[Interview] Lee administration is trying to ‘bury all the new history we have learned’: Bruce Cumings
‘All the new history has been squeezed out of the toothpaste tube by a lot of courageous historians, and there is no way to get it back,’ Cumings says
Bruce Cumings is the Gustavus F. and Ann M. Swift Distinguished Service Professor in History at the University of Chicago and the author of several books, including “Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History” (1997) and “North Korea: Another Country” (2004).
In an interview with The Hankyoreh conducted via email and published in the print edition of the newspaper on November 26, Cumings discussed his perspective on the issue of history textbook selection in South Korea. The growth of the issue into a controversy has largely been precipitated by the government’s attempts to revise the textbook “A Modern and Contemporary History of Korea” in collaboration with the conservative New Right organization. Textbook authors have since voiced objections to the revisions and educators and parents have voiced objections to reports that the government was trying to pressure individual principals into using the government’s preferred textbook.
Cumings is critical of the administration’s handling of the textbook selection process and was one of the people who signed a statement released November 11 by the Organization of Korean Historians with the support of 676 scholars, 562 from Korea and 114 from abroad. The statement said that the Lee Myung-bak administration’s interference with a school’s ability to choose its history textbook was political and has diminished a student’s right to an education.
The Hankyoreh: How and why did you participate in this campaign? Did you also ask other American scholars to participate in the statement?
Bruce Cumings: I think the vast majority of scholars in Korean Studies in the U.S., Korea and elsewhere think that governments have no business sticking their noses into what historians write, or what responsible authors and editors choose to include in textbooks. Any American presidential administration that did that would be seen as a laughing stock.
Q: The way the government is sticking to the issue of history textbook selection is unprecedented in modern Korean history. Since the launch of the Lee administration, the government’s intervention in the issue has become conspicuous. What do you think about this?
A: The Lee administration is living in the past, still remembering the way Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan operated. It is very anachronistic for politicians to think that they can control history, or history textbooks.
Q: Why do you think this administration is stepping up its offensive against the idea of modern history?
A: After ten years that were truly new and different in postwar Korean history, the Lee administration is trying to turn the clock back, and to deny the enormous progress that has occurred since 1997 under Kim Dae Jung and Roh Moo-hyun, in gaining a fuller understanding of postwar history, in furthering reconciliation among people in the South and with the North, and in dramatically changing the attitude of the general population in the ROK toward the North.
Q: One of the keywords they often bring up is “legitimacy.” They think that describing unpleasant events in history textbooks
could weaken the legitimacy of the regime[[[ the elements that brought about Korea's independence.]]] What is your opinion about this?
A: Legitimacy is not something to be gotten by controlling textbooks, or manufacturing an historical line. It can only come from the people, as they come to recognize the correctness and authority of a government. Instead of gaining legitimacy, the Lee administration is acting like an ostrich, sticking its head in the sand at the sound of bad historical news. Even worse, they are acting like the right-wing Japanese, trying to paper over difficult issues while claiming to protect “national pride.” The new history produced in the past 20 years in the ROK, uncovering many thorny and tragic problems, is actually the best path toward a reconciliation among people of very different perspectives and experiences in the South, between the victimizers and the victims, and has also helped the reconciliation between North and South.
Q: How does this kind of interference with history textbooks affect students?
A: Students are seekers of truth, and although they also want to be proud of their country, they have utter contempt for authorities who would deny them access to the best historical information and scholarship. When someone tries to do that, as the ROK did for many decades, the result is that young people think that everything they have heard from the authorities is a pack of lies -- and then they truly lose pride in their leaders and their country. An example is this: my friend Suh Dae-sook proved in his 1968 book that Kim Il Sung was a genuine fighter against the Japanese for a decade after the Manchurian incident, going through all kinds of trials and difficulties -- all scholars know this, and have known it at least since 1968. Yet students were told for decades that Kim was an “imposter” who stole the name of a great patriot. Here is the result: two decades later when Professor Suh delivered a lecture about Kim’s background at Seoul National University, the whole room erupted in raucous cheers! So, it is self-defeating to try to hide the truth from students. Sooner or later, it will come out.
Q: It has been almost nine months since the launch of the Lee administration. Since then, there have been some dramatic incidents such as the candlelight demonstrations. I think you have been monitoring the things Korea has undergone. How do you evaluate the Lee administration as a whole?
A: This administration has made mistake after mistake, and has gotten nothing for it. They cozied up to the Bush administration, the most unpopular in American history (and perhaps in the world), just at the point where Bush was a lame duck. They purposely alienated the North, just as Bush was turning toward engagement with Pyongyang -- and the result was, no one in Washington or in the 6-Party Talks pays much attention to Seoul’s viewpoint. They are now trying to bury all the new history we have learned about the colonial and postwar periods, and this only makes young people want to know more -- they want to know exactly what the administration is trying to cover up. All the new history has been squeezed out of the toothpaste tube by a lot of courageous historians, and there is no way to get it back into the tube. It’s as simple as that: it can never work.
Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Meeting Friends from the Past
Last night was rather hectic. When squeeze three appointments with people from my past into the usual tight schedule, I thought of myself what on earth I wish to see them. Some seemed appreciate that I took notice of their presence of being back to Seoul, but some not much. With one person, I almost felt humilated because he managed to have me feel as if I begged to see him. 'Interesting,' I thought. I remembered why I hadn't contacted him for last three something years, and felt I wasted my time. But the other two were great to see after lengthy years apart. Despite the short talks we have over a cup of tea, and sizzling plate of cow intestines and soju, we managed to briefly catch up with the time we hadn't exchanged one another. Great! Yet, in some conversations, I realized there were certain stuffs we no longer coincide each other; differences that I hadn't felt before came to us. a short silence and a slightly awkward jokes were exchanged.
'Is this it?,' I thought.
Life moves on, and people who I used to know seem taking a different walk of life.
'Is this it?,' I thought.
Life moves on, and people who I used to know seem taking a different walk of life.
Conservative March
