.


회원 언론기고 및 출판





<코리아헤럴드> 박상식 / Two different views of armistice 60 years on

페이지 정보

작성일2013-11-05 15:23 조회1,482회 댓글0건

본문

 



Two different views of armistice 60 years on


[코리아헤럴드] 기사입력 : 2013-08-19 19:54

This year the two Koreas have celebrated the 60th anniversary of the armistice of the Korean War for different reasons and different purposes.

The countries that made military and nonmilitary contributions to the U.N. Command, particularly South Korea and the U.S., wanted to remind the international community that their participation in the Korean War was the first international effort to make the U.N. a true collective security body and to affirm that the use of force by any individual state or political entity for any purpose is illegal.

Of course, immediately after World War II, the world was beginning to split into two camps ― the Western democratic and the communist camps, and those countries which fought for South Korea mostly belonged to the Western camp.

In this sense, the Korean War was the first manifestation of military confrontation between the two camps. More important for South Korea and the U.S. was that the Korean War made South Korea the torch bearer for the anti-communist movement and the U.S. the sole leader of the Western camp and a true hegemonic power of the world.

For North Korea, the Korean War was a “legitimate” military act by the North Korean regime in response to the armed invasion by the “illegitimate South Korean rebel government.” The North Korean troops almost succeeded in the reunification of the Korean Peninsula but were stopped by the combined forces of South Korea and the U.N. Command.

Then, the tide of the war turned in favor of the latter forces and the North Korean regime itself faced annihilation, only to be saved by Chinese military intervention. It was a heroic victory for Kim Il-sung, the supreme leader of the North Korean regime, and the North Korean people who saved the Korean nation from the South Korean “traitors” and the American “imperialists.” For the North Korean regime, in this sense, it was a double victory: a victory for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and for communism.

The historical implications of the Korean War for the international order are also very important. The Korean division was the first and most serious military conflict between international communism and Western democracy. Later, similar ideological conflicts took place in other parts of the world, including Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba and Yemen. But North Korea is the only surviving communist regime in a divided nation, and the ideological war still persists on the Korean Peninsula while the whole world is globalizing.

The two Koreas have become two contrasting showcases for developing nations: South Korea as a model of successful modernization by capitalist democracy and North Korea as a model of the failure of modernization by communism. This is the reason why the U.S. often urges developing nations to follow the South Korean development model.

On the part of the U.S., its military intervention is the most important foreign policy decision in the post-Cold War era. In my view, it is more significant than Nixon’s rapprochement with China in 1972. The first one was to contain the aggressive movement of international communism, while the latter was to split the international communist movement. By intervening in the Korean conflict directly, the U.S. openly declared its determination to become the leader of the anti-communist movement.

When I was a graduate student at an American university in 1964, I was invited to a debate on the Vietnam War on the university radio. The moderator asked me why I opposed the American intervention in the Vietnam War, while supporting the U.S. intervention in the Korean War. My answer was that an absolute majority of the Vietnamese people supported the Viet Cong, and in contrast an absolute majority of the South Koreans fought for democracy to the end and requested U.S. intervention.

A few weeks ago I was quite surprised to see Thomas Hudner, a Korean War hero, on CNN. According to the CNN report, he visited Pyongyang on July 20 to discuss the recovery of the remains of his fellow navy pilot, Jessie Brown. These two soldiers participated in the famous Jangjin-ho (Chosin) battle on Dec. 4, 1950. Brown’s plane was shot down by enemy ground fire, and Hudner tried to save him but failed. When I served as Korean Consul General in Boston between 1988 and 1992, I used to meet him often. At that time, he was serving as the head of the Veterans Administration of Massachusetts.

During this period, the Korean War Veterans Committee of Massachusetts was busy holding dedication ceremonies for the interchanges of federal highways in memory of Korean War heroes from Massachusetts and erecting the Korean War Memorial at the Navy Shipyard in Charlestown. Most of the time, Hudner was present. In one of my speeches I said off the cuff that Hudner failed to save his fellow soldier but he indirectly saved my life.

The Korean War teaches us at least three lessons. First, the U.N. revealed a great potential as well as an inherent shortcoming. The U.N. Charter incorporated two contradictory mechanisms for the maintenance of peace and security: the collective security system and the balance of power system. The balance of power system is embodied in the collective self-defense and the concert of power systems.

