미·중·일 관계의 변화와 한국의 선택: MD를 둘러 싼 안전보장 문제를 중심으로

Abstract

미·중·일 간에 펼쳐지고 있는 MD정책공방은 역사적 맥락에서 판단할 필요가 있다. 즉, 미·중·일 관계는 20세기에 와서 여러 번 전략적 변천을 했으며 롤러 코스트처럼 변화하고 있다. 미·중 관계는 클린턴 정부 시대의 ‘전략적 파트너쉽’으로부터 ‘전략적 경쟁자’시대로 변하고 있고 여기에 일본이 추종(bandwagoning)하는 형세가 형성되고 있다. 미국은 MD 추진의 명분으로 북한, 이란, 이라크, 중국 등으로부터의 미사일 공격을 강조하고 있으나 그 가능성은 아주 희박한 것이라고 할 수 있고, 사실은 미국의 방위 산업에 예산을 보다 많이 분배하고 중국을 견제하려는 의도라고 생각된다. 따라서 MD는 미국의 안전뿐만 아니라 세계의 안전에도 도움이 되지 않는 비현실적인 방위계획이며, 우주마저 군사화 함으로써 전 인류의 안전을 위협하는 요인이 될 것이다. 현재 미국은 MD를 추진하기 위하여 일본, 한국, 대만을 무리하게 끌어넣으려 하고 있다. 이 과정에서 미일은 중국에 대한 편견을 조장하려 하고 있으며 일본이 여기에 동조하는 것은 동북아의 안전보장에 우려할 만한 일이다. 한편 한국으로서도 미국의 종용에 따라 ‘외교의 주체성’ 없이 이 계획에 전면적으로 참가한다면 중국, 러시아, 북한 등과의 관계에서 막대한 손실이 예상되므로 신중한 대처를 하여야 할 것이다.

To understand what is the real problem of MD policy discourse between the U.S., China, and Japan, we must think in historical perspective. Like a roller-coaster, the U.S.-China-Japan trilateral relations in the 20th century has been frequently changed. During Clinton Administration, the U.S.-China relations was termed‘strategic partnership,’ but in Bush Administration, it has transformed to‘strategic competitor’relations. Throughout this period, the Japanese government has generally bandwagoned to the U.S. policy to China. The real goal of MD policy by the U.S. Government is to distribute more money to defense industry(the supporters of Republican Party) and to restrain arising Chinese power. So called the threats of‘Rogue States’ like North Korea, Iran, Iraq and the threat of Chinese Missiles are not true. All they do not have the power to hit America. Therefore, MD is unrealistic, not only unhelpful for the U.S. security but also for World Security. And the fact that MD will be deployed in Outer Space make the humankind more vulnerable. Now the U.S. Government is planning to deploy MD with the help of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. In this Process, the U.S. and the Japanese Government make some bias against China, citing Chinese missile threat. It is clear that bandwagoning of the Japanese Government to U.S policy toward China will make Northeast security environment destabilizing. For South Korea, the diplomatic option is clear. To avoid unnecessary great conflicts with China, Russia and more importantly with North Korea, we must approach this problem carefully. In some cases we must be prepared to say‘No’to MD net. That means we must keep the ‘diplomatic independence’ of South Korea.

To understand what is the real problem of MD policy discourse between the U.S., China, and Japan, we must think in historical perspective. Like a roller-coaster, the U.S.-China-Japan trilateral relations in the 20th century has been frequently changed. During Clinton Administration, the U.S.-China relations was termed‘strategic partnership,’ but in Bush Administration, it has transformed to‘strategic competitor’relations. Throughout this period, the Japanese government has generally bandwagoned to the U.S. policy to China. The real goal of MD policy by the U.S. Government is to distribute more money to defense industry(the supporters of Republican Party) and to restrain arising Chinese power. So called the threats of‘Rogue States’ like North Korea, Iran, Iraq and the threat of Chinese Missiles are not true. All they do not have the power to hit America. Therefore, MD is unrealistic, not only unhelpful for the U.S. security but also for World Security. And the fact that MD will be deployed in Outer Space make the humankind more vulnerable. Now the U.S. Government is planning to deploy MD with the help of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. In this Process, the U.S. and the Japanese Government make some bias against China, citing Chinese missile threat. It is clear that bandwagoning of the Japanese Government to U.S policy toward China will make Northeast security environment destabilizing. For South Korea, the diplomatic option is clear. To avoid unnecessary great conflicts with China, Russia and more importantly with North Korea, we must approach this problem carefully. In some cases we must be prepared to say‘No’to MD net. That means we must keep the ‘diplomatic independence’ of South Korea.