Members of 12 different conservative organizations, including New Right Korea, march toward Seoul’s City Hall on November 24 after a press conference during which they criticized a photo exhibition organized by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Korea, saying the exhibition depicts policemen and soldiers as murders.
The photo exhibition was held from November 21 to 27 and displayed evidence of murders performed since after the Korean War.
The photo exhibition was held from November 21 to 27 and displayed evidence of murders performed since after the Korean War.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Interview with the former Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Republic of Korea (한승수)
<연합초대석> 한승주 전 외무장관
"오바마 정부 주한미군 감축 가능성 있어""FTA는 상호이익 추구 방법 찾는 게 필요""정부의 기존 외교 정책 기조 유지해야""대미외교, 인맥보다 합리성.설득력 중요"(서울=연합뉴스) 홍성완 편집위원= 한승주 전 외무부장관은 12일 "오바마 대통령 당선자가 이끄는 미국의 신정부가 주한미군 병력을 일부 감축할 가능성이 있다."라고 말했다. 주미대사를 지낸 한 전 장관은 연합뉴스와의 인터뷰에서 "오바마가 우방국들과의 동맹관계에 대해 전반적인 검토를 할 것이고 그런 과정에서 현재 2만 8천500여 명 수준의 주한미군을 더 줄일 가능성을 배제할 수 없다."라고 밝혔다. 그는 그러한 가능성의 배경으로 "오바마 당선자가 군사안보를 중시하는 20세기 냉전적 사고에서 자유로운 21세기 인물이고, 금융위기 해소를 위해 투입하기로 한 7천억 달러의 자금을 마련하려면 국방분야에서도 예산을 아낄 생각을 할 것"이라고 말했다. 한승주 전 장관은 한ㆍ미 간 현안인 FTA 비준과 관련해 "미국 의회의 한미 FTA 비준 여부와 시기는 자기들의 일정과 정치적 계산에 의해서 결정되기 때문에 우리가 먼저 비준을 하느냐 여부는 결정적인 영향을 준다고 생각하지 않는다."면서 "자동차 부문 논란을 포함한 FTA 문제에 대해 한ㆍ미 양국이 다 같이 성의와 호의를 가지고 서로 이해하면서 해결방법을 찾는 것이 최선"이라는 견해를 밝혔다. 그는 "오바마 정부의 출범과 관련해 대비나 적응은 필요하지만 우리의 외교정책, 특히 대북정책의 기조를 바꾸는 것은 가능하지도 않고 필요하지도 않다."라고 강조하고 "대북정책에서 우리 정부의 원칙은 오바마 정부와 대체로 일치하고 있어 상충할 가능성은 크지 않다고 본다."라고 덧붙였다. 다음은 인터뷰 내용. -- 오바마 정권 출범 후 한반도 정책을 포함해 어떤 변화가 예상됩니까. ▲ 국내 정책에서는 자유방임, 무제한 경쟁으로부터 복지, 평등, 환경, 교육 등을 강조하는 정책을 추구할 것입니다. 물론 금융위기라는 발등에 떨어진 불을 끄는 데 최우선적인 노력을 할 것입니다. 대외적으로는 무력을 중심으로 하는 hard power보다는 외교력, 설득력을 강조하는 soft power의 비중을 높일 것이며, 일방주의에서 다자주의를 중시하는 정책을 추구할 것으로 기대됩니다. 동맹관계를 중시하면서도 다른 주요국들과의 협조체제(concert)를 구축하는 노력도 기울일 것으로 예상합니다. 한반도 문제는 아무래도 우선순위에서 밀릴 것 같습니다. 금융문제라든지 이라크, 아프가니스탄 등 중동문제와 같은 급한 것들이 많습니다. 그러나 동맹체제에 대한 전반적인 검토가 있을 것이라고 봅니다. 과거 카터 전 대통령 때처럼 완전 철군을 하겠다는 결정은 아니겠지만 주한미군의 규모라든지 역할이라든지 이런 것에 대해서 조정이 있을 수 있습니다. 오바마는 냉전, 군사안보 우선과 같은 20세기적 생각에서 자유로운 사람입니다. 동맹이라는 게 필요하기는 하지만 국제정치로 보면 밸런스 오프 파워(Balance of Power)보다는 concert 쪽에 더 관심이 있을 가능성이 있다고 봅니다. -- 카터와 비교해 오바마의 주한미군에 대한 입장은 어떠할까요. ▲ 카터는 완전히 철수하겠다고 그랬지요. 오바마는 물론 그러지는 않을 거고요. 카터 때는 처음에 완전철수를 주장했다가 부분 철수로 수정해 6천 명인가를 감축했지요. 카터는 선거유세 때 주한미군 완전철수를 공약했습니다. 반면 오바마는 전혀 그런 건 없지요. 세계 전체적으로는 오히려 미군의 지상군을 늘려야 한다고 얘기했습니다. 늘리는 방법도 여러 가지인데 다른데 주둔하고 있는 병력을 조정하는 방법도 있습니다. -- 주한미군은 감축이나 조정은 가능하다고 보십니까. ▲ 지금 2만 8천500여 명 수준인데 더 줄일 가능성을 배제할 수 없습니다. 큰 감축은 아니겠지만요. 오바마는 21세기형 리더입니다. 아무리 주변에 옛날 사람들이 많다고 해도 새 사람들과 함께 21세기 시각에서 한국을 비롯하여 일본, 나토 등과의 동맹체제에 대해 전반적인 리뷰를 할 것으로 예상합니다. 또한, 미정부가 금융위기 해소를 인해 지원키로 한 7천억 달러는 미국의 1년 국방예산 규모입니다. 그게 전부 국방분야에서 오지는 않겠지만 좌우간 돈이 어디서 와야 될 것 아니겠어요. 그러니까 돈 세이브하는 것도 좀 생각을 해야 되겠지요. -- 대통령 한 사람에 의해 대외정책이 좌우됩니까. ▲ 아닙니다. 그러니까 카터가 주한미군을 완전히 철군하지 못했지요. 그때는 주변에 있던 사람이 전부 한국전쟁세대 사람들이고 군인들도 그렇고 참모들도 그랬는데 지금은 오바마의 참모들 자신이 전부 한국전쟁을 마치 옛날 보불전쟁처럼 생각할지도 모릅니다. 중국 외교부 대변인이 한미동맹은 냉전의 유산이라고 말하기도 했습니다. 20세기 유산인 셈인데 오마바는 21세기 사람입니다. 61년생이니까 4.19 직후지요. 한국전쟁이 끝난 지 8년 만에 태어났으니 우리식으로 하면 386세대가 되나요?-- 한미 양국정부 간 마찰을 예상합니까. ▲ 노무현 정부와 부시 정부가 좀 이념적인 데 비해 이명박 대통령과 오바마 당선자는 상당히 실용적인 경향이 있으니까 만약 다른 의견들이 있으면 대화나 조정이 될 것이라고 봅니다. -- 북한이 개방을 선택할까요. 김정일과 오바마의 만남이 이뤄질 가능성이 있다고 보시는지요. ▲ 글쎄요. 개방을 할까요? 전 개방 안 할 것 같은데요. 안 하면서 갈 데까지 가보자고 할 것 같습니다. 왜냐하면, 개방하면 뻔한 거니까요. 두 사람이 만날 가능성은 금융위기 이런 것 때문에 상당히 먼 얘기라고 봅니다. 또한, 그런 과정에서 김정일이 회복할 수 있을지도 변수이고요. 지금 나오는 사진이 옛날 사진을 합성한 것인지 알 수가 없지요. 지난번 미국에 갔더니 김정일의 건강에 대해 좀 더 심각하게 판단하는 것 같았습니다. -- 오바마는 한ㆍ미 FTA에 반대하고 있는데요. ▲ 많은 사람은 그가 FTA를 반대한 것은 선거기간 중의 표를 의식한 발언이고 결국은 FTA 지지로 돌아설 것이라는 낙관론을 펴고 있습니다. 그러나 그는 선거운동 기간 너무나 일관성 있게, 강력하게 FTA를 비판해 왔습니다. 또 그 자신이 어떤 부분, 특히 자동차 교역 부문에 불만을 가진 것으로 보입니다. 저는 한국이 1년에 70만 대를 미국에 수출하면서 5천 대만 수입하는 것은 불공평하다는 오바마의 논리가 맞지 않는다고 생각하지만 그가 너무나 여러 번 (특히 TV 토론에서) 강조했기 때문에 그냥 번복하거나 무시하지는 못할 것으로 보입니다. 문제는 지난번 FTA 협상에서 이미 미국과 한국 쌍방이 자동차 교역에 개방하고 양보할 만큼은 양보해 놓았기 때문에 그러한 불균형을 교정할 수 있는 조치가 없다는 점입니다. 결국은 오바마가 어떻게 체면을 살리면서도 FTA를 받아들여 미국의 국익에 부응토록 하느냐는 데 있다고 봅니다. 지난번 쇠고기와 관련해 미국이 자국의 이익을 희생하지 않으면서 우리에게 추가조치를 허용했던 일이 있습니다. 모든 외교와 협상에는 내용도 중요하지만 formula, 즉 방법과 모양도 중요합니다. 미국의 오바마 정부와 우리 정부가 정치적인 부담을 크게 지지 않으면서 상호 간의 이익을 추구하는 방법, 상징적으로 오바마의 정치적 체면을 살리수 있는 방법, 즉 FTA를 실시하는 방법을 찾는 것이 필요합니다. -- 국회의 FTA 비준안 연내처리가 성사에 도움될지요. ▲ 미국 의회가 연내에 한미 FTA를 비준하느냐 안 하느냐 또는 내년에 하느냐, 어느 시점에 하느냐는 결국 미 의회 일정과 자기들의 정치적 계산에 의해서 결정된다고 보고요. 우리가 먼저 비준을 하느냐 여부가 그렇게 결정적인 영향을 준다고 생각하지 않습니다. 비준을 하면 우리의 성의와 더불어 재협상이라든지 추가협상의 여지가 없다는 결의를 보여주는 효과는 있겠지만 미 의회에 영향을 준다고 보지는 않습니다. 다만, 비준 문제가 국내적으로 정치적 갈등과 균열을 가져와서 대미관계, 반미정서에 영향을 준다면 그것은 미 의회의 비준에 도움을 주지 않으면서 국내적으로 자체적인 피해를 입는 것이라고 보기 때문에 어떤 방향으로 나가든지 화합하고 합의를 거쳐 일을 처리하는 것이 좋다고 생각합니다. 여야 간 진지한 대화를 하는 것이 필요하다고 봅니다. -- 앞으로 북ㆍ미관계를 어떻게 전망하십니까. ▲ 부시 행정부가 말기에 들어서 북한과 상당히 적극적인 대화와 협상을 벌여왔습니다. 오바마 정부는 그러한 부시 말기의 정책을 계승할 가능성이 큽니다. 지금 상태로서는 부시 행정부가 시간에 쫓기다 보니 너무 북한에 양보를 많이 하고 북한에 일방적으로 유리한 협상을 해 놓았기 때문에 오바마 정부가 그것보다 더 적극적인 협상을 하기는 어렵다고 봅니다. 오히려 지금까지 해 놓은 협상 중에 미흡한 사항 (예를 들면 북의 미신고 핵 시설에 대해 사찰은 상호 합의를 거쳐야 한다는 조항) 등을 다시 짚고 넘어가야 하는 문제들이 있다고 생각합니다. 앞으로 북ㆍ미관계의 전망은 시간이 좀 지나야 드러나리라고 봅니다. 통상적으로 주요 문제에서 전임 정부의 정책을 충분히 검토(review)하기 위해서는 약 6개월은 걸리지요. 진용도 짜야 하고 내부적인 검토, 절충도 거쳐야 할 필요가 있습니다. 오바마는 시급하게 대응해야 할 사안들이 많이 있습니다. 금융위기는 물론, 이라크, 아프가니스탄, 이란, 중동문제, 러시아와의 관계 등이 그의 정책적 우선순위가 될 것입니다. 따라서 북한 문제가 당장 위기상황이 아닐 때 얼마나 높은 우선순위를 둘 것이냐에 대해 의문이 제기됩니다. -- 북한이 앞으로 '통미봉남'으로 나가지 않을까요. ▲ 북한의 목표는 미국과 관계개선이고 되도록 우리를 배제하겠다는 생각이므로 미국과의 관계가 잘 진행되고 경제적으로 지원도 받을 수 있으면 소위 '봉남'(封南)을 해 우리의 입지를 약화시키려고 할 것으로 생각합니다. 그러나 실질적으로 북한에 경제적 지원과 협조를 제공할 수 있는 나라는 한국밖에 없습니다. 북한이 이러한 사실을 알면서도 우리의 국내외적 입장을 어렵게 하려고 '봉남'을 시도할 때, 국내적으로 북한에 조건 없이, 무제한 적으로 또 상호성 없이 지원해야 한다고 정부를 공격하는 것은, 북한의 통미봉남 전략을 포기하기 어렵게 만드는 결과를 가져올 수도 있다고 생각합니다. 우리는 북한에 대해 인도주의적인 지원은 계속하면서, 정책적 지원에 대해 원칙을 세워 일관성 있는 자세를 유지할 필요가 있습니다. 미국에 대해 이러한 우리의 정책을 충분히 이해시키고 대북정책에서 확실한 공조를 취해나가는 것이 필요합니다. -- 6자 회담 구도에는 변화가 없을지요. ▲ 북한은 핵 문제를 미국과의 협상에 국한하려 합니다. 또 지금까지의 오바마 발언을 보면 6자회담보다는 북미 양자 협상에 무게를 두는 인상을 받게 됩니다. 따라서 6자회담은 북핵문제 해결에 도움을 줄 수는 있어도 그 틀 안에서 해결된다고 보기는 어려울 것입니다. 지금 상황만 놓고 보더라도 지난 10월의 북미 합의 (검증과 테러지원국 해제와 관련된 것)에 대해 일본은 부정적인 입장이고 그것을 적극적으로 지지하는 나라는 중국밖에 없는 것으로 보입니다. 북핵문제의 '해결'을 말하지만, 우리는 북핵문제를 놓고 볼 때 그것을 '해결'하는 것, 즉 북한을 완전히 비핵화, 비핵무기화하는 과제가 있습니다. 동시에 우리는 그전 단계에서 그 문제를 '관리'하는 문제가 있습니다. 그것은 북한의 핵 활동과 생산을 동결시키고, 가능하면 불능화시키고, 그와 관련된 협상의 틀을 살려 계속 비핵화를 논의하고 협상하는 것, 또 북핵문제가 무력분쟁으로 발전하지 않게 만드는 것, 이러한 조치와 활동이 북한 핵의 평화적 '관리'라고 하겠습니다. 북핵문제의 해결은 몰라도, 이러한 '관리' 차원에서는 6자회담이 필수적이라고 생각합니다. -- 오마바 정부 출범과 더불어 우리의 대미 외교전략도 총체적 점검이 필요하다고 보는데 외무장관, 주미대사를 지낸 경험에 비춰 조언해줄 것이 있다면. ▲ 외교정책, 전략은 항공모함, 또는 유조선과도 같아 다른 나라의 정권이 바뀌었다는 이유로 갑자기 방향을 바꾸거나 속도를 크게 조절할 수는 없습니다. 이번 오바마 정부는 한국으로서 커다란 조정을 할 필요는 없다고 봅니다. 한반도 정책과 관련해서는 오바마가 부시 정책을 대체로 계승할 것으로 예상합니다. 대미 관계에서 그동안 이명박 정부 출범 후 부시와 이 대통령의 개인적인 친분관계가 미국에 대한 정책에 영향을 준 것은 사실입니다. 쇠고기 추가협상을 허용한 것, BGN(미국 地名위원회)가 독도 표기를 원상 복귀해 준 것, FSM(해외군사장비판매)의 지위를 격상해 준 것, 외화 지급 보증을 위한 화폐 스와핑에 합의한 것 등은 미국의 국익을 계산한 점도 있으나 양국 정상 간 개인적인 관계가 큰 도움이 되었던 것은 사실이지요. 앞으로 오바마 정부와의 관계는 인맥도 도움되겠으나 그보다는 설득력 있는 논리와 정책, 그리고 효과적인 외교력이 더 중요하다는 것을 인식해야 합니다. 저의 경험으로 미국과의 효과적인 협의는 현실적이고 설득력 있는 정책을 두고 상대방과 브레인스토밍(brain-storming) 식의 논의를 하는 것으로 생각합니다. 상대방을 가장 잘 이해시킬 수 있는 방법은 개인적 친분관계라기보다는 정책의 합리성과 설득력입니다. 특히 오바마는 부시에 비해 더 신중하고, 계산적이며, 실용주의적일 가능성이 큽니다. 이는 곧 인맥보다는 합리성과 설득력이 더 중요하다는 것을 말하는 것이지요. -- 한국은 미국발 금융위기에 어느 나라보다도 더 큰 충격을 받고 있습니다. 이런 상황에서 '외교'가 떠맡을 역할은 무엇이라고 보십니까. ▲ 지난 1997-98년 당시의 위기 때는 외교의 역할이 상당히 컸다고 생각합니다. 그 당시는 우리가 미국의 도움을 받는 입장이었고 그를 위해 미국은 동맹국으로서, 한반도의 안보를 위해 한국을 도와줘야 한다는 점을 미국에 설득시키는 것이 중요한 과제였지요. 그러나 지금은 미국 자신이 금융 위기를 경험하고 있습니다. 지금은 우리나라가 G-20회의에 참석하게 되어 있고, 미국 등과 더불어 다자적인 차원에서 금융위기를 없애야 할 필요가 있습니다. 한국은 현재의 위기를 미국과 협력하고 미국의 도움을 받아 극복하고 미국과 상당기간 긴밀한 협조와 협의를 성립시켜야 할 것으로 생각합니다. 오바마로서 가장 부담되는 것은 세계에서 기대가 너무 크다는 점입니다. 경제, 금융위기를 해결하고, 중동문제도 해결하고, 미국의 입지를 강화시키고, 각국과의 관계도 개선하기를 바라고 있습니다. 그러나 오바마가 이러한 기대를 모두 빠른 시기에 충족시키기는 어려울 것입니다. 당연히 실망이 따를 것입니다. 특히 아시아인들이 걱정하는 것은, 그가 보호무역적인 정책 방향을 고수하고, 금융문제, 아프가니스탄, 중동 문제 등에 몰두하여 아시아에 대한 관심과 비중이 작아질 가능성 등이지요. 그가 아시아와 각별한 인연을 가졌다고 해도 역시 관심은 현재의 위험지역과 중동 아프리카에 더 집중할 것으로 예상합니다. -- 앞으로 미국과 중국, 미국과 일본. 러시아와의 관계, 한반도 주변정세를 어떻게 전망하십니까. ▲ 부시 대통령은 아시아의 주변 강대국들 (러시아, 중국, 일본 등)과 상당히 좋은 관계를 유지해 왔습니다. 