without a proper domestic quarantine system, North Korea is highly sensitive in handling COVID-19. For North Korea, COVID-19 extends beyond the question of protecting and safeguarding its people, but addresses the very existence and continuity of its regime and leadership. As such, North Korea sealed off its borders and isolated itself from the outside world immediately following the COVID-19 outbreak and selected COVID-19 management as an important agenda for the April 11 meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Worker's Party of Korea. Although North Korea has enjoyed a bit of autonomy from China while utilizing its hedging strategy, the regime has been induced to further rely on China following the COVID-19 outbreak as it has a history with not disclosing its international affairs to the rest of the world. However, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that North Korea, which is wary of its excessive dependence on China, may seek another way out from the pandemic. Considering how the U.S. is currently occupied with the imminent presidential elections and unable to focus solely on diplomatic affairs, there is a low likelihood for U.S.-DPRK negotiations to resume and bilateral relations to normalize in the near future. If COVID-19 is to continue onto next year, the new U.S. administration is unlikely to prioritize North Korea. In the traditional perspective, North Korea seems to be ramping up its strategic weapons. However, if it is unable to resolve the COVID-19 issue, it may turn toward South Korea as a negotiating partner. It will be difficult to alleviate existing tensions in inter-Korean relations within a short time frame but if COVID-19 becomes prolonged, North Korea will have to find ways to reinitiate dialogues with South Korea in order to secure its leadership by maintaining the public's dependence on the regime. The South Korean government also has to devise a comprehensive and inclusive North Korea strategy in preparation for the changing dynamics of the situation on the Korean Peninsula and inter-Korean relations following COVID-19. Inter-Korean dialogues have to extend beyond those related to medical issues to encompass the facilitation of bilateral relations in the post-COVID-19 era. After COVID-19, emerging security threats such as diseases, as well as ways to manage them through healthcare systems and quarantine will serve as the new focus of international discussions. South Korea should embrace for the return of diplomatic and security competitions which will follow the period of respite provided by COVID-19. In particular, South Korea should seek for a new North Korea strategy, considering the changes in the Korean Peninsula's surrounding political environment in the wake of COVID-19.      Soo-hyung Lee is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for National Security Strategy (INSS). He also serves as an adjunct professor at the University of North Korean Studies. Before joining INSS, he served as an administrator to the President for Security Strategy, Cheong Wa Dae (Office of the President) from 2005 to 2007. His main research interests include international politics and security, NATO and European security, ROK-US security relations, Inter-Korean security relations, alliance politics in Northeast Asia, and East Asian security issues.   담당 및 편집: 백진경 EAI 연구원             문의: 02 2277 1683 (내선. 209) I j.baek@eai.or.kr  

이수형 2020-06-05조회 : 8628
논평이슈브리핑
[Global NK 논평] Making the North Korean Economic Project Work

.a_wrap {font-size:16px; font-family:Nanum Gothic, Sans-serif, Arial; line-height:26px;} ■ 본 Global NK 논평의 원문 보기 및 PDF 다운로드는 Global North Korea 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능합니다.  [바로가기]    Editor's Note North Korea, despite its advantageous geographical location, is largely isolated from the global economic sys-tem. While there have been attempts at joint investment projects with North Korea such as the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC) and Mount Kumgang Tourist Region, these failed to bring tangible results. Professor Tom Le and Michelle Tunger of Pomona College argue that North Korea's economic development depends on a number of factors that are related to the regime’s denuclearization efforts, U.S. willingness to lift sanctions, and the promotion of additional buy-ins by the international community. Furthermore, China’s influence and its Belt-and-Road Initiative (BRI) are also important factors that influence economic investments into North Korea. They contend that "successful joint projects in North Korea will yield profits for investors, provide greater economic opportunities for North Koreans, and increase interactions between people beyond government elites."     In June 2018, President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un met in Singapore to build a roadmap towards peace. Trump’s pitch rested on the belief that Kim would denuclearize in exchange for real estate investments, access to the international market, and economic assistance. Although Trump’s reliance on flashy videos and salesman-like rhetoric was unconventional, his reasoning reflected the conventional wisdom that economic development was central to changing the trajectory of North Korea. President Moon Jae-in shares such optimism, and even suggested last August at the height of the South Korea-Japan trade dispute that a joint Korean “peace economy” could replace Japan’s economic superiority in “one burst.”    Wasted Opportunities Although there have been plenty attempts to execute investment projects in North Korea, virtually none of them have yielded lasting results. The Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC), a joint economic initiative of both Koreas, was launched in 2004 to boost bilateral cooperation and business opportunities. South Korea benefitted from North Korea’s land and cheap labor while North Korea took advantage of South Korea’s expertise and technology. After tensions arose following North Korea’s nuclear testing in 2016, South Korea’s Ministry of Unification suspended operations at the industrial complex, forcing business owners and workers to leave behind what they had built up over the past years. Before its closure, the KIC generated over 120 million USD a year for the North Korean government and employed over 55,000 North Koreans. South Korean clothing manufacturers saw their profits rise at a greater rate than manufacturers operating outside the KIC. The Mount Kumgang Tourist Region is also a failed inter-Korean investment project. Established in 2002, it once facilitated trips by South Koreans and other foreign tourists. The resort was closed, however, following a tragic shooting incident in July 2008 that involved a South Korean tourist entering a restricted military area. At the end of 2019, North Korea announced plans to demolish all South Korean property at the resort to develop its own tourism facilities, but has recently halted operations in light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Private investors have also had business conflicts with North Korea. In 2012, Chinese mining conglomerate Xiyang Group published a blog post blaming North Korea for the failure of a joint venture worth more than 40 million USD. After the Xiyang Group helped construct and operate an iron ore mine, North Korean business partners demanded contract revisions and evicted all Chinese workers without Xiyang’s compliance. The Chinese company claims that North Korea waited just long enough to acquire the necessary know-how of mining and processing techniques before ousting their Chinese business partners. However, North Korea responded by accusing the Chinese conglomerate of failing to meet their promise to provide half of their investment obligations. It remains unclear which side of the story holds more truth, but the case of the Xiyang Group illustrates how the lack of a transparent business environment makes it difficult to ensure long-term project stability in North Korea. It is risky to invest in North Korean property and ventures. Due to heavy UN sanctions, investors hoping to establish business operations must first endure the time-consuming process of applying for exemptions. There is also little transparency in how the North Korean government allocates and utilizes funds. Investors risk feeding into an autocratic and corrupt sys-tem in which their investments might be used contrarily to what they had intended. The Kim regime’s unpredictability swings wildly from one crisis to the next, which can disrupt years of investment efforts. Any progress in negotiations concerning a joint venture can quickly be reversed by bombastic rhetoric or missile tests. The Kim regime has the capability to leverage progress on joint economic projects during nuclear negotiations. Why, then, do some investors remain optimistic about economic projects with North Korea? For one, North Korea enjoys an advantageous geographical positioning: it shares borders with China, Russia, and South Korea, some of the most economically and politically influential players in the region. North Korea also has access to high-potential seaports that are important for regional trade networks. North Korea’s isolation from the global economic sys-tem has left it as one of the few untouched places in the world. Investors are particularly interested in North Korea’s significant and unexploited natural resources. Experts estimate the country’s assets of minerals such as copper, gold, graphite, iron, and zinc to be worth nearly 10 trillion USD. South Korea has expressed interest in exporting rare-earth metals, and investment in the North Korean mines would require additional investments in infrastructure and the production chain to unsure a profitable enterprise. Thus, a single project can be far-reaching, lucrative, and transformative. North Korea’s development of cyberattack capabilities has also provided the regime a robust IT landscape that can be converted for more peaceful purposes. A well-resourced IT network is key to modernizing other sectors of the North Korean economy. Equally important for economic growth is a low-cost and adaptive labor force. When business owners of the KIC venture hired workers in the early 2000’s, monthly wages were as low as 50 USD and remained competitive in comparison with the rest of the world, even when accounting for annual wage increases. With room for infrastructural modernization and industrial development, North Korea has the potential to grow exponentially once it opens up. Moreover, there is potential for North Korea to develop a substantial tourism industry that will attract both South Koreans looking to visit ancestral sites as well as others from all over the world that are eager to gain a glimpse of the country.  