평화경제를 통한 한반도경제공동체 건설의 대전략 구상

윤황 사단법인 한국평화연구학회 2013 평화학연구 Vol.14 No.5

The goal of this research is to analyze the meaning and value of peace and peace economy in the Korean Peninsula, and based on such analysis, to propose the grand strategic picture to establish the Korean Peninsula Economic Community. The conclusion of this study can be summarized as follows. Firstly, the meaning of peace in the Korean Peninsula is defined as strengthening the political, military, economic, social, and cultural trust between two countries, and as keeping a state without physical and structural violence in order to bring in the integration and unification on the peninsula. Accordingly, this report blamed the gloomy outlook on the value of peace in the Korean Peninsula and such as the enlargement of the political stakes and the trust relationship, the detente and reduction of the war threats, the escalation of the mutual accessibility and interdependence, the change of the ideological confrontation and mistrust, and so on. Secondly, the peace economics of this article is on the basis of peace through trade or interdependence theory, and on the viewpoint of inter-Korean economic interests toward the solution of the Korean Peninsula divided, the unification of South and North Korea. Consequently, this paper analyzed the value of the peace economy in the peninsula. Finally, in order to come to conclusions based on this research's results as a whole, this study suggested that the future step-by-step strategies to establish a Korean Peninsula Economic Community will be achieved progress in the clear direction of three-level steps: ‘the economic exchanges and cooperation between two Koreas (the first phase) → a Korean Peninsula Economic Community (the second phase) → the unification of the divided Korean peninsular (the third phase)’. Under this great strategy, this thesis underlines that two Koreas will have to pay attention on the foundation of a Korean Peninsula Economic Community towards co-prosperity under the peace economy of the North-South Korean integration. In conclusion, if a Korean Peninsula Economic Community is created, it will also contribute to explaining the look of a new Korean Peninsula as a situation where peace is settled, and members of people in two Koreas freely travel each other, and contribute to establishing a stable and prosperous Northeast Asia. 본 논문의 연구목적은 한반도에서 평화와 평화경제의 의미와 가치를 규명하여 한반도경제공동체 건설의 대전략 구상을 모색하는 데에 있다. 이 목적에 따른 본 연구의 분석결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 한반도에서 평화의 의미란 남과 북이 정치적∙군사적∙경제적∙사회적∙문화적 신뢰와 협력을 강화하고, 한반도에서 번영과 발전의 통합과 통일을 향한 물리적∙구조적 폭력이 없는 상태라고 규정되었다. 이에 따라 한반도에서 평화의 가치는 정치적 이해관계와 신뢰관계의 증대, 긴장 완화와 전쟁위협 감소, 상호접근성과 의존성의 확대, 이념적 대결과 불신의 변화, 평화적 통일방식의 희망, 개발협력의 증대 등에서 분석되었다. 둘째, 본 연구에서 의미하고 있는 평화경제란 ‘교역 또는 상호의존을 통한 평화이론’에 근거하여, 한반도분단의 해소와 남북통합 및 남북통일의 달성을 향한 남북 상호간 경제적 이익의 확보 관점에서 ‘평화적 통일’의 지향과 동시에 세계 평화와 인류 공동번영을 위한 ‘국제평화주의’ 추구에 기여하는 것이라고 규정한다. 이런 규정 하에서 남북경제교류협력을 통한 한반도경제공동체 건설의 평화경제적 가치는 동북아경제권의 중심축, G8 국가들과의 대등한 규모 실현, 통일의 경제적 토대 구축, 남과 북의 상호보완∙상생발전∙공동번영구도 고착 등에서 분석되었다. 셋째, 한반도경제공동체 건설추진의 대전략은 남북교류∙협력의 성과에 토대하여 한반도경제공동체의 건설단계로 진입한 후 남북연합(남북통합)의 완전한 통일경제권 달성이라는 방향성을 갖고 추진되는 것이다. 이 대전략은 평화경제의 한반도 공간확대전략의 차원에서, 즉 ‘한반도-동북아-세계’의 경제시장영토를 확대해나가는 방향성을 갖고 4단계 이행전략의 방향으로 추진하는 것을 제안하였다. 결론적으로, 한반도에서 평화경제론에 입각한 교류협력과 공동체의 건설만이 한반도평화체제의 구축과 남북연합(남북통합)의 달성과정에서 가장 결정적 기준점이라고 보았다. 즉 평화경제만이 남북관계의 미래발전 동력, 평화적 통일의 달성을 극대화시킬 수 있다고 확증하였다.

