[칼럼] 문정인 특임연구원 - Basis for a breakthrough in Pyongyang statement?

2020년 7월 30일 업데이트됨

Basis for a breakthrough in Pyongyang statement?


Chung-in Moon Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have worsened in recent months. In March, the United Nations tightened sanctions against the North because Pyongyang had tested a nuclear weapon and launched a satellite earlier in the year. On July 6, the United States imposed sanctions directly on North Korean leader Kim Jong-un due to his involvement in human rights violations. Pyongyang called the US sanctions "a hideous crime." Soon afterwards, Seoul and Washington announced joint plans to deploy a US-led missile defense system in South Korea. Pyongyang threatened "physical counteraction" against the system and announced it was closing a channel for US-North Korean dialogue that had operated through the North's UN mission.Yet amid all this—just hours before Washington announced its sanctions against Kim—a spokesman for the North Korean government issued an interesting statement on denuclearization. The statement made five demands of the United States and South Korea; promised that the North would take "corresponding measures" if the demands were met; and held out the possibility of a "breakthrough" in the peninsula's nuclear stalemate.First, the statement demanded, "all nuclear weapons of the United States" in South Korea "must be publicly disclosed." Second, all nuclear weapons in the South (along with the facilities where they are based) "should be dismantled and verified." Third, Washington must guarantee that it will not deploy offensive nuclear weapons in South Korea and "its vicinity." Fourth, the United States must commit to never using nuclear weapons against North Korea. Finally, Washington must withdraw from South Korea all troops "holding the right to use nukes."Seoul immediately rejected the proposal as a "deceitful act" meant to undermine efforts to strengthen sanctions. Washington, meanwhile, made no meaningful response. But careful examination of the proposal—even if, at first glance, it looks like typical rhetoric and propaganda—suggests that it might have some merit as a starting point toward a negotiated settlement of the nuclear dispute. Some of Pyongyang's demands are quite easy to meet. The others might be satisfied through compromise and negotiation.The first two are easily met because they concern nonexistent US nuclear weapons in South Korea. Washington withdrew its nuclear weapons from the peninsula in 1991. It has never reintroduced nuclear weapons. Indeed, a joint statement released at the conclusion of six-party talks in September 2005 clearly indicated that the United States had no nuclear weapons in South Korea—and North Korea, of course, signed on to the joint statement. The North's demand for verification should present no great obstacle either: General Charles Campbell, then-commander of the US Eighth Army, expressed willingness in a 2005 newspaper interview to allow nuclear verification at US military facilities in the South (link in Korean).Skipping forward for a moment, the fourth demand likewise presents no overwhelming problems. Essentially, the issue is a negative security assurance and a no-first-use policy toward the North. But Washington has many reasons not to use nuclear weapons against North Korea, especially first. The reasons range from humanitarian considerations, to commitments made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 2005 joint statement, to the likelihood of negative strategic reactions from China and Russia.The third demand, however—for a US guarantee not to deploy offensive nuclear weapons in South Korea and "its vicinity"—might be problematic. Such a guarantee might require suspending South Korea-US military exercises that involve strategic weapons such as nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered submarines, and strategic bombers.The fifth demand, for troop withdrawals, might also be problematic because most South Koreans consider US troop withdrawals taboo.Still, these points could be negotiable. For example, South Korea and the United States could exclude offensive strategic weapons from their joint military exercises. And regarding US forces on the peninsula, former northern leader Kim Jong-il once mentioned to former southern leader Kim Dae-jung that Pyongyang could tolerate US forces in South Korea as long as they weren't hostile to the North. In any event, Pyongyang's statement doesn't mention an outright withdrawal of troops—rather, the announcement of an intention to withdraw.South Korea and the United States should seriously examine North Korea's proposal. To be sure, Seoul and Washington would find it difficult to approach the negotiating table based on nothing more than Pyongyang's current demands. To draw Seoul and Washington to the table, the North would have to specify the reciprocal measures toward denuclearization it would take if its demands were met. But if specificity were forthcoming, Pyongyang's recent statement might well furnish a basis for serious dialogue and negotiation.

※ 2016.7.14일자 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists에 실린 문정인 특임연구원의 글입니다


http://thebulletin.org/north-koreas-nuclear-weapons-what-now/basis-breakthrough-pyongyang-statement


최근 게시물

전체 보기

[시민정치시평] 송경호 전문연구원 - 미얀마와 인도주의적 개입의 딜레마 - 국제사회는 왜 미얀마 상황에 적극적으로 개입하지 않는 것일까?

미얀마 사태와 개입 요청 쿠데타를 규탄하는 미얀마 시민들이 군부의 무차별적인 공격에 쓰러지고 있다. 미디어가 통제되고 있는 상황임에도 군부의 총격으로 수많은 민간인이 죽거나 다쳤다는 소식이 계속해서 전해지고 있는 것이다. 한편, 미얀마 바깥에서는 군부 쿠데타를 규탄하고 민주주의의 회복을 염원하는 연대 집회가 한창이다. 미얀마에서 벌어지고 있는 비극을 더 이

[시민정치시평] 송경호 전문연구원 - 밀의 '자유론'이 지금 우리에게 의미하는 것 - 공리를 위해 자유를 제한할 수 있나

<자유론>의 때 아닌 유행 존 스튜어트 밀의 <자유론>(1859)이 때 아닌 유행을 맞고 있다. 밀의 대표 저작이자 고전으로 손꼽히는 책이다 보니, 오늘날에도 회자되는 게 이상한 일은 아니다. 하지만 지난 3개월간 우리 언론에서 <자유론>이 총 10번 등장한데 반해, 11월에 72건으로 급격하게 증가한 건 분명 이례적 현상이다. 이는 유시민 노무현재단 이사

[시민정치시평] 송경호 전문연구원 - 홍콩의 자유에는 유효기간이 있나

1997년 7월 1일, 홍콩이 중국에 반환됐다. 1842년과 1860년의 조약으로 홍콩 섬과 가우룽(九龍) 지역을 차지하고 있었던 영국이 1898년에 추가로 신제(新界)를 조차(租借)하면서 약속했던 기한이 99년이었기 때문이다. 물론 이는 신계에만 해당되는 기한이었지만, 80년대 초 영국과 중국은 협상 끝에 홍콩 지역 전체를 반환하기로 약속했던 것이다. 1