The North Korean public seems quite capable of adjusting to a more market-driven economy. Studies show that North Koreans already depend heavily on private markets in both rural and urban areas. According to micro surveys of residents currently living in North Korea, the majority of North Korean households receive most of their income from markets. Individuals also find that external goods and information have a greater impact on their livelihoods compared to decisions by the government. Despite the efforts of the Kim regime, economic mechanisms such as supply, demand, and market pricing already exist in North Korea and would constitute a promising foundation for an investment-induced development.   More than Just an Economic Investment Economic projects in North Korea tend to be driven by more than financial lucrativeness. North Korea is country of immense humanitarian violations. According to one study, 60 percent of North Koreans live in absolute poverty. As the 1990s famine brought hardships upon North Korean citizens, the current COVID-19 pandemic could also lead to a similar economic crisis.  Government leaders, businesses, and NGOs have tolerated the Kim regime’s behavior with the hope that investment would ease the suffering of North Korean citizens, and potentially pave the way for economic and political reform. At the very least, joint-development projects would increase North Korea’s interactions with the international community, which would facilitate information transmission into and outside of North Korea. Governments and private businesses may be willing to endure financial losses due to the moral imperative of ending the North Korean nuclear threat and humanitarian crisis. A failed state would greatly damage security and business.   The future prospects of investment development in North Korea depend on several factors. First, whether a state offers North Korea an economic lifeline will depend on its denuclearization progress. North Korea’s most recent missile launch was a reminder that the Kim regime will continue to use the stick when carrots are not provided in a timely manner. However, if the Kim regime is unable to secure economic resources due to continued provocations, it is bound to experience an economic catastrophe and humanitarian crisis. Kim Jong-un will have to adjust to the reality that he will not get what he wants without significant concessions, such as giving South Korea greater oversight of the KIC when it reopens. Second, the United States (U.S.) unwillingness to lift sanctions without North Korea’s completely denuclearization is a significant roadblock in the development of economic projects. The soundness of such a strategy can be debated, but sanctions hold the capacity to disrupt supply chains, slow business transactions, and increase the costs of development projects. In order to have progress in North Korea’s economic development, Pyongyang and Washington need to work on making compromises. A tit-for-tat dismantling of the nuclear program and economic development, for example, may help to move negotiations forward. Third, the U.S. should promote additional buy-in from the international community. If multiple states invest heavily in North Korea, the cost of backsliding increases for the Kim regime because North Korea would be more dependent on substantial joint-projects. The private sector would also pressure governments to protect their investments. Lastly, South Korea’s domestic politics will also be a factor in easing business transactions with North Korea. South Korea’s stance towards North Korea has depended on the respective administration. While Moon’s North Korea policy initially sparked hope about improving inter-Korean relations, it has also angered conservatives. And despite the fact that Moon’s party won the majority of seats in the April parliamentary election, if conservatives regain power in the coming years, South Korea’s policy towards North Korea is likely to shift again in a less favorable direction as it was during the Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye administrations.   Conclusion It is premature to deem investment in North Korea futile. Governments and businesses have to find a way to make the North Korean economic project work, or the state is likely to fail and deal with the consequences. Although talks have been inconclusive thus far, the two Koreas and the U.S. emphasized their interest in continuing negotiations earlier this year. The Moon administration’s decisive victory in the recent election provides some fertile ground for continued engagement. The U.S. presidential election in November will be the next significant development to watch. If Trump or former vice president Joe Biden aligns with Moon, sanctions may be eased, and investment is bound to flow into North Korea. Ultimately, the international community must decide if it truly believes in the transformative power of economic development in a liberal world order. Can North Korea be transformed if its people simply gain access to the goods and opportunities of the wider world? China provides a blueprint for economic growth. Private investment from Chinese companies are less politically driven and therefore, could be a deciding factor for fueling monetary inflows that improve living conditions within North Korea. Even with current sanctions in place, China has plans for future investment projects and incorporating North Korea in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). By separating economic and political motivations and recognizing that a “take it or leave it” approach does not work, China has slowly but steadily increased its influence in North Korea’s development.  The U.S. can help shape the trajectory of North Korea by refraining from politicizing development and humanitarian aid. Trump’s decision not to weaponize the COVID-19 pandemic with North Korea, unlike with Iran, is a step in the right direction. During pandemics and natural disasters, sanctioned countries are at their most vulnerable state because they lack access to medical supplies, food, and water. Moreover, decades of underdevelopment which are partly due to poor domestic policies and exacerbated by sanctions leave little capacity to address unexpected natural disasters. By tightening the screws on North Korea, the U.S. and like-minded countries will neither gain goodwill among the North Korean public that it wishes to win over if economic development were to take place, nor pro-peace domestic audiences that find sanctions ineffective and unethical. The COVID-19 pandemic may even revive the KIC. Kim Jin-hyang has argued that the KIC’s 73 sewing companies and one mask factory should be reopened to produce masks and other materials. Investors look at risk factors, potential rewards, and assurances when deciding on a project. Successful joint projects in North Korea will yield profits for investors, provide greater economic opportunities for North Koreans, and increase interactions between people beyond government elites. North Korea need only look south for a neighbor eager for peace and evidence of the transformative power of the free market.   Tom Le is an Assistant Professor of Politics at Pomona College. His current book project titled Japan’s Aging Peace (under contract with Columbia University Press) examines the relationship between demographics and security. Le’s work has been published in the Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs and the Journal of Asian Studies, as well as in popular outlets such as Foreign Affairs, The Washington Post, The Hill and The Diplomat. Le received a Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Irvine and BAs in history and political science at the University of California, Davis. He is a research associate at the PRIME Institute (Meiji Gakuin University), a CSIS US-Korea NextGen Fellow, and an AFIHJ Next Generation Fellow.   Michelle Tunger is a senior at Pomona College majoring in economics with a minor in Asian studies. Her areas of study include the effects of democracy on economic growth in East Asia, as well as issues pertaining to Japanese-Korean reconciliation.     담당 및 편집: 백진경 EAI 연구원             문의: 02 2277 1683 (내선. 209) I j.baek@eai.or.kr      

Tom Le, Michelle Tunger 2020-06-05조회 : 8453
논평이슈브리핑
[Global NK 논평] Missiles and the Coronavirus in Spring 2020: New Hope for Diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula?