다만, 최근에 와서 일본과는 북한문제 때문에, 러시아와는 그루지야 문제 때문에 다소 마찰이 생기기도 했습니다. 대중국 관계에서 미국은 역대 정권이 처음 들어서서는 갈등관계로 시작하다가 점차 관계가 좋아지는 경향을 가져 왔지요. 아버지 부시와 클린턴, 아들 부시 대통령 때도 같은 패턴이었습니다. 그러나 오바마는 그러한 전철을 밟지 않고 처음부터 중국과 실용적인 관계를 가질 것으로 예상합니다. 즉 중국을 책임 있는 이해당사국 (responsible stake-holder)이라는 전임 정부의 후기 정책을 계승할 것으로 예상합니다. 러시아와 북한에 대하여 오바마 정부는 대화와 설득, 협상을 강조하겠지만 동시에 자신이 상대국에 약하게 보이는 것을 민감하게 의식해 도전에 대해서는 강하게 나올 가능성이 큽니다. 과거 소련의 후루시쵸프는 케네디 취임 후 쿠바에 미사일을 장치함으로써 미국 정권을 테스트했고, 북한은 클린턴 취임 후 NPT(핵확산금지조약)를 탈퇴함으로써 새 정부를 시험했습니다. 그때마다 젊고 자유주의적인 신참의 미국 대통령은 강력하게 대응한 바 있습니다. 오바마는 북한과의 관계에서 인권문제를 짚고 넘어갈 것이므로 납치문제에 집착하는 일본으로서는 미국과 협조할 명분을 주는 효과가 있을 것입니다. 오바마는 지금 세계에서 군사적으로 가장 급박한 지역이 테러집단을 지원하고 훈련하는 알 카에다, 그를 지원하는 탈레반의 근거지인 아프가니스탄, 파키스탄 접경지대라고 생각하고 있습니다. 따라서 이라크에서는 철군을 추진하면서도 아프간에 대해서는 군대를 증원해야 한다는 주장까지 하고 있습니다. 그런 경우 한ㆍ미, 미ㆍ일 동맹을 강조하면서도 필요에 따라 이들 지역의 미군을 부분적으로 아프가니스탄 쪽으로 전용시킬 가능성도 배제할 수 없습니다. 경우에 따라, 주한, 주일 미군의 규모 자체에 조정이 있을 가능성도 있습니다. 오바마의 근접 인물 중에는 미국이 아시아에서 중국, 일본과 함께 삼국 공조체제(condominium)를 구축해야 된다고 생각하는 사람들이 있습니다. 실제로 오바마가 이러한 구상을 채택할지 모르나 그러한 경우 자칫 강대국이 한반도 문제 등 다른 나라 문제도 자기들끼리 논의할 가능성에 유의해야 할 것입니다. 그러한 가능성에 대비해서도, 우리는 미국, 일본, 중국과의 관계를 강화하고 밀접하게 유지해야 할 것입니다. 러시아도 우리에 대해 호의를 가지는 것으로 보이는 만큼, 좋은 관계를 유지하는 것이 필요합니다. 우리는 다행히 하나의 강대국과 가까워진다고 해서 다른 강대국과의 관계를 희생할 필요가 없습니다. 오히려 한 나라와 가까워지는 것이 다른 나라와도 가까워지는 첩경이라고 하겠습니다. -- 미국으로부터 아프간 추가파병 요구가 있을 때 어떻게 대응해야 한다고 보십니까. ▲ 이라크에서는 오바마가 선거 운동 때 주장했던 것처럼 2010년 말 이전 미군을 철수하려고 노력할 것입니다. 아프간은 오바마가 테러의 온상으로 생각하고 있는 만큼, 병력을 증파하더라도 탈레반과 알 카에다의 뿌리를 뽑는 정책을 펼 것입니다. 이란에 대해서는 아흐마디네자드 같은 지도자와 대화를 할 용의가 있다고 천명했지만 그로서 약하게 보인다는 인상일 주고 싶지 않을 뿐 아니라 미국은 이란의 핵무기 개발은 북한의 핵무기 개발보다도 더 심각하게 받아들이기 때문에 이란의 핵 프로그램을 용인할 가능성은 없습니다. 미국이 아프간에서 군대가 더 필요할 수 있지만 이는 이라크에서 철수하는 미국군대, 나토 군대들에 의해 충당될 수 있을 것입니다. 유럽도 오바마의 당선을 크게 환영하는 처지이므로 그의 요청이 있을 때 무시하지 못할 것입니다. 우리는 파병 이외의 다른 방법으로 도움을 줄 수 있을 것입니다. -- 요즘 어떻게 지내십니까. ▲ 서너 가지 일에 집중하고 있습니다. 하나는 책 쓰는 일입니다. 지난 15년 간 두 번 정부에서 일한 적이 있습니다. 그 중간에 유엔 관계로 키프로스 분단문제, 르완다 인종학살 조사위원회 활동에 관여한 일이 있고요. 이러한 일들의 경험을 토대로 회고록 형태의 책을 집필하고 있습니다. 그밖에 중요한 국제회의에 참석하고 지난 2월초 발족한 아산 정책연구원의 이사장으로 연구원의 시작 단계에 도움을 주려고 노력하고 있습니다. 6월부터는 한미협회의 회장 임무도 맡아 활동하고 있고 필요할 때 우리 정부뿐 아니라 국제기구의 정책 자문에 응하고 있습니다. jamieh@yna.co.kr
"오바마 정부 주한미군 감축 가능성 있어""FTA는 상호이익 추구 방법 찾는 게 필요""정부의 기존 외교 정책 기조 유지해야""대미외교, 인맥보다 합리성.설득력 중요"(서울=연합뉴스) 홍성완 편집위원= 한승주 전 외무부장관은 12일 "오바마 대통령 당선자가 이끄는 미국의 신정부가 주한미군 병력을 일부 감축할 가능성이 있다."라고 말했다. 주미대사를 지낸 한 전 장관은 연합뉴스와의 인터뷰에서 "오바마가 우방국들과의 동맹관계에 대해 전반적인 검토를 할 것이고 그런 과정에서 현재 2만 8천500여 명 수준의 주한미군을 더 줄일 가능성을 배제할 수 없다."라고 밝혔다. 그는 그러한 가능성의 배경으로 "오바마 당선자가 군사안보를 중시하는 20세기 냉전적 사고에서 자유로운 21세기 인물이고, 금융위기 해소를 위해 투입하기로 한 7천억 달러의 자금을 마련하려면 국방분야에서도 예산을 아낄 생각을 할 것"이라고 말했다. 한승주 전 장관은 한ㆍ미 간 현안인 FTA 비준과 관련해 "미국 의회의 한미 FTA 비준 여부와 시기는 자기들의 일정과 정치적 계산에 의해서 결정되기 때문에 우리가 먼저 비준을 하느냐 여부는 결정적인 영향을 준다고 생각하지 않는다."면서 "자동차 부문 논란을 포함한 FTA 문제에 대해 한ㆍ미 양국이 다 같이 성의와 호의를 가지고 서로 이해하면서 해결방법을 찾는 것이 최선"이라는 견해를 밝혔다. 그는 "오바마 정부의 출범과 관련해 대비나 적응은 필요하지만 우리의 외교정책, 특히 대북정책의 기조를 바꾸는 것은 가능하지도 않고 필요하지도 않다."라고 강조하고 "대북정책에서 우리 정부의 원칙은 오바마 정부와 대체로 일치하고 있어 상충할 가능성은 크지 않다고 본다."라고 덧붙였다. 다음은 인터뷰 내용. -- 오바마 정권 출범 후 한반도 정책을 포함해 어떤 변화가 예상됩니까. ▲ 국내 정책에서는 자유방임, 무제한 경쟁으로부터 복지, 평등, 환경, 교육 등을 강조하는 정책을 추구할 것입니다. 물론 금융위기라는 발등에 떨어진 불을 끄는 데 최우선적인 노력을 할 것입니다. 대외적으로는 무력을 중심으로 하는 hard power보다는 외교력, 설득력을 강조하는 soft power의 비중을 높일 것이며, 일방주의에서 다자주의를 중시하는 정책을 추구할 것으로 기대됩니다. 동맹관계를 중시하면서도 다른 주요국들과의 협조체제(concert)를 구축하는 노력도 기울일 것으로 예상합니다. 한반도 문제는 아무래도 우선순위에서 밀릴 것 같습니다. 금융문제라든지 이라크, 아프가니스탄 등 중동문제와 같은 급한 것들이 많습니다. 그러나 동맹체제에 대한 전반적인 검토가 있을 것이라고 봅니다. 과거 카터 전 대통령 때처럼 완전 철군을 하겠다는 결정은 아니겠지만 주한미군의 규모라든지 역할이라든지 이런 것에 대해서 조정이 있을 수 있습니다. 오바마는 냉전, 군사안보 우선과 같은 20세기적 생각에서 자유로운 사람입니다. 동맹이라는 게 필요하기는 하지만 국제정치로 보면 밸런스 오프 파워(Balance of Power)보다는 concert 쪽에 더 관심이 있을 가능성이 있다고 봅니다. -- 카터와 비교해 오바마의 주한미군에 대한 입장은 어떠할까요. ▲ 카터는 완전히 철수하겠다고 그랬지요. 오바마는 물론 그러지는 않을 거고요. 카터 때는 처음에 완전철수를 주장했다가 부분 철수로 수정해 6천 명인가를 감축했지요. 카터는 선거유세 때 주한미군 완전철수를 공약했습니다. 반면 오바마는 전혀 그런 건 없지요. 세계 전체적으로는 오히려 미군의 지상군을 늘려야 한다고 얘기했습니다. 늘리는 방법도 여러 가지인데 다른데 주둔하고 있는 병력을 조정하는 방법도 있습니다. -- 주한미군은 감축이나 조정은 가능하다고 보십니까. ▲ 지금 2만 8천500여 명 수준인데 더 줄일 가능성을 배제할 수 없습니다. 큰 감축은 아니겠지만요. 오바마는 21세기형 리더입니다. 아무리 주변에 옛날 사람들이 많다고 해도 새 사람들과 함께 21세기 시각에서 한국을 비롯하여 일본, 나토 등과의 동맹체제에 대해 전반적인 리뷰를 할 것으로 예상합니다. 또한, 미정부가 금융위기 해소를 인해 지원키로 한 7천억 달러는 미국의 1년 국방예산 규모입니다. 그게 전부 국방분야에서 오지는 않겠지만 좌우간 돈이 어디서 와야 될 것 아니겠어요. 그러니까 돈 세이브하는 것도 좀 생각을 해야 되겠지요. -- 대통령 한 사람에 의해 대외정책이 좌우됩니까. ▲ 아닙니다. 그러니까 카터가 주한미군을 완전히 철군하지 못했지요. 그때는 주변에 있던 사람이 전부 한국전쟁세대 사람들이고 군인들도 그렇고 참모들도 그랬는데 지금은 오바마의 참모들 자신이 전부 한국전쟁을 마치 옛날 보불전쟁처럼 생각할지도 모릅니다. 중국 외교부 대변인이 한미동맹은 냉전의 유산이라고 말하기도 했습니다. 20세기 유산인 셈인데 오마바는 21세기 사람입니다. 61년생이니까 4.19 직후지요. 한국전쟁이 끝난 지 8년 만에 태어났으니 우리식으로 하면 386세대가 되나요?-- 한미 양국정부 간 마찰을 예상합니까. ▲ 노무현 정부와 부시 정부가 좀 이념적인 데 비해 이명박 대통령과 오바마 당선자는 상당히 실용적인 경향이 있으니까 만약 다른 의견들이 있으면 대화나 조정이 될 것이라고 봅니다. -- 북한이 개방을 선택할까요. 김정일과 오바마의 만남이 이뤄질 가능성이 있다고 보시는지요. ▲ 글쎄요. 개방을 할까요? 전 개방 안 할 것 같은데요. 안 하면서 갈 데까지 가보자고 할 것 같습니다. 왜냐하면, 개방하면 뻔한 거니까요. 두 사람이 만날 가능성은 금융위기 이런 것 때문에 상당히 먼 얘기라고 봅니다. 또한, 그런 과정에서 김정일이 회복할 수 있을지도 변수이고요. 지금 나오는 사진이 옛날 사진을 합성한 것인지 알 수가 없지요. 지난번 미국에 갔더니 김정일의 건강에 대해 좀 더 심각하게 판단하는 것 같았습니다. -- 오바마는 한ㆍ미 FTA에 반대하고 있는데요. ▲ 많은 사람은 그가 FTA를 반대한 것은 선거기간 중의 표를 의식한 발언이고 결국은 FTA 지지로 돌아설 것이라는 낙관론을 펴고 있습니다. 그러나 그는 선거운동 기간 너무나 일관성 있게, 강력하게 FTA를 비판해 왔습니다. 또 그 자신이 어떤 부분, 특히 자동차 교역 부문에 불만을 가진 것으로 보입니다. 저는 한국이 1년에 70만 대를 미국에 수출하면서 5천 대만 수입하는 것은 불공평하다는 오바마의 논리가 맞지 않는다고 생각하지만 그가 너무나 여러 번 (특히 TV 토론에서) 강조했기 때문에 그냥 번복하거나 무시하지는 못할 것으로 보입니다. 문제는 지난번 FTA 협상에서 이미 미국과 한국 쌍방이 자동차 교역에 개방하고 양보할 만큼은 양보해 놓았기 때문에 그러한 불균형을 교정할 수 있는 조치가 없다는 점입니다. 결국은 오바마가 어떻게 체면을 살리면서도 FTA를 받아들여 미국의 국익에 부응토록 하느냐는 데 있다고 봅니다. 지난번 쇠고기와 관련해 미국이 자국의 이익을 희생하지 않으면서 우리에게 추가조치를 허용했던 일이 있습니다. 모든 외교와 협상에는 내용도 중요하지만 formula, 즉 방법과 모양도 중요합니다. 미국의 오바마 정부와 우리 정부가 정치적인 부담을 크게 지지 않으면서 상호 간의 이익을 추구하는 방법, 상징적으로 오바마의 정치적 체면을 살리수 있는 방법, 즉 FTA를 실시하는 방법을 찾는 것이 필요합니다. -- 국회의 FTA 비준안 연내처리가 성사에 도움될지요. ▲ 미국 의회가 연내에 한미 FTA를 비준하느냐 안 하느냐 또는 내년에 하느냐, 어느 시점에 하느냐는 결국 미 의회 일정과 자기들의 정치적 계산에 의해서 결정된다고 보고요. 우리가 먼저 비준을 하느냐 여부가 그렇게 결정적인 영향을 준다고 생각하지 않습니다. 비준을 하면 우리의 성의와 더불어 재협상이라든지 추가협상의 여지가 없다는 결의를 보여주는 효과는 있겠지만 미 의회에 영향을 준다고 보지는 않습니다. 다만, 비준 문제가 국내적으로 정치적 갈등과 균열을 가져와서 대미관계, 반미정서에 영향을 준다면 그것은 미 의회의 비준에 도움을 주지 않으면서 국내적으로 자체적인 피해를 입는 것이라고 보기 때문에 어떤 방향으로 나가든지 화합하고 합의를 거쳐 일을 처리하는 것이 좋다고 생각합니다. 여야 간 진지한 대화를 하는 것이 필요하다고 봅니다. -- 앞으로 북ㆍ미관계를 어떻게 전망하십니까. ▲ 부시 행정부가 말기에 들어서 북한과 상당히 적극적인 대화와 협상을 벌여왔습니다. 오바마 정부는 그러한 부시 말기의 정책을 계승할 가능성이 큽니다. 지금 상태로서는 부시 행정부가 시간에 쫓기다 보니 너무 북한에 양보를 많이 하고 북한에 일방적으로 유리한 협상을 해 놓았기 때문에 오바마 정부가 그것보다 더 적극적인 협상을 하기는 어렵다고 봅니다. 오히려 지금까지 해 놓은 협상 중에 미흡한 사항 (예를 들면 북의 미신고 핵 시설에 대해 사찰은 상호 합의를 거쳐야 한다는 조항) 등을 다시 짚고 넘어가야 하는 문제들이 있다고 생각합니다. 앞으로 북ㆍ미관계의 전망은 시간이 좀 지나야 드러나리라고 봅니다. 통상적으로 주요 문제에서 전임 정부의 정책을 충분히 검토(review)하기 위해서는 약 6개월은 걸리지요. 진용도 짜야 하고 내부적인 검토, 절충도 거쳐야 할 필요가 있습니다. 오바마는 시급하게 대응해야 할 사안들이 많이 있습니다. 금융위기는 물론, 이라크, 아프가니스탄, 이란, 중동문제, 러시아와의 관계 등이 그의 정책적 우선순위가 될 것입니다. 따라서 북한 문제가 당장 위기상황이 아닐 때 얼마나 높은 우선순위를 둘 것이냐에 대해 의문이 제기됩니다. -- 북한이 앞으로 '통미봉남'으로 나가지 않을까요. ▲ 북한의 목표는 미국과 관계개선이고 되도록 우리를 배제하겠다는 생각이므로 미국과의 관계가 잘 진행되고 경제적으로 지원도 받을 수 있으면 소위 '봉남'(封南)을 해 우리의 입지를 약화시키려고 할 것으로 생각합니다. 그러나 실질적으로 북한에 경제적 지원과 협조를 제공할 수 있는 나라는 한국밖에 없습니다. 북한이 이러한 사실을 알면서도 우리의 국내외적 입장을 어렵게 하려고 '봉남'을 시도할 때, 국내적으로 북한에 조건 없이, 무제한 적으로 또 상호성 없이 지원해야 한다고 정부를 공격하는 것은, 북한의 통미봉남 전략을 포기하기 어렵게 만드는 결과를 가져올 수도 있다고 생각합니다. 우리는 북한에 대해 인도주의적인 지원은 계속하면서, 정책적 지원에 대해 원칙을 세워 일관성 있는 자세를 유지할 필요가 있습니다. 미국에 대해 이러한 우리의 정책을 충분히 이해시키고 대북정책에서 확실한 공조를 취해나가는 것이 필요합니다. -- 6자 회담 구도에는 변화가 없을지요. ▲ 북한은 핵 문제를 미국과의 협상에 국한하려 합니다. 또 지금까지의 오바마 발언을 보면 6자회담보다는 북미 양자 협상에 무게를 두는 인상을 받게 됩니다. 따라서 6자회담은 북핵문제 해결에 도움을 줄 수는 있어도 그 틀 안에서 해결된다고 보기는 어려울 것입니다. 지금 상황만 놓고 보더라도 지난 10월의 북미 합의 (검증과 테러지원국 해제와 관련된 것)에 대해 일본은 부정적인 입장이고 그것을 적극적으로 지지하는 나라는 중국밖에 없는 것으로 보입니다. 북핵문제의 '해결'을 말하지만, 우리는 북핵문제를 놓고 볼 때 그것을 '해결'하는 것, 즉 북한을 완전히 비핵화, 비핵무기화하는 과제가 있습니다. 동시에 우리는 그전 단계에서 그 문제를 '관리'하는 문제가 있습니다. 그것은 북한의 핵 활동과 생산을 동결시키고, 가능하면 불능화시키고, 그와 관련된 협상의 틀을 살려 계속 비핵화를 논의하고 협상하는 것, 또 북핵문제가 무력분쟁으로 발전하지 않게 만드는 것, 이러한 조치와 활동이 북한 핵의 평화적 '관리'라고 하겠습니다. 북핵문제의 해결은 몰라도, 이러한 '관리' 차원에서는 6자회담이 필수적이라고 생각합니다. -- 오마바 정부 출범과 더불어 우리의 대미 외교전략도 총체적 점검이 필요하다고 보는데 외무장관, 주미대사를 지낸 경험에 비춰 조언해줄 것이 있다면. ▲ 외교정책, 전략은 항공모함, 또는 유조선과도 같아 다른 나라의 정권이 바뀌었다는 이유로 갑자기 방향을 바꾸거나 속도를 크게 조절할 수는 없습니다. 이번 오바마 정부는 한국으로서 커다란 조정을 할 필요는 없다고 봅니다. 한반도 정책과 관련해서는 오바마가 부시 정책을 대체로 계승할 것으로 예상합니다. 