Even after the greatest world war, realpolitik has remained unchanged. Under such a world order, the U.N. collective security system is too idealistic to be respected and practiced by great powers. Under the circumstances, the collective security system led by the U.S. was destined to fail in the Korean War.

The second lesson is that South Korea has learned vividly that there is no permanent ally as there is no permanent enemy. Geopolitics and ideology are two important determinants for its foreign policy. A geopolitically remote but ideologically close big power can be more reliable than a geopolitically close and ideologically remote big power.

The third lesson is relevant to North Korea. North Korea has learned the hard way that its two communist allies acted according to their own national interests, not for the sake of ideological solidarity. The former Soviet Union gave mainly verbal support for fear of a potential conflict with the U.S., while China intervened militarily for fear of the fall of a firewall against American expansionism.

By Park Sang-seek

Park Sang-seek is a professor of the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. ― Ed.

<출처 : http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130819000709>


댓글목록

등록된 댓글이 없습니다.

  Total 447건 11 페이지
회원 언론기고 및 출판 목록
번호 제목
147 “미국, 천안함 안보리 의장성명 시사”/박수길
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1458
2011-05-10
1458
146 6자회담서 천안함 논의할 수도/송민순
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1015
2011-05-10
1015
145 Autistic N.K. and lessons from…
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1064
2011-05-10
1064
144 A grand strategy for a first-c…
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1054
2011-05-10
1054
143 천안함 공격은 北의 '핵 증후군'이다/윤영관
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1181
2011-05-10
1181
142 단호하게, 그러나 슬기롭게 / 이홍구
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1114
2011-05-10
1114
141 [월드컵 가는길] “2022 한국 유치, FIFA 위원…
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1222
2011-05-10
1222
140 환상과 위선과 무지의 대가/이인호
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1140
2011-05-10
1140
139 제헌국회의 정신으로 돌아가자/이홍구
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1125
2011-05-10
1125
138 상하이 한·중 정상회담에 거는 기대/김석우
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1109
2011-05-10
1109
137 세계 말라리아를 퇴치하는 날까지/김승호
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1307
2011-05-10
1307
136 ‘아시아의 세기’ 기다리며 중국에 거는 기대/이홍구
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1059
2011-05-10
1059
135 유엔 사무총장의 G20 참여를 공식화하자/박수길
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1044
2011-05-10
1044
134 그때 그걸 꼭 알아야 했을까/이인호
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1129
2011-05-10
1129
133 아이티에 새마을운동 지원을/조갑동
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1247
2011-05-10
1247
132 [경술국치100년지상좌담회]한·일 원로6명다시100년을…
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1158
2011-05-10
1158
131 잃어버린5년,창조교육으로 되찾고 10년내세계100대 사…
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1054
2011-05-10
1054
130 무상급식, 경쟁없는 평등으로 각인되진 않을까/김주일
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1272
2011-05-10
1272
129 [허문명기자의 사람이야기]김영희 前세르비아 대사
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1444
2011-05-10
1444
128 유명환 외교통상부장관 협회 신년하례식 연설문(2010.…
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1202
2011-05-10
1202
127 국민의 희생을 요구하는 정치/이홍구
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1099
2011-05-10
1099
126 북한 인권문제 제기하려면 우리도 외국인 인권 개선해야/…
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1028
2011-05-10
1028
125 老외교관, 일본어 속 한국말 뿌리찾는 이유는?/김세택
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 2726
2011-05-10
2726
124 우리는 한반도 미래 전략을 갖고 있는가/윤영관
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1076
2011-05-10
1076
123 룸살롱, 민족주의, 그리고 직업의식/이인호
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1113
2011-05-10
1113
122 중국은 북한을 왜 살살 다룰까/이선진
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1206
2011-05-10
1206
121 하경덕의 『사회법칙』 80주년/이홍구
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1126
2011-05-10
1126
120 안보 쓰나미 초래할 고령화/김정원
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1340
2011-05-10
1340
119 美·中이 멀어질수록 北을 끌어당겨야/윤영관
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1087
2011-05-10
1087
118 부패 고발 보상제도의 효과/이인호
일자: 05-10 | 조회: 1082
2011-05-10
1082
게시물 검색







한국외교협회 | 개인정보 보호관리자: 박경훈
E-mail: kcfr@hanmail.net

주소: 서울시 서초구 남부순환로 294길 33
TEL: 02-2186-3600 | FAX: 02-585-6204

Copyright(c) 한국외교협회 All Rights Reserved.
hosting by 1004pr