.a_wrap {font-size:16px; font-family:Nanum Gothic, Sans-serif, Arial; line-height:26px;} ■ 본 Global NK 논평의 원문 보기 및 PDF 다운로드는 Global North Korea 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능합니다.  [바로가기]    Editor's Note Since the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, South Korea has become a subject of international media coverage, not in relation to North Korea, but because of its successful handling of the virus outbreak. Professor Seong-ho Sheen of Graduate School of International Studies at Seoul National University suggests that the coronavirus may bring a new dynamic for the trilateral negotiation between the two Koreas and the U.S.  Furthermore, he argues that with South Korea as an international model for responding effectively to the coronavirus outbreak, North Korea and the U.S. may wish to pursue discussions through South Korea rather than excluding it from the negotiation table.  Professor Sheen argues that it is time for North Korea to make a call to South Korea as Trump recently did to Moon.     As the international community continues to fight the fast-spreading coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Korea has once again, become a subject of international media coverage. This time, the attention is not centered on North Korean nuclear provocation, but instead on South Korea as a model case for handling the outbreak of the virus. Despite its early spike of the virus, South Korea’s aggressive efforts to identify, confine, and control its spread with creative initiatives such as drive-in and walk thru testing have contributed to a very low death toll and a drastic slow-down in the rate of newly confirmed cases. The special media attention on South Korea is because its success in containing the virus has been made possible without the use of draconian measures including total lockdowns of its cities and ban on international travel in and out of the country. Instead South Korea took proactive approaches such as comprehensive testing, aggressive identification and targeted quarantine measures of both confirmed patients and potential cohorts, transparent information sharing, coupled with a nation-wide voluntary movement of social distancing adopted by the public. So far, there have not been a single case of national- or local-level lockdowns, panic buying of toilet paper and groceries, or stories of overwhelmed hospital and medical staff. As such, life has been pretty normal for people in South Korea in most parts of the country although the government has demanded that schools—ranging from kindergartens to universities—remain closed until early April. As such South Korea is schedule to have a four-year term national general election in mid -April to continue on with its democratic practice. Meanwhile, North Korea claims it is free from the COVID-19 pandemic. In early January, North Korea swiftly declared a travel ban to and from China even at the risk of cutting ties with Beijing, which is a valued source of trade and cash flow for the much isolated economy under international sanctions. Despite North Korea’s claims, some still suspect that there are hidden cases of the virus as experts believe Pyongyang’s healthcare sys-tem and its population are most vulnerable to any pandemic. In March, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un gave a direct order for the construction of a “modern general hospital” to be completed by this October in Pyongyang to “better protect the precious health and safety of people.”  At the same time, Kim also kept himself busy with the usual military drills coupled with short-range ballistic missile launches. The military exercises and missile tests were an apparent show of force by Kim who had earlier vowed to bolster his “strategic weapons” and warned of a “shocking action” over now-stalled nuclear negotiations with Trump. The latest missiles launches have been the first confirmed cases of North Korean weapons testing since late November. And when South Korea’s presidential office expressed concern and urged to stop acts that don’t help reduce military animosities, the statement issued by Kim Yo-Jong, dear leader’s powerful sister and a key person for Kim’s summit diplomacy with President Moon Jae-In, sharply condemned Seoul as a “frightened barking dog,” and “a burnt child dreading fire.” While highlighting recent military buildup and weapons development by South Korea, the statement ended with questioning how Seoul’s words and actions could be “so perfectly foolish.” Kim Yo-Jong’s harsh rhetoric reflects Pyongyang’s growing frustration and resentment towards Seoul which, they see, is losing value as a mediator and partner for nuclear talks after its disappointing Hanoi summit with Trump last year. In response, South Korea’s Unification Ministry, which is in charge of inter-Korean affairs, stated that the two Koreas should maintain mutual respect while working toward establishing peace on the Korean Peninsula.   Despite Kim Yo-Jong’s harsh rhetoric, the coronavirus may provide a new dynamic for future denuclearization talks and peace negotiations between Pyongyang, Seoul and Washington. Earlier in March, Moon offered North Korea assistance in disease prevention efforts against the virus.  And less than two days after the harsh statement from Kim’s sister, the Moon’s office revealed a letter from Chairman Kim expressing his best wishes for South Korea’s epidemic situation. And lately Pyongyang said it received a personal letter from President Trump expressing his willingness to help with "anti-epidemic work." The following statement issued by Kim Yo-Jong again, praised the letter as "efforts to keep the good relations” with Kim, while also adding that their good personal relationship is not enough, as a hiatus in disarmament talks drags on. With US Presidential election in coming November, there seemed to be little hope for negotiation between Pyongyang and Washington as they were blaming each other for lack of interests and concessions. Yet, Trump’s latest letter adds more interesting dynamics to this “coronavirus letter diplomacy” between the three leaders since their dramatic meeting at Panmunjum last June. The UN Security Council also announced that it would make humanitarian exemptions to sanctions on North Korea to help it fight the coronavirus. It would be an interesting twist if coronavirus gave a new life for largely dead nuclear negotiations before too long. Both Washington and Pyongyang may want to talk through Seoul first who now knows a thing or two when it comes to anti-virus fight. Indeed, in a latest development yet, President Trump made a phone call to Moon asking for South Korea’s help with US pandemic situation. It is now time for Kim to call Moon.       Seong-Ho Sheen is a professor and director of International Security Center(ISC) at Graduate School of International Studies at Seoul National University. He is also a member of Policy Advisory Board of Ministry of Defense, Republic of Korea.   담당 및 편집: 백진경 EAI 연구원             문의: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 209) I j.baek@eai.or.kr      

신성호 2020-06-05조회 : 12204
논평이슈브리핑
[Global NK 논평] COVID-19 and North Korea’s Choices: Shifting Away from ‘A Head-on Breakthrough’ Line?