대미 관계에서 그동안 이명박 정부 출범 후 부시와 이 대통령의 개인적인 친분관계가 미국에 대한 정책에 영향을 준 것은 사실입니다. 쇠고기 추가협상을 허용한 것, BGN(미국 地名위원회)가 독도 표기를 원상 복귀해 준 것, FSM(해외군사장비판매)의 지위를 격상해 준 것, 외화 지급 보증을 위한 화폐 스와핑에 합의한 것 등은 미국의 국익을 계산한 점도 있으나 양국 정상 간 개인적인 관계가 큰 도움이 되었던 것은 사실이지요. 앞으로 오바마 정부와의 관계는 인맥도 도움되겠으나 그보다는 설득력 있는 논리와 정책, 그리고 효과적인 외교력이 더 중요하다는 것을 인식해야 합니다. 저의 경험으로 미국과의 효과적인 협의는 현실적이고 설득력 있는 정책을 두고 상대방과 브레인스토밍(brain-storming) 식의 논의를 하는 것으로 생각합니다. 상대방을 가장 잘 이해시킬 수 있는 방법은 개인적 친분관계라기보다는 정책의 합리성과 설득력입니다. 특히 오바마는 부시에 비해 더 신중하고, 계산적이며, 실용주의적일 가능성이 큽니다. 이는 곧 인맥보다는 합리성과 설득력이 더 중요하다는 것을 말하는 것이지요. -- 한국은 미국발 금융위기에 어느 나라보다도 더 큰 충격을 받고 있습니다. 이런 상황에서 '외교'가 떠맡을 역할은 무엇이라고 보십니까. ▲ 지난 1997-98년 당시의 위기 때는 외교의 역할이 상당히 컸다고 생각합니다. 그 당시는 우리가 미국의 도움을 받는 입장이었고 그를 위해 미국은 동맹국으로서, 한반도의 안보를 위해 한국을 도와줘야 한다는 점을 미국에 설득시키는 것이 중요한 과제였지요. 그러나 지금은 미국 자신이 금융 위기를 경험하고 있습니다. 지금은 우리나라가 G-20회의에 참석하게 되어 있고, 미국 등과 더불어 다자적인 차원에서 금융위기를 없애야 할 필요가 있습니다. 한국은 현재의 위기를 미국과 협력하고 미국의 도움을 받아 극복하고 미국과 상당기간 긴밀한 협조와 협의를 성립시켜야 할 것으로 생각합니다. 오바마로서 가장 부담되는 것은 세계에서 기대가 너무 크다는 점입니다. 경제, 금융위기를 해결하고, 중동문제도 해결하고, 미국의 입지를 강화시키고, 각국과의 관계도 개선하기를 바라고 있습니다. 그러나 오바마가 이러한 기대를 모두 빠른 시기에 충족시키기는 어려울 것입니다. 당연히 실망이 따를 것입니다. 특히 아시아인들이 걱정하는 것은, 그가 보호무역적인 정책 방향을 고수하고, 금융문제, 아프가니스탄, 중동 문제 등에 몰두하여 아시아에 대한 관심과 비중이 작아질 가능성 등이지요. 그가 아시아와 각별한 인연을 가졌다고 해도 역시 관심은 현재의 위험지역과 중동 아프리카에 더 집중할 것으로 예상합니다. -- 앞으로 미국과 중국, 미국과 일본. 러시아와의 관계, 한반도 주변정세를 어떻게 전망하십니까. ▲ 부시 대통령은 아시아의 주변 강대국들 (러시아, 중국, 일본 등)과 상당히 좋은 관계를 유지해 왔습니다. 다만, 최근에 와서 일본과는 북한문제 때문에, 러시아와는 그루지야 문제 때문에 다소 마찰이 생기기도 했습니다. 대중국 관계에서 미국은 역대 정권이 처음 들어서서는 갈등관계로 시작하다가 점차 관계가 좋아지는 경향을 가져 왔지요. 아버지 부시와 클린턴, 아들 부시 대통령 때도 같은 패턴이었습니다. 그러나 오바마는 그러한 전철을 밟지 않고 처음부터 중국과 실용적인 관계를 가질 것으로 예상합니다. 즉 중국을 책임 있는 이해당사국 (responsible stake-holder)이라는 전임 정부의 후기 정책을 계승할 것으로 예상합니다. 러시아와 북한에 대하여 오바마 정부는 대화와 설득, 협상을 강조하겠지만 동시에 자신이 상대국에 약하게 보이는 것을 민감하게 의식해 도전에 대해서는 강하게 나올 가능성이 큽니다. 과거 소련의 후루시쵸프는 케네디 취임 후 쿠바에 미사일을 장치함으로써 미국 정권을 테스트했고, 북한은 클린턴 취임 후 NPT(핵확산금지조약)를 탈퇴함으로써 새 정부를 시험했습니다. 그때마다 젊고 자유주의적인 신참의 미국 대통령은 강력하게 대응한 바 있습니다. 오바마는 북한과의 관계에서 인권문제를 짚고 넘어갈 것이므로 납치문제에 집착하는 일본으로서는 미국과 협조할 명분을 주는 효과가 있을 것입니다. 오바마는 지금 세계에서 군사적으로 가장 급박한 지역이 테러집단을 지원하고 훈련하는 알 카에다, 그를 지원하는 탈레반의 근거지인 아프가니스탄, 파키스탄 접경지대라고 생각하고 있습니다. 따라서 이라크에서는 철군을 추진하면서도 아프간에 대해서는 군대를 증원해야 한다는 주장까지 하고 있습니다. 그런 경우 한ㆍ미, 미ㆍ일 동맹을 강조하면서도 필요에 따라 이들 지역의 미군을 부분적으로 아프가니스탄 쪽으로 전용시킬 가능성도 배제할 수 없습니다. 경우에 따라, 주한, 주일 미군의 규모 자체에 조정이 있을 가능성도 있습니다. 오바마의 근접 인물 중에는 미국이 아시아에서 중국, 일본과 함께 삼국 공조체제(condominium)를 구축해야 된다고 생각하는 사람들이 있습니다. 실제로 오바마가 이러한 구상을 채택할지 모르나 그러한 경우 자칫 강대국이 한반도 문제 등 다른 나라 문제도 자기들끼리 논의할 가능성에 유의해야 할 것입니다. 그러한 가능성에 대비해서도, 우리는 미국, 일본, 중국과의 관계를 강화하고 밀접하게 유지해야 할 것입니다. 러시아도 우리에 대해 호의를 가지는 것으로 보이는 만큼, 좋은 관계를 유지하는 것이 필요합니다. 우리는 다행히 하나의 강대국과 가까워진다고 해서 다른 강대국과의 관계를 희생할 필요가 없습니다. 오히려 한 나라와 가까워지는 것이 다른 나라와도 가까워지는 첩경이라고 하겠습니다. -- 미국으로부터 아프간 추가파병 요구가 있을 때 어떻게 대응해야 한다고 보십니까. ▲ 이라크에서는 오바마가 선거 운동 때 주장했던 것처럼 2010년 말 이전 미군을 철수하려고 노력할 것입니다. 아프간은 오바마가 테러의 온상으로 생각하고 있는 만큼, 병력을 증파하더라도 탈레반과 알 카에다의 뿌리를 뽑는 정책을 펼 것입니다. 이란에 대해서는 아흐마디네자드 같은 지도자와 대화를 할 용의가 있다고 천명했지만 그로서 약하게 보인다는 인상일 주고 싶지 않을 뿐 아니라 미국은 이란의 핵무기 개발은 북한의 핵무기 개발보다도 더 심각하게 받아들이기 때문에 이란의 핵 프로그램을 용인할 가능성은 없습니다. 미국이 아프간에서 군대가 더 필요할 수 있지만 이는 이라크에서 철수하는 미국군대, 나토 군대들에 의해 충당될 수 있을 것입니다. 유럽도 오바마의 당선을 크게 환영하는 처지이므로 그의 요청이 있을 때 무시하지 못할 것입니다. 우리는 파병 이외의 다른 방법으로 도움을 줄 수 있을 것입니다. -- 요즘 어떻게 지내십니까. ▲ 서너 가지 일에 집중하고 있습니다. 하나는 책 쓰는 일입니다. 지난 15년 간 두 번 정부에서 일한 적이 있습니다. 그 중간에 유엔 관계로 키프로스 분단문제, 르완다 인종학살 조사위원회 활동에 관여한 일이 있고요. 이러한 일들의 경험을 토대로 회고록 형태의 책을 집필하고 있습니다. 그밖에 중요한 국제회의에 참석하고 지난 2월초 발족한 아산 정책연구원의 이사장으로 연구원의 시작 단계에 도움을 주려고 노력하고 있습니다. 6월부터는 한미협회의 회장 임무도 맡아 활동하고 있고 필요할 때 우리 정부뿐 아니라 국제기구의 정책 자문에 응하고 있습니다. jamieh@yna.co.kr
The Obama-Biden Plan
The US President-elect Obama and the vice-president elect Biden came up with their ideas summed up and uploaded on the website of the transitional government. On surface, I found hard to clearly distinguish differences from other promises done by his predecessors except he seems to leave the door open for commoners to join. Some points under the resolution to stop the climate changes, change Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, etc. indicated specific dates to complete tasks concerned. I wholeheartedly support those, but have to admit if fixing dates were wise thing to do, since the climate is not a subject that can be changed by any and the Guantanamo issue's been at the center of so many political/diplomatical debates over last several years. The world sees every step of their moves with hopes and also with caution such enlarged by the sad era of mistrust.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will renew America’s security and standing in the world through a new era of American leadership. The Obama-Biden foreign policy will end the war in Iraq responsibly, finish the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, secure nuclear weapons and loose nuclear materials from terrorists, and renew American diplomacy to support strong alliances and to seek a lasting peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
Afghanistan: Obama and Biden will refocus American resources on the greatest threat to our security -- the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They will increase our troop levels in Afghanistan, press our allies in NATO to do the same, and dedicate more resources to revitalize Afghanistan’s economic development. Obama and Biden will demand the Afghan government do more, including cracking down on corruption and the illicit opium trade.
Pakistan: Obama and Biden will increase nonmilitary aid to Pakistan and hold them accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan.
Nuclear Weapons
A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:
He joined Senator Dick Lugar (R-In) in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.
He joined Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Ne) to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While working to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama and Biden will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.
Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama and Biden will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
Move Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But they will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.
Iran
Diplomacy: Barack Obama supports tough and direct diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Energy Security
Achieving Energy Security: Obama will put America on a path to energy independence by investing $150 billion in renewable and alternative energy over the next ten years -- an investment that will create millions of jobs along the way. He’ll also make the U.S. a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading a new international global warming partnership.
Renewing American Diplomacy
Renew our Alliances: Obama and Biden will rebuild our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century. America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation that strengthens old partnerships and builds new ones to confront the common challenges of the 21st century -- terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.
Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama and Biden will pursue tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions with all nations, friend and foe. They will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table and is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like confronting terrorism and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama and Biden will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority from day one. They will make a sustained push -- working with Israelis and Palestinians -- to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.
Expand our Diplomatic Presence: To make diplomacy a priority, Obama and Biden will stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in difficult corners of the world -- particularly in Africa. They will expand our foreign service, and develop our civilian capacity to work alongside the military.
