무제 문서 ::KRIMA:::21세기군사연구소-월간KDR
:::KRIMA:::::21세기군사연구소
무제 문서

공지사항

웹사이트개편작업중입니다..
 

Update News..

[사이트] 새로운메뉴가 추가됩니다
다양한 멀티미디어, 인터뷰, 리뷰, 기고문,행사안내 등의 컨텐츠가 신설된 메뉴를 통해 제공될 예정입니다.
김진욱의 눈
 백년전우 김진욱 편
 사회복무제도의 효율적 운영방안
 제5회 한-중 안보포럼
 Join Us ..

 

 



 로그인  회원가입

Distorted Security Value in Korean Peninsula
김진욱  2009-02-01 07:29:57, 조회 : 30,826, 추천 : 2288




Preface

Coming to India and reading couple a thesis written by Indian young scholars here reminds me of again that there has been a distorted Security concepts and structure in Korean peninsula which did drive me to be motivated for founding KRIMA (Korea Research Institute of Military Affairs).

As we have a saying in Korea 'Help from outsider reads better than the player of Changgi', it is true that outsider from interests of Korean Peninsula can find the fact out better and reads the historical context better. What is more useful than those is their objectivity. Of course, because they are not the Korean natives as we have such like a predestined fate, there surely are some casual misunderstandings and miss-perceptions naturally. I want to describe couple a points about which I have thought for a little while staying in India.



Why not changed in Korean Peninsula after post-cold war?

Why had nothing changed on the Korean Peninsula since the 1953 Panmunjom armistice that ended the Korean War? Why does antagonism still exist between both states in Korean peninsula? If the reason for insecurity in the peninsula had been predominantly the Cold War or ideology conflict as in Germany or Eastern Europe countries, the hostility would have seized to exist after the demise of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War.

It is not going that way in the Korean peninsula. It is because there are still certain political factions who are struggling for their own political power in both states which is not for people and not for peace in the Korean peninsula. It has become clear that there was not ideology, not good will for people but only a few men's political power struggle.  

It was not because of the Cold War or ideology conflict but political partisan struggles. And it will be surely continued in the future of Koran peninsula. So we have to analyze and solve this kind of internal political partisan struggles and its attributes first.

The virtual alliance system of cold war and post-cold war in the Korean peninsula are affected by the structural environment. But there was a more considerable influencing factor upon continuity and change of Security Structure in the Korean peninsula. It is internal hegemony struggles and the political leaders' personalities.

Why South Korea didn't participate armistice talks which is in the aftermath a major factor for the initiative struggling of legitimacy on both Korea. The reason why South Korea didn't participate armistice talks is because of the character of the first President Rhee who denied sitting with communist invaders at the same table and the truce without unification.

It became one of the strong demerits for South Korea to compete the legitimacy with North Korea. However that kind of dignity of political leaders and internal hegemony struggles in South and North Korea will be still the important factors of decision making to form contours of the security paradigm in Korean peninsula in the future.



What is real security value? State Security, Party Security or People's Security?

After the liberation from Japanese colony in 1945, would the merger of internal parties in Korean Peninsula quite obviously not be possible in the very beginning because of super-powers' potential intentions? Yes, there surely was international causes around Korean peninsula at that time as the theory of neo-realists explain but I would emphasize there was strong internal ideational struggles and partisan spirits which was more influential to worsen the situation of Korean peninsula culminating in the War.

Kim Koo was strongly against the provisions of the trusteeship or partition but as trends towards partition became more pronounced, he accepted it. Why Kim Koo strongly against the provisions of the trusteeship or partition and why later he accepted partition. Why Kim Koo's attitude was changing is the key point for defining the essence of the situations of Korean peninsula and who and what was the real patriotism, real people's interest deliverer and real perception of security value rather than partisan political interest.
Kim Koo denied the trusteeship or partition for the country-oriented interest rather than his political interest and he accepted the partition for people's interest and the peace in the Korean peninsula later according to the worsening partisan conflict situation. I can't help pointing out that perception, it is because of the importance of that conception on the continuity and change of security paradigm in the Korean peninsula, and why civil community power in South Korea comes out gaining political legitimacy and to draw the emerging contours of the security paradigm in the post-cold war era.