.a_wrap {font-size:16px; font-family:Nanum Gothic, Sans-serif, Arial; line-height:26px;} ■ 본 Global NK 논평의 원문 보기 및 PDF 다운로드는 Global North Korea 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능합니다.  [바로가기]    Editor's Note The Coronavirus (COVID-19) that began in Wuhan, China, has evolved into a pandemic, spreading globally throughout Asia, Europe and America. North Korea, which shares its borders with China,is not an exception, although it has been denying the outbreak of COVID-19 cases within the country. Professor Won Gon Park of Handong Global University states that the warm message sent by Kim Jong-un to President Moon Jae-in regarding the outbreak of COVID-19 in South Korea shows North Korea’s desire to overcome domestic challenges. In particular, North Korea is faced with grave economic difficulties since China is unable to fully support North Korea due to its own battle against COVID-19 . He suggests that North Korea may try to take advantage of the current situation by attempting to weaken international sanctions in hopes of carrying on its 'head-on breakthrough’ agenda. In response, he argues that the international community should be careful not to interrupt the sanctions regime, even if North Korea may require assistance for overcoming the pandemic.     Coronavirus, officially called COVID-19 by the World Health Organization (WHO), hit the world hard. Since its outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, it has spread internationally, from neighboring countries such as South Korea and Japan, to North America and Europe by the end of March 2020.   Coronavirus in North Korea  It is reasonable to assume that the coronavirus has also spread to North Korea although the country has officially denied any infections to date. North Korea’s Rodong Sinmun reported on February 20 that “not one novel coronavirus patient has emerged.” However, the international community casts doubt on North Korea’s claim. On February 12, Deputy of Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) representative Bir Mandal stated that “his team doubted North Korea’s claim that there were zero cases of the COVID-19 infection in the country.” General Robert Abrams, commander of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), mentioned in his briefing on March 13 that “the United States (U.S.) is fairly certain there are coronavirus cases in North Korea because of a noticeable lack of military activity.” North Korea also has a history of holding back from acknowledging infections during the SARS and MERS outbreaks.   Impact of Coronavirus on North Korea It is almost impossible to know the exact situation in North Korea, yet it is obvious that the coronavirus would be a real daunting challenge to the North Korean regime if it spreads nationwide. North Korea is facing serious economic difficulties because of sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council and the U.S. Kim Jong-un himself acknowledged the deteriorated economic situation in the fifth plenary session of the seventh Central Committee last December, saying that “[North Korea’s] strong conviction is protecting the country’s dignity and winning [against] imperialism [through its] own efforts even if people have to starve.” He also used the word, "self-reliance,” most frequently in the final report of the session. Such statement rescinds the promise he made in April 2014 to “never let [his] people starve.” The coronavirus will add more hardship to an already devastated North Korean economy. For instance, the North Korean government decided to shut down all its borders in January and suspended its trade with China, which is considered a lifeline for the North Korean economy.  An additional burden for Pyongyang is the heightened expectation of a better life shared among the North Korean public. Since 2018, North Koreans have seen a series of summits between their leader and presidents of the U.S. and South Korea. These summits inevitably raised anticipation for a better life among North Koreans by lowering the barrier of economic sanctions. However, with a further deteriorated economy and no imminent sign of improvement in their livelihood, it is likely that the North Koreans will experience greater disappointment due to their increased expectation. Coronavirus can be fatal for the North Korean regime amid the current situation. The virus itself can kill thousands of North Koreans if it spreads. According to the Global Health Security Index published by Johns Hopkins University in 2019, North Korea ranked 193rd among 195 countries in the category of health security and capabilities. More importantly, North Korea ranked bottom in its ability to rapidly respond to and mitigate the spread of an epidemic. Serious economic difficulties that accompany the novel coronavirus may cause people’s frustration to rise. Higher frustration levels can evolve into civil unrest and even large-scale uprisings, which would be the most unnerving challenge for the North Korean government in maintaining regime security, especially if it fails to prevent the spread of the virus.   The Coronavirus and Accommodation of North Korea Because of the serious implications that the coronavirus has on the regime, there is an increased possibility for the North Korean government to readjust some of its policies, if it hasn’t done so already. It seems that coronavirus has scaled down North Korea’s provocations. At the fifth plenary session of the seventh Central Committee, North Korea expressed the possibility of resuming its postponed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) tests. Kim Jong-un warned that he will “move onto a shocking action to get [remittance] for North Korea’s pain and suppressed development” and threatened by stating that “the world will witness a new strategic weapon that North Korea will soon possess.” At the same time, however, it was somewhat expected that North Korea would launch either a Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM), a satellite launch rocket, or a Medium-Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) to counter the R.O.K-U.S. drill in March since it has been actively critical of joint military exercises. North Korea partook in three missile tests on March 2, 9, and 21, yet these provocations were not as of high intensity as the short-range ballistic missile tests that the regime had displayed last year. More importantly, following the launch, North Korea’s official media released reports that they were a part of “routine military exercise” and abstained from condemning South Korea and the U.S. Another sign that shows North Korea's policy adjustment to the current coronavirus situation is Kim Jong-un’s unexpected friendly letter to South Korean president Moon Jae-in on March 4. It was particularly surprising in two ways. First, a day before the South Korean government announced it had received Kim Jong-un’s personal letter, Kim Yo-jong, Kim Jong-un’s sister and close aid, issued a public statement in which she criticized South Korea by calling the Blue House, the presidential office, “idiotic” and blamed it for having magnified “[North Korea's] distrust, hatred and scorn for [South Korea] as a whole.” Such statement by Kim Yo-jong—who is considered a symbolic figure representing peace and inter-Korean reconciliation by the South Korean government—served as a particularly severe blow to deteriorating relations between the two Koreas. Yet, less than 24 hours later, Kim Jong-un’s personal letter which contained a very contrasting message was delivered to South Korea. Kim mentioned in his letter that “he was worried about President Moon's health and also expressed his frustration that there isn't much that he can do to help at this moment.” While there have been cases where North Korea sent ambivalent messages to South Korea, Kim's message to Moon was very unusual considering the overall timing and context. Second, it was the first friendly message that North Korea had sent to South Korea since the breakdown of the Hanoi summit between the U.S. and North Korea in February 2019. It was particularly remarkable because although South Korea did not accommodate what North Korea demanded, North Korea alluded to the possibility of improving relations with South Korea. Kim Jong-un made very clear in April 2019 by stating that “[South Korea] … should not be playing the role of a meddlesome mediator or a facilitator, but should instead prioritize inter-Korean relations over its relationship with the United States, and fulfill the promises made to the North in the Panmunjom and Pyongyang Declarations.” In other words, Kim suggested that North Korea would not hold meaningful exchanges with South Korea unless Seoul deviates from its cooperation with Washington and resumes inter-Korean economic projects such as the Kaesong industrial complex and Mt. Kumgang tourism project. Kim Jong-un’s letter implies that his April statement no longer strictly applies to North Korea's relations with South Korea.   