Fight Global Poverty: Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to achieve that goal. This will help the world's weakest states build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.
Seek New Partnerships in Asia: Obama and Biden will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. They will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia; work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.
Israel
Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, and believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the region. They support this closeness, and have stated that the United States will never distance itself from Israel.
Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He and Joe Biden believe strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.
Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.
Bipartisanship and Openness
A Record of Bringing People Together: In the Senate, Obama has worked with Republicans and Democrats to advance important policy initiatives on securing weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons, increasing funding for nonproliferation, and countering instability in Congo.
Consultative Group: Obama and Biden will convene a bipartisan Consultative Group of leading members of Congress to foster better executive-legislative relations and bipartisan unity on foreign policy. This group will be comprised of the congressional leadership of both political parties, and the chair and ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees. This group will meet with the president once a month to review foreign policy priorities, and will be consulted in advance of military action.
Getting Politics out of Intelligence: Obama will insulate the Director of National Intelligence from political pressure by giving the DNI a fixed term, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Obama and Biden will seek consistency and integrity at the top of our intelligence community -- not just a political ally.
Change the Culture of Secrecy: Obama will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.
Engaging the American People on Foreign Policy: Obama and Biden will bring foreign policy decisions directly to the people by requiring their national security officials to have periodic national broadband town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy. Obama will personally deliver Your Weekly Address via webcast.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will renew America’s security and standing in the world through a new era of American leadership. The Obama-Biden foreign policy will end the war in Iraq responsibly, finish the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, secure nuclear weapons and loose nuclear materials from terrorists, and renew American diplomacy to support strong alliances and to seek a lasting peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
Afghanistan: Obama and Biden will refocus American resources on the greatest threat to our security -- the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They will increase our troop levels in Afghanistan, press our allies in NATO to do the same, and dedicate more resources to revitalize Afghanistan’s economic development. Obama and Biden will demand the Afghan government do more, including cracking down on corruption and the illicit opium trade.
Pakistan: Obama and Biden will increase nonmilitary aid to Pakistan and hold them accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan.
Nuclear Weapons
A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:
He joined Senator Dick Lugar (R-In) in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.
He joined Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Ne) to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While working to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama and Biden will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.
Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama and Biden will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
Move Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But they will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.
Iran
Diplomacy: Barack Obama supports tough and direct diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Energy Security
Achieving Energy Security: Obama will put America on a path to energy independence by investing $150 billion in renewable and alternative energy over the next ten years -- an investment that will create millions of jobs along the way. He’ll also make the U.S. a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading a new international global warming partnership.
Renewing American Diplomacy
Renew our Alliances: Obama and Biden will rebuild our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century. America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation that strengthens old partnerships and builds new ones to confront the common challenges of the 21st century -- terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.
Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama and Biden will pursue tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions with all nations, friend and foe. They will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table and is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like confronting terrorism and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama and Biden will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority from day one. They will make a sustained push -- working with Israelis and Palestinians -- to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.
Expand our Diplomatic Presence: To make diplomacy a priority, Obama and Biden will stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in difficult corners of the world -- particularly in Africa. They will expand our foreign service, and develop our civilian capacity to work alongside the military.
Fight Global Poverty: Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to achieve that goal. This will help the world's weakest states build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.
Seek New Partnerships in Asia: Obama and Biden will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. They will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia; work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.
Israel
Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, and believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the region. They support this closeness, and have stated that the United States will never distance itself from Israel.
Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He and Joe Biden believe strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.
Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.
Bipartisanship and Openness
A Record of Bringing People Together: In the Senate, Obama has worked with Republicans and Democrats to advance important policy initiatives on securing weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons, increasing funding for nonproliferation, and countering instability in Congo.
Consultative Group: Obama and Biden will convene a bipartisan Consultative Group of leading members of Congress to foster better executive-legislative relations and bipartisan unity on foreign policy. This group will be comprised of the congressional leadership of both political parties, and the chair and ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees. This group will meet with the president once a month to review foreign policy priorities, and will be consulted in advance of military action.
Getting Politics out of Intelligence: Obama will insulate the Director of National Intelligence from political pressure by giving the DNI a fixed term, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Obama and Biden will seek consistency and integrity at the top of our intelligence community -- not just a political ally.
Change the Culture of Secrecy: Obama will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.