It will be getting more important to make it clear who is real peace-loving person, who is real patriot and who percepts real security value in the future rather than who and which is now playing a greater role on the forming security paradigm.




What is legitimacy and representative in Korean Peninsula?

There has been the legitimacy and representative competition between both Korea which used to be a main reason for identity of both sovereignties. Because both Korea didn't have authority for the government the legitimacy and representative competition has been fiercely carried during and post Cold War. North Korea didn't have the authority from UN agreement. South Korea didn't have the authority from the representative of the government officials with appointment of former officials who used to serve at dictating Japanese government.

The legitimacy and representative competition between both Korea is still going on. It will also be a good factor to analyze the continuity and change in the post-cold war era and draw the emerging contours of the security paradigm in Korean peninsula. So it is needed to make it clear what legitimacy and representative in Korean peninsula are.

Is it people's vote? Is it international support or circumference structural variables and advantages? Is it actual power in military or economy? Is it welfare or freedom for the people? Justice or Truth? Or goodwill for the unification? No. It would be and should be only peace in the peninsula at present and in the future. Therefore there are growing multitudes in Korea who don't want unification with conflicts but partition with peace. That wisdom will be a good factor for forming the security structure in the peninsula as the people in Korea are getting matured politically.




What should be major factors in the future?

Why in North Triangle there were DPRK-PRC treaty and DPRK-USSR treaty but not PRC-USSR treaty and in South Triangle why there were USA-ROK and USA-Japan treaty but not Korea-Japan treaty. This analysis is strongly needed for defining the properties of the virtual alliance system in the Korean peninsula during the Cold war, the continuity and change in the post-cold war era and then to draw the emerging contours of the security paradigm in the peninsula and the Asia-Pacific area.

That is on what and how mutual countries give and take mutual interests. There was strong need for something to exchange between mutual countries in DPRK-PRC, DPRK-USSR and USA-Korea. As we well know those are security assurance and economic support for one side and block-formation and initiative for the other side in return.

Actually those are not imminent or serious between mutual countries in USSR-PRC and Korea-Japan differently because of historical antagonism or companionship in Ideology as writer argues. Not Ideology and not historical antagonism but security assurance and economic relations will also be the key factors for drawing the emerging contours of power structure in the peninsula and the Asia-Pacific area which deservedly cultural factors and civil society movement will be added to in the future.

Why did South Korean President Rhee want US army to stay in Korean peninsula after the War, and Why did not North Korean leader Kim Ilsung want PRC army to stay in Korea after the War. That's just because of geographical reason. Both the states wanted to be independent even though they needed assistance from their allies. If China was far away geographically from North Korea, Kim Ilsung's way how to manage China would be different. Geographical variables will be a great factor for drawing the emerging contours of the security paradigm in the peninsula.

What should be major factors for constructing security paradigm in Korean peninsula in the future? They are definitely No.1 The value of independence, No.2 The people's security and No.3 The economic interests and cultural variables.



Conclusion

Lately the concept of 'One nation and two states' is getting natural to Korean people. Even to me the concept of two states was impossible in my mind for a long time. After reading the papers here in India, I found the thought that each one side of Korea should be overriding the other side of Korea for the unification at any cost by its initiative was so stupid.

That thought was strange to some Indian scholars their thoughts of which used to be very strange to Korean People including me. The unwillingness on the part of the regimes to accept the territorial division of the peninsula and the concept one nation and two states led to mounting tension and frequent clashes all along the 38th parallel. Because of that foolishness we made a War in the peninsula and killed the virtual people more than a million.