North Korea’s Intentions The unexpected and fluctuating message by the North Korean leader can be interpreted as a reflection of North Korea's desperate desire to overcome domestic difficulties. Even though it is still puzzling why Kim Jong-un and Kim Yo-jong sent contrasting messages, as well as why Kim Jong-un’s letter did not include a specific demand toward South Korea for help in battling the coronavirus, it would not be an exaggeration to interpret Kim's message as North Korea's own way of asking for South Korea’s assistance. Support from China is limited at least for a while because China has been hit hard by the coronavirus. Although its situation is showing improvements, China has begun blocking its border in order to prevent a reverse spread of the virus. Temporary relief from China for North Korea is possible, yet normalizing trade will take time. North Korea is also believed to have sent pleas for international help to UN International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Doctors Without Borders and the World Health Organization in early February. Some of these institutions have already sent personal protective gear and diagnostic equipment to North Korea after securing sanction exemptions. However, North Korea needs more than temporary relief. For example, it is currently unable to secure the fertilizer it needs for rice farming typically at this time of the year due to closed borders. The lack of fertilizer and other necessary equipment needed for farming will likely lead to a food shortage in the coming months. Another ambitious plan by Kim Jong-un to expand the tourism industry by building new sites such as the Wonsan beach and casino resort, Yandok hot spring resort, and Mt. Paekdu and Samjiyon tour cannot be executed for a considerable period of time because of the coronavirus. These reasons highlight why North Korea needs South Korea’s assistance. Even with severe criticism from North Korea such as being called an “impudent guy rare to be found,” President Moon Jae-in has never given up his willingness to provide support to North Korea. In his new year's speech and press briefing, President Moon offered five cooperative projects for North Korea. Following the outbreak of the coronavirus, President Moon included cooperation for the prevention of epidemics on the list of projects to be conducted with North Korea. North Korea is likely to take up South Korea’s offer to overcome current difficulties. However, as already seen in Kim Jong-un’s letter, North Korea will not publicly ask South Korea for help. Instead, it is likely to accept South Korea's aid in an unwilling gesture, once offered the assistance.   Shifting Away from ‘A Head-on Breakthrough’ Line? It is important to acknowledge that North Korea’s possible resumption of exchange with South Korea is not a fundamental shifting of its “a head-on breakthrough” line that the regime adopted last December. Rather, it is an attempt to execute its goal, which is to “break down the U.S. sanction blockade scheme.” The U.S. and UN Security Council already expressed their willingness to exempt coronavirus-related assistance to North Korea from sanctions. However, what North Korea has expected and South Korea has offered are highly likely to violate the sanctions. For example, South Korea suggested individual tour visits to North Korea. Despite the South Korean government’s statement, and especially that by the Ministry of National Unification, that tourism will not violation existing sanctions, each step in the process of actualizing the inter-Korean tourism project can easily place South Korea and the U.S. in an awkward position. The U.S. already made it clear that tours to North Korea should be dealt with in the R.O.K-U.S. working group and stated more fundamentally that “the improvement of relations between North and South Korea cannot advance separately from resolving North Korea's nuclear program.” However, the South Korean Ministry of National Unification continues to reiterate that tours to the North are not an issue that needs to be discussed with the U.S. It has also emphasized that peace process on the Korean peninsula can be resumed with improvements in inter-Korean relations. There is a possibility that North Korea has caught the discord between South Korea and the U.S. and will try to decouple the alliance by accepting Seoul’s offer. In other words, North Korea may identify apparent disagreements between South Korea and the U.S. as an opportunity for carrying out “a head-on breakthrough” by weakening international sanctions. As a result, even though North Korea has denied any confirmed cases of the coronavirus, there is high possibility that the virus has already permeated the country. The virus would aggravate an already devastated economy and kill thousands of unguarded North Koreans if it spreads throughout the whole country. This is a nightmare for North Korea, and especially for its regime security. Recent attitudes of North Korea such as scaling down provocations and sending a friendly letter to South Korea reflect the tension that the regime is already experiencing. While North Korea is likely to accept the international community’s assistance to prevent an outbreak, including that from South Korea, it does not necessarily mean that the regime has loosened its “head-on breakthrough” line. Rather, the acceptance of aid from South Korea could be interpreted as an attempt to execute the strategy. South Korea and the international community could certainly help North Korea in overcoming the coronavirus, but at the same time, should be very careful not to interrupt the sanctions regime for denuclearizing North Korea.     Won Gon Park (wonpark@handong.edu) is a professor at the School of International Studies at Handong Global University. He is also a member of the Policy Advisory Board of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the Republic of Korea.    담당 및 편집: 백진경 EAI 연구원             문의: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 209) I j.baek@eai.or.kr  

박원곤 2020-06-05조회 : 11729
논평이슈브리핑
[Global NK 논평] North Korean Nuclear Diplomacy

.a_wrap {font-size:16px; font-family:Nanum Gothic, Sans-serif, Arial; line-height:26px;} ■ 본 Global NK 논평의 원문 보기 및 PDF 다운로드는 Global North Korea 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능합니다.  [바로가기]    Editor's Note President Donald Trump has made it clear that he has no intentions of holding another summit with Chairman Kim Jong-un. With the 2020 U.S. presidential election around the corner, North Korean nuclear weapons still remain an imminent threat to the United States and its allies. In his commentary, Professor Andrew Yeo of the Catholic University of America illustrates how U.S.-North Korea relations will likely proceed under the leadership of different presidential candidates. Assuming Kim Jong-un returns to the negotiation table, Professor Yeo suggests that future nuclear talks with the United States are more likely under a progressive Democratic leader such as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in the White House. On the other hand, developments in U.S.-North Korea relations are highly unlikely if Donald Trump wins his second term, or if a centrist Democratic candidate such as Michael Bloomberg and Joe Biden is elected.     