Engaging the American People on Foreign Policy: Obama and Biden will bring foreign policy decisions directly to the people by requiring their national security officials to have periodic national broadband town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy. Obama will personally deliver Your Weekly Address via webcast.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
LES PARAPLUIES DE CHERBOURG
Depuis quelques jours je vis dans le silence
Des quatres murs de mon amour
Depuis ton depart l'ombre de ton absence
Me pursuit chaque nuit et me fuit chaque jour
Je ne vois plus personne j'ai fait le vide autour de moi
Je ne comprends plus rien parce que je ne suis rien sans toi
J'ai renonce a tout parce que je n'ai plus d'illusions
De notre amour ecoute la chanson
Non je ne pourrai jamais vivre sans toi
Je ne pourrai pas, ne pars pas, j'en mourrai
Un instant sans toi et je n'existe pas
Mais mon amour ne me quitte pas
Mon amour je t'attendrai toute ma vie
Reste pres de moi reviens je t'en supplie
J'ai besoin de toi je veux vivre pour toi
Oh mon amour ne me quitte pas
Ils se sont separes sur le quai d'un gare
Ils se sont eloignes dans un dermier regard
Oh je t'aime ne me quitte pas.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Survey Methodologies to Investigate the Massacred Civilian Victims
Survey Methodologies to Investigate the Massacred Civilian Victims
This project is to survey on the scale of civilian victims of the mass killings taken place during the Korean War and has been proceeded collaborating with outsourced research teams. In 2007, Seokdang Research Institute of Dong-ah University carried out the survey project of the massacred civilian victims in regions such as Gimhae-si, Cheongdo-gun, Gurye-gun, Youngam-gun, Gochang-gun, Gongju-si, Cheongwon-gun, Ganghwa-gun, etc. The selected regions were chosen after carefully speculating the scale and the representative-ness of each mass killing. Particularly, Ganghwa-gun was included because it was a military borderline of the two conflicting powers then, and Gimhae was significant because a large number of mass killings against civilians were occurred even though the region was never taken by the North.
In 2008, Jeonnam University supervised a research project over regions such as Hamyang-gun, Youngcheon-si, Younggwang-gun, Imsil-gun, Youngdong-gun, Inje-gun, etc. One of the commonly used research methodologies was a group interview throughout field researches, and recording and documentation of testimonies from the victims. Individual cases are investigated particularly focused on an outline, a type of damage, a category of perpetrators, and surrounding circumstances of each incident. Then investigated results were then categorized by each geographical denomination, and this statistics became a source of viewing the data in accordance with each region of the country. These collected data, then had to go through an extensive screening test to determine the truthfulness. And the final stage was to reconstruct the categorized groups into other forms depending on necessities.
In 2007, the above-mentioned investigative process was conducted on a total of 3,820 individuals including bereaved family members, witnesses, and witnesses of the incidents. As a result, some 8,600 victims were uncovered.
Categorized by each region, there found 1) 356 victims in Ganghwa-gun, 2) 385 victims in Cheongwon-gun, 3) 365 victims in Gongju-si, 4) 373 victims in Yeocheon-gun, 5) 517 victims in Cheongdo-gun, 6) 283 victims in Gimhae, 7) 1,880 victims in Gochang-gun, 8) 2,818 victims in Youngam-gun, and 9) 1,318 victims in Gurey.
Divided by a type of damage, there found 1) 1,457 leftist guerilla victims by the army or police forces of the South Korea, 2) 1,348 Bodo League member victims, 3) 1,318 local leftist victims, 4) 1,092 victims from Yeosun Incident, and 5) 892 victims accused of being collaborators of the North Korea, etc.
External Affairs
1) Collaboration with Truth-finding Organizations and Regional Autonomous Entities
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter, referred to as “TRCK”) is an organization independent from any governmental/non-governmental political entities, and has sought to bring out veiled incidents that have never been brought up or wrongfully known, thereby pursuing reconciliation between victims and perpetrators. Particularly, it has been significant to maintain close cooperative relationship with regional autonomous political entities, since the investigations had to cover lengthy time period, almost up to a century, deal with areas across the Korean peninsula, and look thoroughly on substantially immense investigative scale to cover.
(1) Collaboration with Truth Commissions Overseas
The TRCK is an organization established to deal with truth-finding issues from the past, and thus it has been very critical to pull out close assistance from the governmental authorities such as the nation’s police forces, the Ministry of Defense, and the National Intelligence Service (formerly known as “KCIA”), etc. The TRCK has held a monthly gathering of heads of truth-finding commissions and had meetings and seminars with the national police, the Ministry of Defense, and the National Intelligence Service, etc. Through building cooperative relationship among the mentioned organizations, the TRCK sought to increase efficiency in carrying out its works by exchanging concerned documentations, sharing thoughts on the selection of research subjects, and adjusting duplicated investigations, etc.
Furthermore, the TRCK co-hosted a conference on ‘Evaluation of Truth-finding Works and the Prospect Thereof’ with the Presidential Commission on Suspicious Death in the Military, the Truth Commission on Forced Mobilization under the Japanese Imperialism, the Presidential Committee for the Inspection of Collaborations for Japanese Imperialism, etc. The concerned commissions shared various field experiences with respect to truth-finding work and exchanged ideas through various seminars and conferences.
(2) Collaboration with Regional Autonomous Bodies
The TRCK is authorized to allocate parts of its missions to local autonomous entities or to carry out the missions in cooperation with them. Currently, receiving petitions, promoting application procedures, and implementing ground researches, etc. have been conducted in cooperation with local autonomous entities.
The TRCK, together with other 246 local autonomous entities, promoted its entitled missions and encouraged to file concerned petitions for a year starting on Dec. 1, 2005. During the period, Song Ki-in, the first president of the TRCK visited 16 different cities and numerous civic groups, and actively engaged in media liaison activities to raise awareness on the significance of truth-finding works assigned to the TRCK.
As a result, a total of 10,860 petitions were filed. The number is considerable, since most of filed incidents were taken place decades ago and there still isn’t concrete trust built between the victimized and the authorities.
2) Collaboration with Bereaved Family Members and Relevant Organizations
The TRCK is entitled to ask experts to join researches concerned with the mandates of the commission, hold conferences to hear advises from experienced professionals regarding truth-finding works. Especially, in the case of investigations on Korea’s independent movement and Korean communities abroad, the commission could carry out relevant investigation in collaboration with relevant research institutes or other agencies specialized in concerned investigative areas.
There was such diversity in scopes of characteristics of investigative institutes and there also were a lot of them that the commission had to deal with. Particularly, the bereaved family union of the civilian victims sacrificed during the Korean War takes up a large portion of petitions filed at the commission, and thus close cooperation and keen assistance from the union was essential.
The TRCK has been making utmost efforts to resolve misunderstandings from more than 50 bereaved family unions, if any, and raise awareness on the commission’s mandates through continuous seminars and meetings. Additionally, the TRCK paid special attention on civic groups to collect diverse opinions and to promote the mandates and missions the TRCK was assigned onto through seminars and forums, thereby attempting to build an alliance there between.
This project is to survey on the scale of civilian victims of the mass killings taken place during the Korean War and has been proceeded collaborating with outsourced research teams. In 2007, Seokdang Research Institute of Dong-ah University carried out the survey project of the massacred civilian victims in regions such as Gimhae-si, Cheongdo-gun, Gurye-gun, Youngam-gun, Gochang-gun, Gongju-si, Cheongwon-gun, Ganghwa-gun, etc. The selected regions were chosen after carefully speculating the scale and the representative-ness of each mass killing. Particularly, Ganghwa-gun was included because it was a military borderline of the two conflicting powers then, and Gimhae was significant because a large number of mass killings against civilians were occurred even though the region was never taken by the North.
In 2008, Jeonnam University supervised a research project over regions such as Hamyang-gun, Youngcheon-si, Younggwang-gun, Imsil-gun, Youngdong-gun, Inje-gun, etc. One of the commonly used research methodologies was a group interview throughout field researches, and recording and documentation of testimonies from the victims. Individual cases are investigated particularly focused on an outline, a type of damage, a category of perpetrators, and surrounding circumstances of each incident. Then investigated results were then categorized by each geographical denomination, and this statistics became a source of viewing the data in accordance with each region of the country. These collected data, then had to go through an extensive screening test to determine the truthfulness. And the final stage was to reconstruct the categorized groups into other forms depending on necessities.
In 2007, the above-mentioned investigative process was conducted on a total of 3,820 individuals including bereaved family members, witnesses, and witnesses of the incidents. As a result, some 8,600 victims were uncovered.
Categorized by each region, there found 1) 356 victims in Ganghwa-gun, 2) 385 victims in Cheongwon-gun, 3) 365 victims in Gongju-si, 4) 373 victims in Yeocheon-gun, 5) 517 victims in Cheongdo-gun, 6) 283 victims in Gimhae, 7) 1,880 victims in Gochang-gun, 8) 2,818 victims in Youngam-gun, and 9) 1,318 victims in Gurey.
Divided by a type of damage, there found 1) 1,457 leftist guerilla victims by the army or police forces of the South Korea, 2) 1,348 Bodo League member victims, 3) 1,318 local leftist victims, 4) 1,092 victims from Yeosun Incident, and 5) 892 victims accused of being collaborators of the North Korea, etc.
External Affairs
1) Collaboration with Truth-finding Organizations and Regional Autonomous Entities
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter, referred to as “TRCK”) is an organization independent from any governmental/non-governmental political entities, and has sought to bring out veiled incidents that have never been brought up or wrongfully known, thereby pursuing reconciliation between victims and perpetrators. Particularly, it has been significant to maintain close cooperative relationship with regional autonomous political entities, since the investigations had to cover lengthy time period, almost up to a century, deal with areas across the Korean peninsula, and look thoroughly on substantially immense investigative scale to cover.
(1) Collaboration with Truth Commissions Overseas
The TRCK is an organization established to deal with truth-finding issues from the past, and thus it has been very critical to pull out close assistance from the governmental authorities such as the nation’s police forces, the Ministry of Defense, and the National Intelligence Service (formerly known as “KCIA”), etc. The TRCK has held a monthly gathering of heads of truth-finding commissions and had meetings and seminars with the national police, the Ministry of Defense, and the National Intelligence Service, etc. Through building cooperative relationship among the mentioned organizations, the TRCK sought to increase efficiency in carrying out its works by exchanging concerned documentations, sharing thoughts on the selection of research subjects, and adjusting duplicated investigations, etc.
Furthermore, the TRCK co-hosted a conference on ‘Evaluation of Truth-finding Works and the Prospect Thereof’ with the Presidential Commission on Suspicious Death in the Military, the Truth Commission on Forced Mobilization under the Japanese Imperialism, the Presidential Committee for the Inspection of Collaborations for Japanese Imperialism, etc. The concerned commissions shared various field experiences with respect to truth-finding work and exchanged ideas through various seminars and conferences.
(2) Collaboration with Regional Autonomous Bodies
The TRCK is authorized to allocate parts of its missions to local autonomous entities or to carry out the missions in cooperation with them. Currently, receiving petitions, promoting application procedures, and implementing ground researches, etc. have been conducted in cooperation with local autonomous entities.
The TRCK, together with other 246 local autonomous entities, promoted its entitled missions and encouraged to file concerned petitions for a year starting on Dec. 1, 2005. During the period, Song Ki-in, the first president of the TRCK visited 16 different cities and numerous civic groups, and actively engaged in media liaison activities to raise awareness on the significance of truth-finding works assigned to the TRCK.
As a result, a total of 10,860 petitions were filed. The number is considerable, since most of filed incidents were taken place decades ago and there still isn’t concrete trust built between the victimized and the authorities.
2) Collaboration with Bereaved Family Members and Relevant Organizations
The TRCK is entitled to ask experts to join researches concerned with the mandates of the commission, hold conferences to hear advises from experienced professionals regarding truth-finding works. Especially, in the case of investigations on Korea’s independent movement and Korean communities abroad, the commission could carry out relevant investigation in collaboration with relevant research institutes or other agencies specialized in concerned investigative areas.
There was such diversity in scopes of characteristics of investigative institutes and there also were a lot of them that the commission had to deal with. Particularly, the bereaved family union of the civilian victims sacrificed during the Korean War takes up a large portion of petitions filed at the commission, and thus close cooperation and keen assistance from the union was essential.