There are, of course, several other motivations yet the main purpose of KRIMA is to create objective Security Strategies that most effectively serve for the Korean People as a whole rather than any particular political individuals, any privileged groups or factions and any regional super-powers. Therefore studying here in India will be very helpful for me to find out how and what direction I could steer the institute of KRIMA in the future.  


  추천하기   목록보기

번호 제목 작성자 작성일   추천 조회
251  한중군사관계 전망과 한중안보포럼의 발전방향    military 2009/11/08 1877 11923
250  HANGUL DAY Speech (by Kim Jin Woog)    김진욱 2009/10/10 1605 10036
249  발행인의 메시지: 제7회 '한중 안보포럼'을 준비하며... (한글,영문)    military 2009/10/10 1583 18981
248  “KOREA-CHINA SECURITY FORUM”: ISSUES AND DIRECTIONS..    김진욱 2009/09/23 2177 15521
247  '소유의 문제를 극복하는 일'로 할까?    김진욱 2009/09/23 1824 10303
246  KDR의 정체성...    김진욱 2009/09/18 1758 10418
245  '박경철의 공감 80분' - 키워드 "비주류"    김진욱 2009/08/16 2144 22199
244  나마스떼 인디아...    김진욱 2009/08/14 2096 22049
243  국군방송 국방초대석 인터뷰 - 연평해전    김진욱 2009/06/29 1834 22858
242  누가 북한을 핵보유국으로 만들었나?    김진욱 2009/05/25 1976 22736
241  노무현 대통령의 죽음 (김재엽)  [1]  김진욱 2009/05/24 1863 22431
240  사모님들의 행차...    김진욱 2009/05/23 2285 24781
239  The Future of Six-Party Talks (by Kim Jin-Wook)    김진욱 2009/04/25 2006 23478
238  군사세계 창간 15주년 인사말    김진욱 2009/03/25 1827 23806
237  합동성 관련 MOU 협약 인사말 (답사)    김진욱 2009/03/13 1998 24510
236  [Urantia] A Personal Story from a Korean Reader /written by KIM    military 2009/02/11 2047 25230
235    [Urantia] Korean Urantia Association Report written by UAI Membership chair.    military 2009/02/11 1988 25473
234  왜곡된 안보가치    김진욱 2009/02/08 1954 23801
233  Sun Tzu and IR Theories    김진욱 2009/02/03 2074 24465
 Distorted Security Value in Korean Peninsula    김진욱 2009/02/01 2288 30826
231  나이 들어 공부 좀 해보려고 합니다. - Who is Kim Jinwoog?    김진욱 2009/01/11 2076 80888
230  謹 賀 新 年    김진욱 2008/12/20 2692 23250
229  美國式의 合理와 美國式 無智    김진욱 2008/11/14 1962 23983
228  제6회 한중안보포럼과 관련하여...    김진욱 2008/11/03 2148 24308
227  건군 60주년에 즈음하여...    김진욱 2008/09/30 2070 22738
226  야구 전두환의 승리다.    김진욱 2008/08/22 2146 20745
225  쓸쓸한 잔치 서울시 교육감 선거를 보면서....    김진욱 2008/07/31 1545 18083
224  대통령령 28호를 즉각 개정하라. - 박계향  [1]  김진욱 2008/07/29 1651 18838
223  연평해전 관련 국군방송 인터뷰 내용    김진욱 2008/07/01 1581 18831
222  [인터뷰] MBC 케이블채널 Every1 인터뷰    military 2008/07/01 1664 19061

    목록보기   이전페이지   다음페이지 [1][2][3][4] 5 [6][7][8][9][10]..[13]   [다음 10개]
       

Copyright 1999-2019 Zeroboard / skin by zero



무제 문서


21세기 군사연구소 / 월간 군사세계 KDR
Korea Research Institute of Military Affairs / Korea Defense Review
Copyright (C) 1995~2013 All Rights Reserved T : 842-3105~7 / F : 842-3108 / Contact Us