North Korean nuclear diplomacy has stalled since the second Trump-Kim summit held in Hanoi one year ago. Although President Trump and Chairman Kim may still surprise the world with an unexpected third summit meeting, a breakthrough in nuclear diplomacy is unlikely to occur prior to the US presidential elections in November 2020. Given domestic political realities, what are the prospects of US-North Korea relations under a potential second Trump administration or a new Democrat administration? Drawing on recent public statements from the leading Democratic presidential candidates during interviews with the New York Times and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), this essay evaluates the likelihood of diplomatic engagement with North Korea under different post-2020 election scenarios. The US foreign policy establishment overall remains skeptical on improved US-North Korea relations. However, assuming that the North Koreans return to the diplomatic table, renewed negotiations between Pyongyang and Washington appear more likely if a progressive Democratic candidate enters the White House than under either a moderate Democrat or a second- term Trump administration.   The Progressive Democratic Candidates Among the candidates for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders appear most open to diplomatic engagement with North Korea than others. When the New York Times asked candidates in December 2019 whether they would continue the personal diplomacy begun by President Trump with Kim Jong-un even without significant nuclear concessions, Warren and Sanders were the only two candidates to respond in the affirmative. Warren distinguished her approach from President Trump by stating such diplomacy would not be part of a “vanity project” but would have to be “part of a clear strategy, with substantive agreement already reached at the working level, and developed in close coordination with our allies and partners.” The two progressive candidates were more open to lifting economic sanctions in return for limited concessions from North Korea. Sanders and Warren stated they would not tighten sanctions, and both would offer sanctions relief in return for a North Korean freeze on fissile material development. For both candidates, sanctions relief did not require the North Koreans to make substantial progress on disarmament upfront.   Sanders articulated a “step-by-step” approach to rolling back North Korea’s nuclear program, stating that peace and disarmament must move in parallel. Sanders also advanced the goal of building “a new peace and security regime on the peninsula” and working “in close consultations with our South Korean ally.” Warren also offered a stepwise approach stating, “A pragmatic approach to diplomacy requires give and take on both sides, not demands that one side unilaterally disarm first.” Warren clarified her position on sanctions by further stating that she would consider “partial, time-limited sanctions relief and other confidence-building measures in exchange for a strong, verifiable agreement that freezes North Korea's nuclear and missile activities.” Warren is also the only candidate to explicitly mention the importance of inter-Korea dialogue moving in tandem with denuclearization negotiations as a means of working towards “a stable security architecture” for the Korean peninsula.   The Centrist Democratic Candidates In contrast to Sanders and Warren, none of the centrist Democratic candidates stated they would continue President Trump’s personal diplomacy with North Korea—at least not without gaining significant nuclear concessions from Pyongyang first. Former US vice president Joseph Biden and former New York City mayor and businessman Michael Bloomberg appeared tougher on sanctions than their progressive counterparts. Biden supported tighter sanctions on North Korea. Bloomberg did not favor increasing sanctions. However, he signaled reluctance to remove sanctions unless North Korea placed a freeze on its missile program in addition to fissile material production. The use of military force to pre-empt a North Korean nuclear or missile test also remained an open option for Biden and Bloomberg. Similar to Bloomberg, Mayor Pete Buttigieg remained open to an initial freeze agreement with North Korea in exchange for halting nuclear and missile tests (in addition to freezing its nuclear program). Buttigieg proposed “targeted sanctions relief, which could be reversed if the North Koreans did not uphold their end of the bargain.” But like Biden, and in contrast to Sanders and Warren, Buttigieg argued that substantial disarmament is needed before offering any sanctions relief. Likewise, Senator Klobuchar’s campaign released a brief response in line with Buttigieg’s remarks in that she is “prepared to offer incentives for positive actions, but these must be tied directly to verifiable and irreversible steps toward denuclearization.”   The Trump Administration To their credit, the Trump administration did not completely abandon diplomacy after the failed Hanoi Summit. In October 2019, US and North Korean officials held working level discussions in Stockholm. And as late as December 2019, the special U.S. envoy for North Korea, Stephen Biegun, traveled to Tokyo and Seoul in hopes of resuming denuclearization talks with North Korea before the end of the year. Unfortunately, the Stockholm meeting ended abruptly, and the North Koreans rejected further negotiations without first seeing a change in attitude from the Trump administration. Despite efforts at building trust and finding a package acceptable to North Koreans in return for denuclearization, the Trump government will unlikely reduce sanctions without North Korea taking further steps towards declaration, verification, and dismantlement of its nuclear program. This position has been articulated repeatedly by the Trump administration since 2018. Barring some major provocation or concession from Pyongyang, there is no reason to believe that President Trump will deviate from his current position if re-elected, despite having four more years to build on a potential major foreign policy legacy should denuclearization (and the normalization of US-North Korea relations) be realized.   Prospects for US-North Korea Relations From conflict with Iran to his own impeachment trial, other international and domestic crises have overshadowed diplomacy with North Korea making it unlikely that Trump will restart negotiations with Pyongyang prior to the November elections. It is possible that Kim Jong-un may reach out to President Trump again should he be re-elected in November. This is particularly true if Kim believes Trump can be flattered into lifting partial sanctions for a minimal freeze. However, two previous high stakes summit meetings with Trump did not produce any sanctions relief. From North Korea’s vantage point, the prospects for US-North Korea relations look more promising under a Sanders or Warren White House as both have essentially stated their openness to dialogue without placing an emphasis on preconditions. When considering multilateral negotiations, Sanders and Warren’s position may find greater standing in Beijing which has also encouraged a phased approach to denuclearization with the broader aim of establishing a peace regime. Beijing may therefore encourage (or pressure) Pyongyang to resume talks with Washington should it find the US position more amenable to its own.  To North Korea, the position of the more moderate Democratic candidates, Biden and Bloomberg in particular, may not look all that different from past administrations. Thus under a moderate Democrat White House, US-North Korea relations may remain largely unchanged unless a major shift in external conditions prompt a policy shift. One point worth mentioning is the consistent position all Democratic contenders have taken in declaring their support for maintaining US military presence on the Korean peninsula, and working closely with US allies on North Korean denuclearization. Unfortunately, only one candidate, Michael Bloomberg, chose to address US-North Korea relations in more comprehensive terms (at least when prompted to discuss a denuclearization strategy). In response to the CFR questionnaire, Bloomberg stated, “the scope of U.S. sanctions on North Korea should be tied to the country’s behavior – on human rights, on cyber-crime and, most importantly, on its expanding nuclear and ballistic missile programs.” Biden was the only other candidate to mention human rights, but only in the context of critiquing Trump’s approach to North Korea. It is still too early to tell which Democratic candidate will secure his or her party’s presidential nomination, or whether any Democrat can successfully challenge Donald Trump, the Republican incumbent for the White House. Regardless of who wins, the next president will certainly face challenges in restarting negotiations with North Korea. Flexibility and patience, and coordination with US allies and regional actors, are some of the lessons the next administration, whether Democrat or Republican, might learn from past success and failures in negotiating with North Korea.     