The TRCK has been making utmost efforts to resolve misunderstandings from more than 50 bereaved family unions, if any, and raise awareness on the commission’s mandates through continuous seminars and meetings. Additionally, the TRCK paid special attention on civic groups to collect diverse opinions and to promote the mandates and missions the TRCK was assigned onto through seminars and forums, thereby attempting to build an alliance there between.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Constitutional Court Rules Property Tax Partly Unconstitutional
The South Korea's Constitutional Court just ruled out yesterday that levying heavier tax on less fortunate while reducing it from the rich, who own more than two homes, is better suit to the spirit of the Korea's Constitution, pointing out it after all is a free capitalist market. How would you reckon?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that a law levying heavier taxes on high-end home owners is partly unconstitutional, vindicating President Lee Myung-bak's proposed tax cuts to boost the economy. The ruling was the first judiciary interpretation of the comprehensive real estate holding tax levied on South Korea's top 2 percent, which was implemented under the government of Lee's liberal predecessor, Roh Moo-hyun."The real estate holding law, which levies tax on a consolidated family basis, contravenes the Constitution" by discriminating married couples against unwed individuals, Lee Kang-kook, the court's chief justice, was quoted as saying by Yonhap News. The Constitutional Court also ruled a clause in the law imposing taxes on single-home owners for residential purposes not in conformity with the Constitution.The progressive tax has caused a sharp division along ideological and party lines.Seven groups of high-end homeowners, mostly from an affluent district in southern Seoul, have filed constitutional complaints since 2006, claiming the tax is unfair and overlaps with other property taxes. They claim it "violates one's property rights and the principles of a market economy and private ownership," according to documents released by the Constitutional Court.Roh levied the tax under the principle of wealth-distribution, claiming it would help the lower class and cash-strapped provincial governments and curb real estate speculation. It imposes a 1-3 percent tax on those owning property worth 600 million won ($430,137) or more.The court, however, found the family-based taxation regime, which determines the taxable amount by combining the assets of all members of a single family rather than on an individual basis, discriminates against married couples and thus is in violation of the Constitution's family values. The court said, "The protection for marriage and family lives are a much greater value than the stabilization of the real estate market or the prevention of tax evasion, which are pursued by the real estate tax law."Roh once said in a warning to conservatives that he would "make the real-estate holding law more difficult to amend than the Constitution." The Finance Ministry, which initially backed the tax under Roh, announced in September that it was changing its position and that it would now raise the minimum tax base to 900 million won and lower the tax rate to 0.5-1 percent. The move will halve the number of households subject to the surtax to 161,000 from the current 387,000.Finance Minister Kang Man-soo, perceived by many as emblematic of Korea's wealthy elite, once compared the ownership tax law to regulations imposed in Germany under Adolf Hitler, who Kang said "enacted laws with the backing of majority support."With the court's ruling, President Lee's proposed tax cuts will now gain momentum despite warnings from civic groups and opposition parties that the cuts will serve to exacerbate the nation's already-wide income gap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that a law levying heavier taxes on high-end home owners is partly unconstitutional, vindicating President Lee Myung-bak's proposed tax cuts to boost the economy. The ruling was the first judiciary interpretation of the comprehensive real estate holding tax levied on South Korea's top 2 percent, which was implemented under the government of Lee's liberal predecessor, Roh Moo-hyun."The real estate holding law, which levies tax on a consolidated family basis, contravenes the Constitution" by discriminating married couples against unwed individuals, Lee Kang-kook, the court's chief justice, was quoted as saying by Yonhap News. The Constitutional Court also ruled a clause in the law imposing taxes on single-home owners for residential purposes not in conformity with the Constitution.The progressive tax has caused a sharp division along ideological and party lines.Seven groups of high-end homeowners, mostly from an affluent district in southern Seoul, have filed constitutional complaints since 2006, claiming the tax is unfair and overlaps with other property taxes. They claim it "violates one's property rights and the principles of a market economy and private ownership," according to documents released by the Constitutional Court.Roh levied the tax under the principle of wealth-distribution, claiming it would help the lower class and cash-strapped provincial governments and curb real estate speculation. It imposes a 1-3 percent tax on those owning property worth 600 million won ($430,137) or more.The court, however, found the family-based taxation regime, which determines the taxable amount by combining the assets of all members of a single family rather than on an individual basis, discriminates against married couples and thus is in violation of the Constitution's family values. The court said, "The protection for marriage and family lives are a much greater value than the stabilization of the real estate market or the prevention of tax evasion, which are pursued by the real estate tax law."Roh once said in a warning to conservatives that he would "make the real-estate holding law more difficult to amend than the Constitution." The Finance Ministry, which initially backed the tax under Roh, announced in September that it was changing its position and that it would now raise the minimum tax base to 900 million won and lower the tax rate to 0.5-1 percent. The move will halve the number of households subject to the surtax to 161,000 from the current 387,000.Finance Minister Kang Man-soo, perceived by many as emblematic of Korea's wealthy elite, once compared the ownership tax law to regulations imposed in Germany under Adolf Hitler, who Kang said "enacted laws with the backing of majority support."With the court's ruling, President Lee's proposed tax cuts will now gain momentum despite warnings from civic groups and opposition parties that the cuts will serve to exacerbate the nation's already-wide income gap.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Ridicules in Korea; reoccurring under Lee; Did Candlelit Ralliers Play 'Hwatu' or Not?
By Kim RahnStaff ReporterPolice apprehended five civic activists wanted for alleged illegalities in organizing candlelit protests against the resumption of U.S. beef imports, at a hotel in Gangwon Province, Thursday. But whether they were playing ``hwatu'' (a traditional Korean poker-style game) at the time of their capture is drawing attention from the public.Police claim they found the five playing the traditional game and drinking, but the civic group members deny they were playing the card game, alleging police were trying to tarnish their image.``They were playing hwatu and drinking alcohol when police caught them them,'' an officer said.However, the lawyer representing the five denied the allegation, saying, ``They bought soju and asked the worker at the front desk if she had hwatu cards in order to pretend they were there to gamble, because hotel workers might have been suspicious of five male adults gathering in one room.''At the same time, the group issued a statement saying that they were not playing the card game. ``It's a plot by the police to ignite public criticism against candlelit protestors,'' the statement said.The five men went on the run last week after hiding in a Seoul temple for months. They had been staging rallies in the Jogye Temple compound, downtown Seoul, since early July. Police have repeatedly tried to arrest them for organizing illegal rallies but they evaded surveillance by 50 officers.Police learned of their whereabouts through their cell phone records and closed-circuit television recordings, Wednesday. They raided the hotel at night, catching four who were in the room and one who was outside the hotel going for a walk.Besides the five, four people are still on the wanted list, including Lee Seok-haeng, head of the Korea Confederation of Trade Unions.Police took them to Jongno Police Station in Seoul and will seek arrest warrants.Park Won-seok, the leader of a civic coalition against mad cow disease, said, ``I know that people worried about us a great deal. We are sorry for being caught this early.'' Their lawyer said that they had planned to hold a press briefing Monday but changed the date after the plan was leaked. ``They again tried to hold it Wednesday, but delayed it because of the U.S. presidential election. They gathered at the hotel to reset the briefing date,'' the lawyer said.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Mass Murder of Accused Leftists in Naju, etc.
Below are some of the summarized cases the TRC has been dealt with for last few months. Visit our website for more details. (www.jinsil.go.kr)
Mass Murder of Accused Leftists in Naju
Twenty seven petitioners filed for a truth verification of a mass murder taken place in Naju, February 26, 1951. According to the petitioners, a total of twenty eight villagers were summarily executed at Cheolcheon-ri, Bonghwang—myeon in Naju-si without adequate judicial procedures with accusation of collaborating with communist guerillas. The TRC found the Naju Police Special Forces was responsible for the atrocity, and recommended the government to officially apologize to the victims, subsequently restore the honor of the dead, and implement preventive measures.
Falsification of an Espionage Charge on Lee Soo-keun
Lee Soo-keun, the former vice president of the [1]Korean Central News Agency in the [2]Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, was exiled to the [3]Republic of Korea through the Demilitarized Zone in March 22, 1967. Lee, then, had worked as an analyst at the [4]KCIA until he was caught by KCIA agents en route to Cambodia under forged passports on January 27, 1969. After returning to South Korea, Lee was charged with violating the National Security Law and the Anti-communist Law by secretly collecting classified information and taking them out of the country, etc. Death sentence was imposed on Lee on May 10, 1969 and his execution was subsequently followed on July 2 of the same year. South Korea’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, hereby ascertained the KCIA illegally confined Lee, thereby meeting prerequisites of a retrial abiding by the provision 7 under Article 420 and Article 422 of the Criminal Law. The commission also said the illegal confinement during the interrogation, the prosecution solely relying on defendant’s statements failed to satisfy the Rule of Evidence. Hereby, the commission recommended the government with an official apology, restoration of the honor of the dead, and a retrial in accordance with its findings.
Abduction of Taeyoungho
Five petitioners pleaded for a truth verification concerning an abduction case of Taeyoungho crews. The crews were forcibly taken away by the North Korean coast guards when they get caught fishing on the North Korean side of the [5]Military Demarcation Line (MDL). They were sentenced guilty by the South Korean authorities for violating Anti-communist Law soon after they returned from the four-month detention in North Korea. The commission found illegal confinement and torture were imposed to the crews during interrogation at Buan Police Office, which makes the case qualified for a retrial. Additionally, the commission verified the falsification of an espionage charge on the abductees and the prosecution without sufficient evidences, only based on testimonies from the defendants, did not meet the [6]Rule of Evidence. Hereby, the commission advised the government to officially apologize to the victims and have a retrial in accordance with its findings.
Falsified Espionage Charges on Shin Gui-young’s Family
Shin Gui-young was sentenced 10 years of imprisonment for allegedly collecting classified military information with an order given by Shin Soo-young, the senior member of [7]Chosen Soren in Japan. Shin was sentenced guilty at the Busan District Court in 1980 and released upon completion of his 10 year term. The commission ascertained the forceful confinement and the torture given to Shin violated the rule of evidence, thereby advising the government with an official apology and a retrial in accordance with the findings.
Aram-hoe Incident
Park Hae-jeon et. al., a total of eleven residents of Geumsan and Daejon of which occupations varied from teacher, student, salary man, soldier, housewife, etc., had held a regular meeting between May 1980 and July 1981, based on friendship originated from their school days. They were taken to the Daejon Police Office and arrested soon after for having inappropriate gatherings and subsequently exchanging traitorous conversation therein. They were accused of violating the National Security Law by constituting a treasonous organization and praising enemies of the nation, and sentenced with the 10 years of imprisonment and suspension, etc. The commission found the concerned investigative institutes including Chungcheongnam-do’s Provisional Police Station conducted illegal confinement, brutal torture, and improperly imposed charges on the victims without sufficient evidence. Hereby, the TRC recommended the government with a retrial of the case along with an official apology to the victims.
[1] The state news agency of North Korea and has existed since December 5, 1946; headquartered in Pyongyang, the capital of the North Korea and released its articles in English, Russian, and Spanish.
[2] DPRK, a.k.a., known as North Korea
[3] ROK, a.k.a., known as South Korea
[4] The precedent entity of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) in South Korea
[5] a.k.a., Armistice Line, is the border between North Korea and South Korea. The Military Demarcation Line was established as the ceasefire line at the end of Korean War hostilities in 1953.
[6] Rule of evidence is that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt; because no accused person may be forced to testify against himself, the prosecution must supply evidence of the crime.
[7] a.k.a., Jochongryon (조총련 in Korean) is one of two main organizations for Koreans residing in Japan, and has close ties to North Korea (DPRK).
Wikipedia Founder Speaks Against Online Control
SEE ALSO THE WIKEPEDIA SITE OF THE TRUTH COMMISSION OF KOREA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Korea)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
By Kim Tong-hyung
Staff Reporter
The founder of Wikipedia said the South Korean government efforts to impose rules for Internet users will eventually fail.
Struggling to cope with the online criticism of its policies, the Lee Myung-bak government has been considering new laws to control Internet postings, which include plans to limit anonymity at commonly used Web sites and strengthening regulations for all sites publishing news.
``Overkill,'' says Jimmy Wales, the founder of the online encyclopedia, referring to a legislative effort by the government.
``This is certainly a dangerous path to go down,'' Wales told The Korea Times on the sidelines of a Web industry conference in southern Seoul Tuesday.
``The governments that are given the power to block things usually tend to block things, including information that originally wasn't intended to be blocked from access,'' said Wales.
``The most important solution to this kinds of bad behavior in the Internet may rest on the design of community spaces, whether the community has the ability to control what's going on. At Wikipedia, the community quickly identifies and blocks the people that misbehave and delete their negative contributes.
``I am not a big fan of limiting anonymity to have users behave themselves better, as there is very little evidence that actually works anywhere,'' he said.
Wales' distaste for Web surveillance is easy understandable when Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia written and edited by its users, is now widely considered the shining beacon of user-generated content, proof that sometimes an undefined group of amateur volunteers can produce better results than a unit of professionals.
Wikipedia, which has more than 2.6 million articles in English and over 10 million articles in 150 languages, is now one of the world's top 10 most popular Web sites.
Finding a balance between editorial judgment and censorship, thus finding the balance between openness and controlling the quality of content, is a question that faces Wales everyday.
Unlike its image of freewheeling openness, Wikipedia actually empowers a core community of editors and administrators who make decisions on whether to keep or delete articles according to the ``worthiness'' of the subject and credibility of the content.
``Deciding what to delete and what to keep is an ongoing process in the community that requires a lot of discussions and debate, but the most important factor in these judgments is verifiability,'' said Wales.
``The community puts a lot of effort in confirming whether the information is actually true, through third-party verification, consulting with reliable sources and many other factors,'' he said.
Despite the country's high broadband Internet penetration rate, Wikipedia's Korean language page has been struggling to gain acceptance, with just 700,000 articles and around 500 regular contributors.
Daum, the country's No. 2 Internet portal, signed a deal to provide their encyclopedic content to Wikipedia's Korean page and provide them in its search results, which are expected to increase the number of articles to around 180,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Korea)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
By Kim Tong-hyung
Staff Reporter
The founder of Wikipedia said the South Korean government efforts to impose rules for Internet users will eventually fail.
Struggling to cope with the online criticism of its policies, the Lee Myung-bak government has been considering new laws to control Internet postings, which include plans to limit anonymity at commonly used Web sites and strengthening regulations for all sites publishing news.
``Overkill,'' says Jimmy Wales, the founder of the online encyclopedia, referring to a legislative effort by the government.
``This is certainly a dangerous path to go down,'' Wales told The Korea Times on the sidelines of a Web industry conference in southern Seoul Tuesday.
``The governments that are given the power to block things usually tend to block things, including information that originally wasn't intended to be blocked from access,'' said Wales.
``The most important solution to this kinds of bad behavior in the Internet may rest on the design of community spaces, whether the community has the ability to control what's going on. At Wikipedia, the community quickly identifies and blocks the people that misbehave and delete their negative contributes.
``I am not a big fan of limiting anonymity to have users behave themselves better, as there is very little evidence that actually works anywhere,'' he said.
Wales' distaste for Web surveillance is easy understandable when Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia written and edited by its users, is now widely considered the shining beacon of user-generated content, proof that sometimes an undefined group of amateur volunteers can produce better results than a unit of professionals.
Wikipedia, which has more than 2.6 million articles in English and over 10 million articles in 150 languages, is now one of the world's top 10 most popular Web sites.
Finding a balance between editorial judgment and censorship, thus finding the balance between openness and controlling the quality of content, is a question that faces Wales everyday.
Unlike its image of freewheeling openness, Wikipedia actually empowers a core community of editors and administrators who make decisions on whether to keep or delete articles according to the ``worthiness'' of the subject and credibility of the content.
``Deciding what to delete and what to keep is an ongoing process in the community that requires a lot of discussions and debate, but the most important factor in these judgments is verifiability,'' said Wales.
``The community puts a lot of effort in confirming whether the information is actually true, through third-party verification, consulting with reliable sources and many other factors,'' he said.
Despite the country's high broadband Internet penetration rate, Wikipedia's Korean language page has been struggling to gain acceptance, with just 700,000 articles and around 500 regular contributors.
Daum, the country's No. 2 Internet portal, signed a deal to provide their encyclopedic content to Wikipedia's Korean page and provide them in its search results, which are expected to increase the number of articles to around 180,000.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Risking His Life for North Korean Refugees
MBA Student's Book Tells a Harrowing Tale
Mike Kim (G'09), a financial planner from Chicago, imagined he would return from his two-week vacation in China well-rested and rejuvenated for another year of work. Instead, the young business owner returned to the states shaken, unable to forget the horror stories told to him by North Korean refugees and their children.
"I distinctly remember sitting across from clients talking about mutual funds, retirement plans and insurance while feeling completely disengaged by it all," says Kim of his 2001 trip. "The North Korean refugees I had met on my trip weighed heavily on my heart. At that moment I knew what I had to do – I had to go to China to help."
Leaving his business in Chicago, Kim moved to California to learn Mandarin and Korean, and to prepare himself for humanitarian aid work in China. On New Year's Day 2003, carrying little more than two duffle bags and a one-way ticket, Kim moved to the China-Korea border. He spent the majority of his first year getting to know North Koreans and their culture.
"As our friendships grew, I earned their trust," Kim says. "They opened up and shared their deepest secrets with me – things they had never told anyone else."
Kim shares these refugees' stories with the public in his new book, "Escaping North Korea: Defiance and Hope in the World's Most Repressive Country" (Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2008).
"I often sat with pen and paper and listened for hours to the North Korean refugees tell me their stories," Kim says. "Civilians and soldiers alike spoke of what North Koreans think of Americans and war with America … Children remembered the suffering they endured through the famine. Women and girls recalled their horrific experiences at the hands of sex-traffickers. Former political prisoners shared their memories of beatings, torture and executions in the gulags."
Kim's classmate in McDonough School of Business' MBA program says he is left with vivid images of the life that North Korean refugees face.
"Some stories are so shocking that there were times when I had to put the book down for a moment to digest what I had just read," says Steven Schuler (G'09). "Mike is modest about his accomplishments, so as a classmate I'm proud for him, both for his work directly with refugees … and for bringing attention to the situation."
One of the few Americans granted entry into North Korea, Kim came to know the isolated country and its people intimately.
"This is a story of heroes – of North Koreans … risking their lives to flee the world's most repressive dictatorship. And of a heroic young Korean American, the author, Mike Kim, who risked his own life for four years on the China-North Korea border," Mark Palmer, vice chair of Freedom House and the Council for a Community of Democracies, writes in the book's introduction. Palmer, a former U.S. ambassador to Hungary, sits on the Walsh School of Foreign Service's Institute for the Study of Diplomacy board.
Living on the China-North Korea border, Kim quickly learned of the hundreds of thousands of North Koreans fleeing to China in search of food and freedom via a 6,000-mile modern-day underground railroad through Asia. With increased security at embassies and consulates in China, Kim risked his own life leading North Koreans on the treacherous journey across the border to asylum in China. He spent four years working with the refugees on the Chinese border before returning to the United States.
"This is an inspiring yet tragic study of the brave few in North Korea who have chosen to vote with their feet to leave the earth's most repressive regime," says Victor Cha, director of Asian studies and D. S. Song-Korea Foundation Chair in Asian Studies and Government.
In addition to writing his book, which is available at the Main Campus bookstore, Kim also founded the nongovernmental organization Crossing Borders Ministries, which provides food, clothes, shelter and medicine to North Korean refugees in China. Since 2003, Kim's organization has established 25 refugee shelters and five orphanages near the China-North Korea border, and has saved hundreds of refugees fleeing for their lives.
"Through our shelters, children who might have ended up in gangs or brothels now have a chance at life … We stress education and encourage them to dream," says Kim. "By applying both humanitarian aid and faith effectively, Crossing Borders is, I believe, a model for the future."
Born and raised in Chicago, Kim graduated in 1999 from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with dreams of attending business school. Now a full-time MBA student at the McDonough School of Business, Kim says he plans on returning to nonprofit work in the future.
"In moving to the China-North Korea border to help some of the most destitute people in the world today, I feel that I have been liberated," Kim says. "As much as I have taught them, they have taught me more … and in helping them, I have gained a greater sense of purpose and fulfillment for my own career."
Mike Kim (G'09), a financial planner from Chicago, imagined he would return from his two-week vacation in China well-rested and rejuvenated for another year of work. Instead, the young business owner returned to the states shaken, unable to forget the horror stories told to him by North Korean refugees and their children.
"I distinctly remember sitting across from clients talking about mutual funds, retirement plans and insurance while feeling completely disengaged by it all," says Kim of his 2001 trip. "The North Korean refugees I had met on my trip weighed heavily on my heart. At that moment I knew what I had to do – I had to go to China to help."
Leaving his business in Chicago, Kim moved to California to learn Mandarin and Korean, and to prepare himself for humanitarian aid work in China. On New Year's Day 2003, carrying little more than two duffle bags and a one-way ticket, Kim moved to the China-Korea border. He spent the majority of his first year getting to know North Koreans and their culture.
"As our friendships grew, I earned their trust," Kim says. "They opened up and shared their deepest secrets with me – things they had never told anyone else."
Kim shares these refugees' stories with the public in his new book, "Escaping North Korea: Defiance and Hope in the World's Most Repressive Country" (Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2008).
"I often sat with pen and paper and listened for hours to the North Korean refugees tell me their stories," Kim says. "Civilians and soldiers alike spoke of what North Koreans think of Americans and war with America … Children remembered the suffering they endured through the famine. Women and girls recalled their horrific experiences at the hands of sex-traffickers. Former political prisoners shared their memories of beatings, torture and executions in the gulags."
Kim's classmate in McDonough School of Business' MBA program says he is left with vivid images of the life that North Korean refugees face.
"Some stories are so shocking that there were times when I had to put the book down for a moment to digest what I had just read," says Steven Schuler (G'09). "Mike is modest about his accomplishments, so as a classmate I'm proud for him, both for his work directly with refugees … and for bringing attention to the situation."
One of the few Americans granted entry into North Korea, Kim came to know the isolated country and its people intimately.
"This is a story of heroes – of North Koreans … risking their lives to flee the world's most repressive dictatorship. And of a heroic young Korean American, the author, Mike Kim, who risked his own life for four years on the China-North Korea border," Mark Palmer, vice chair of Freedom House and the Council for a Community of Democracies, writes in the book's introduction. Palmer, a former U.S. ambassador to Hungary, sits on the Walsh School of Foreign Service's Institute for the Study of Diplomacy board.
Living on the China-North Korea border, Kim quickly learned of the hundreds of thousands of North Koreans fleeing to China in search of food and freedom via a 6,000-mile modern-day underground railroad through Asia. With increased security at embassies and consulates in China, Kim risked his own life leading North Koreans on the treacherous journey across the border to asylum in China. He spent four years working with the refugees on the Chinese border before returning to the United States.
"This is an inspiring yet tragic study of the brave few in North Korea who have chosen to vote with their feet to leave the earth's most repressive regime," says Victor Cha, director of Asian studies and D. S. Song-Korea Foundation Chair in Asian Studies and Government.
In addition to writing his book, which is available at the Main Campus bookstore, Kim also founded the nongovernmental organization Crossing Borders Ministries, which provides food, clothes, shelter and medicine to North Korean refugees in China. Since 2003, Kim's organization has established 25 refugee shelters and five orphanages near the China-North Korea border, and has saved hundreds of refugees fleeing for their lives.
"Through our shelters, children who might have ended up in gangs or brothels now have a chance at life … We stress education and encourage them to dream," says Kim. "By applying both humanitarian aid and faith effectively, Crossing Borders is, I believe, a model for the future."
Born and raised in Chicago, Kim graduated in 1999 from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with dreams of attending business school. Now a full-time MBA student at the McDonough School of Business, Kim says he plans on returning to nonprofit work in the future.
"In moving to the China-North Korea border to help some of the most destitute people in the world today, I feel that I have been liberated," Kim says. "As much as I have taught them, they have taught me more … and in helping them, I have gained a greater sense of purpose and fulfillment for my own career."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)