Note: This commentary does not serve as an endorsement for any particular candidate, but provides an analysis of US-North Korea relations based on public position statements of presidential candidates and the incumbent US administration.       Andrew Yeo is an associate professor of politics at the Catholic University of America in Washington DC and currently a Fulbright visiting research fellow at the University of the Philippines Diliman. He received his Ph.D. in Government from Cornell University. His publications include Asia’s Regional Architecture: Alliances and Institutions in the Pacific Century (Stanford University Press, 2019), North Korean Human Rights: Activists and Networks (Cambridge University Press 2018); Activists, Alliances, and Anti-U.S. Base Protests (Cambridge University Press 2011); and Living in an Age of Mistrust: An Interdisciplinary Study of Declining Trust in Contemporary Society and Politics and How to get it Back (Routledge Press 2017). His research interests include international relations theory, Asian security, narratives and discourse, the formation of beliefs, ideas, and worldviews, civil society, social and transnational movements, U.S. grand strategy and global force posture, Korean politics, and North Korea.    담당 및 편집: 백진경 EAI 연구원             문의: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 209) I j.baek@eai.or.kr  

Andrew Yeo 2020-06-05조회 : 8395
논평이슈브리핑
[Global NK 논평] Changes in the US Grand Strategy and the Future of North Korean Nuclear Issue

.a_wrap {font-size:16px; font-family:Nanum Gothic, Sans-serif, Arial; line-height:26px;} ■ 본 Global NK 논평의 원문 보기 및 PDF 다운로드는 Global North Korea 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능합니다.  [바로가기]    Editor's Note Future discussions on the North Korean nuclear issue, which is currently at a stalemate, will be influenced by how the November presidential election unfolds in the U.S. Professor Chaesung Chun of Seoul National University (Chair of the National Security Research Center at EAI), states that "the North Korean nuclear issue and the future of the Korean Peninsula are closely linked to changes in the Grand Strategy of the U.S." As a result, South Korea’s national interests are prone to being shaped by respective fluctuations in U.S. foreign policy. However, if South Korea wishes to gain an upper hand in shaping the North Korea policy, it should gather the necessary policy tools and "carefully outline principles inherent to the North Korean nuclear issue in the event that they are redefined by other actors such as the U.S." These policy tools must be identified in the process of maintaining close diplomatic relations with neighboring countries.     North Korea’s Nuclear Issue at a Stalemate North Korea’s nuclear problem, which is at a stalemate, will persist without a breakthrough in this year. With the November presidential election catching up to speed, debates have intensified in the United States (U.S.) over various domestic and economic issues, consequently diminishing interest in North Korea’s nuclear problem in the process. In addition, the governments of the Republic of Korea (ROK or South Korea), China, and Japan are currently occupied with addressing the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, allocating their policy resources towards relieving the pandemic. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely for the Trump administration to seek for a denuclearization agreement with North Korea in the near term. Instead, President Trump will focus on proposing foreign policy initiatives that will help him secure more votes leading up to the election. Since the beginning of the Democratic primary, many have been keen on assessing the proposed foreign policy views of the Democratic candidates. Although domestic and economic issues still lie at the core, diplomatic issues are increasingly gaining attention. As a result, the Democratic candidates’ views on North Korea are likely to emerge as crucial points of future discussions. So far, the candidates’ policy proposals regarding North Korea’s nuclear problem do not deviate much from the U.S. measures that have been tried over the past years. In addition to criticizing President Trump’s North Korea policy as a vanity project for the U.S. domestic politics, the Democratic candidates, despite their differences, seem to agree that future dialogues and step-by-step negotiations under certain conditions are necessary for reducing the North Korean threat. They have also been careful about mentioning the concept of CVID which will entail the possibility of imposing stronger sanctions and military pressure on North Korea since doing so may provoke security concerns among the U.S. public. To accommodate the recent tides of his rising popularity, Senator Bernie Sanders stated that he would be willing to meet Kim Jong-un to resolve the North Korea problem. Although Senator Sanders stands largely against the expansionary foreign policy of the U.S., such statement ironically does not seem much different from the Trump administration’s overall policy direction. In the end, Washington’s North Korea policy will have to undergo several revisions with the change of administrations and be newly defined in tandem with larger discussions on other issues faced by the U.S. Likewise, North Korea—having declared a long-term “head-on breakthrough” against the two major challenges of (1) economic crisis and (2) obstacles imposed by the external environment—will take the year to carefully plan its next steps in preparation for the inauguration of a new administration in the U.S.   U.S. Presidential Election and the Dispute over its Grand Strategy North Korea’s nuclear issue and the future of the Korean Peninsula are closely linked to changes in the U.S. grand strategy. Although North Korea is an impending issue for the U.S. and its foreign affairs, Washington’s North Korea policy will be inevitably redefined depending on its wider international and public strategies. It is no longer to be taken granted to find strong momentum in the U.S.-ROK alliance on the basis of shared military threats emanating from North Korea and common values such as regional and global human security. Rather, alliance cost-sharing becomes a hot issue between the two allies on faulty grounds that South Korea has been free-riding on the U.S. Some U.S. strategists have attempted to redefine the alliance as part of the U.S. military deterrence mechanism against China. U.S.-ROK relations and the purposes of the overall bilateral alliances are being newly perceived as a result of the Trump administration’s self-centered economic standpoint and security concerns vis-a-vis China. Instead of looking to resolve the North Korea problem in cooperation with China, the U.S. is increasingly leaning towards analyzing the issue with the geostrategic lens of U.S.-China competition. This trend is likely to continue and is unlikely to be reversed. It is difficult to tell whether the U.S. will be able to reconstruct the liberal international order and restore its leadership through allied cooperation against global problems. Democratic supporters criticize the Trump administration for demolishing U.S.-led international norms, undermining the liberal order, and for losing the trust of its allies and global leadership. Trump supporters, on the other hand, argue that although the Trump administration may have undertaken unconventional methods, its diplomatic strategy is rational; by gradually retrenching from regions that lack vital interests, the U.S. has been able to narrow down its expansive foreign policy to focus on the essentials. Globalists who comprise a supporting faction of the Democratic Party also argue that the U.S. public engagement strategy towards China has been successful and that China should continue to play the role of an appropriate and responsible stakeholder. However, it is also true that there has been a quick surge in opinions throughout Trump’s presidency in favor of holding U.S.-China disputes in the technology, politics, energy, socio-cultural and military sectors in check. Public opinion surveys on the future diplomatic strategy of the U.S. provide some key implications going forward. According to polls conducted by the Pew Research Center on December 17, 2019, approximately seven out of ten Americans (73 percent) answered “good diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace,” while 26 percent of the Americans replied, “military strength will best achieve this.” There were more individuals who responded that the U.S. should consider the interests of its allies even if it means making compromises, in comparison with those who thought Washington should follow its own interests even when its allies strongly disagree (68 percent to 31 percent). These tendencies also differed depending on the respondents’ supporting party preference. The majority of Democrats and Democratic-learning independents, identified good diplomacy as the best way to ensure peace (90 percent), and added that even in case of a compromise the U.S. should consider the interests of its allies (83 percent). In comparison, only around half (53 percent) of Republicans and Republican learners saw good diplomatic relations as the best means of ensuring peace, while the remaining 46 percent contended that military strength precedes good diplomacy.  The U.S. public, however, provides a more cautious response to questions regarding U.S. foreign intervention. While 53 percent of all respondents answered that “it is best for the future of [the U.S.] to be active in world affairs,” 46 percent still responded, “[the U.S.] should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate more on problems here at home.” Furthermore, in terms of U.S. military power and status, 61 percent believed that the U.S. should aim to rise as the only military superpower while a mere 36 percent responded that it would be acceptable for other countries to become as militarily powerful as the U.S. The generational gap is also an important variable in determining the future of the U.S. diplomatic strategy. Around a quarter (27 percent) of respondents aged sixty-five or older said they would be accepting of another country that grows as militarily powerful as the U.S., while nearly half (48 percent) of individuals under thirty responded positively to the same question. Such difference between the age groups is also confirmed by the variance in the U.S. public’s negative perception of China. According to a Pew Research Center survey from August 31, 2019, around half (49%) of the respondents aged eighteen to twenty-nine, 58 percent aged thirty to forty-nine, and two-thirds (67 percent) aged over fifty carried a negative perception of China. As portrayed by these results, future generations of the U.S. are showing increasing reservations about the hegemonic role of the U.S. and indicating tolerance towards the rise of its hegemonic rival, China.   North Korea’s Nuclear Issue and the Future U.S.-ROK Relations The U.S. response to the North Korean nuclear issue has been based on several important considerations up until now. Washington has made it clear that it imposed sanctions on North Korea for the violation of international norms and principles based on nonproliferation, prevented the proliferation of its nuclear materials, weapons and related technology, and supported the security of its South Korean ally. In supporting South Korea, the U.S. has aimed to establish common grounds with China as a responsible great power emphasizing the shared goals of nuclear nonproliferation and its influence on North Korea as an ally Future U.S. approach to North Korea’s nuclear issue will likely be shaped by its changing trend in grand strategy which emphasizes its own national interests and geopolitical calculation. Rapid transformations in grand strategy leads to rather sudden changes in the U.S. North Korea nuclear policy. Among many powers whose direct interests are related to the future of North Korea, the U.S. has been showing the most substantial degree of policy fluctuations recently. In fact, North Korea has been consistently insisting on guarantees of regime security, consequent nuclear disarmament and phased denuclearization. While the “Three Principles of Non-Nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” are largely abstract, China’s policies towards the Korean Peninsula have also remained consistent over the years. South Korea’s approach has varied depending on whether it is headed by a liberal or a conservative administration, but regardless, it continues to pursue parallel development of both a peace process and a complete denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula. In comparison, as a global hegemonic power with comprehensive and diverse strategic interests related to international security, the rise of China, and Asia’s regional architecture, the U.S. tends to rearrange and adjust its priorities and strategies in dealing with North Korea. These uncertainties, which have risen especially after the Trump administration, will likely continue throughout the next administrations. What have changed from the two summits between President Trump and Kim Jong-un is North Korea’s emergence as a normal actor in the international society, and the regime has been granted a certain degree of justification for its development of nuclear weapons. North Korea continues to argue that it has been forced to develop nuclear weapons because of the hostile policy of the U.S. Subsequently, Pyongyang demands that economic sanctions be lifted and joint military exercises between South Korea and the U.S. be halted if the regime is to give up its nuclear weapons. This line of argument of North Korea, which represents a significant departure from the internationally agreed perception that economic sanctions and military deterrence are necessary to enforce nonproliferation norms, has now been introduced to broad international community. President Trump and other Democratic presidential candidates after these changes, now seriously thinks that a step by step approach- for example, North Korea’s freezing of nuclear activity rewarded by lifting economic sanction-may be realistic. It is unclear how these changes in U.S. policy will affect South Korea’s national interests. For South Korea, the North Korean nuclear issue poses challenges because it has been continuously reshaped and redefined by geopolitical circumstances and domestic politics of surrounding nations. As such, the changes in Washington’s approach towards North Korea are closely related to the fluctuations in its grand strategy and domestic situation. The upcoming presidential election will provide an opportunity for the U.S. to reassess and redefine Trump administration’s North Korea policy. South Korea should approach the North Korean issue with a carefully devised foreign policy strategy based on perceived changes in the U.S. hegemonic strategy and great power politics between the U.S. and China. Until now, South Korea’s policy towards North Korea was predicated on the continuing U.S. hegemonic role, and East Asian politics defined by the combination of cooperation and limited rivalry between the U.S. and China. From here onwards, South Korea’s strategic tilt between the U.S. and China will draw sharp attention when it decides its North Korea policy, and South Korea’s strategy will affect neighboring countries’ calculation in dealing with North Korean nuclear issue. As the great powers’ geostrategic concerns gradually overshadows the future of North Korean nuclear matter, South Korea needs to accumulate more policy means and leverages to act as a decisive actor. These policy means must be developed by maintaining close and balanced strategic relations with neighboring countries.      Chaesung Chun is the chair of the National Security Research Center at the East Asia Institute, and a professor of the department of political science and International relations at Seoul National University. Dr. Chun received his PhD in international relations at Northwestern University in the United States, and serves on the policy advisory committee to the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Unification. His main research interests include international political theory, the ROK-US alliance, and Korean Peninsular affairs. He is the co-author of The Korean War: Threat and Peace, and the author of a number of publications including Are Politics Moral and International Politics in East Asia: History and Theory.   담당 및 편집: 백진경 EAI 연구원             문의: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 209) I j.baek@eai.or.k

전재성 2020-06-05조회 : 8384