문재인 정부 대북정책의 성공 조건과 전망

박영민 ( Park Young Min ) 한국접경지역통일학회 2017 접경지역통일연구 Vol.1 No.2

The Moon Jae-in administration of South Korea has set the goal of the North Korea policy as “Building a Peaceful, Prosperous Korean Peninsula”. However, the present North Korean nuclear issue has been a serious obstacle to the successful implementation of its North Korea Policy. Under the circumstances, the Moon administration is emphasizing both the close cooperation with the international community(internationalism) and the improvement in inter-Korean relations(interventionism) to realize its North Korea policy. The key points of the government’s North Korea policy are “the peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue and the establishment of a peace regime on the Korean peninsula” and “building the New Korean Peninsula Economic Map”. In particular, the “New Korean Peninsula Economic Map” sets two practical policy directions: “Three Great Economy-Peace Belts” and “Market Cooperation”. The “Three Great Economy-Peace Belts” aims to promote the balanced development of the Korean Peninsula by developing the East-Sea Rim region, the Pan- Yellow Sea region, and the border region, while seeking connections with the northern economic bloc including China and Russia. The “One Market” aims to encourage the free movement of products and production factors between North and South Korea, ultimately pursuing market integration between the North and the South, in consideration of the marketization trends emerging in North Korea. For the success of Moon’s North Korea policy, however, the following matters need to be reviewed. First, to successfully implement the “One Market,” it is necessary to examine how the controlled market of North Korea can be combined with the open, liberalistic market of South Korea. Second, in relation to “a peace regime on the Korean peninsula,” the counter-strategy to respond to the future direction of the North Korean nuclear issue should be established. The future direction of the North Korean nuclear issue will become one of the “persistence of the nuclear and missile development,” the “suspension(or discontinuance),” or the “disposal”. Therefore, it is required to come up with a detailed strategy considering the development aspect and conditions of the North Korean nuclear issue.

문재인 정부 비무장지대 정책의 성과와 과제

김효은 ( Kim Hyeo-en ) 한국접경지역통일학회 2021 접경지역통일연구 Vol.5 No.2

This study aims to examine the meaning and policy changes of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which have become more important for the permanent peace settlement on the Korean Peninsula under the Moon Jae-In administration, and to obtain implications for peace settlement on the Korean Peninsula in the future. The top priority of the Moon Jae-In government, which was launched in May 2017 when military tensions stemming from North Korea’s strengthening of nuclear power, were to establish peace on the Korean Peninsula. Peace in the DMZ is very important for promoting a peace process on the Korean Peninsula, where peace coexistence and co-prosperity are the key. The Moon Jae-In government’s DMZ policy has expanded into a space of peace and prosperity where politics, military, economy, ecology, and environment are combined rather than spatial elements defining the DMZ as a specific concept. According to the 4.27 Panmunjom Declaration and the 9.19 Pyongyang Joint Declaration, practical measures have been taken to make the DMZ a peaceful zone. The two Koreas agreed to stop hostile acts, and achieved results such as withdrawal of GPs in the DMZ, demilitarization of JSA, joint excavation of remains, and investigation into the Han River Estuary waterway. It derived practical results from declarative agreements in the past. In addition, the policy of the DMZ takes place within the framework of the peace economy, the core of the New Economic Map on the Korean Peninsula, and the new 100-year peace regime on the New Korean Peninsula. The Moon Jae-In government, which emphasized cooperation and support from the international community to establish peace on the Korean Peninsula, proposed that the DMZ be created as an international peace zone to achieve peace and economic prosperity together. By creating a path of peace in the DMZ so that the general public can travel, it aimed for connection rather than division between the two Koreas. The perception that the two Koreas are a life community requires cooperation not only on the Korean Peninsula but also in the border region. The policy of the DMZ should be expanded to the policy of safety, economic development, and the spread of public consensus in the border region beyond the DMZ. The Korean Peninsula is still at war in principle. Through the declaration of the end of the war, economic prosperity should be shared through inter-Korean exchange and cooperation on the basis of peace, and this strengthens peace again so that it contributes to peace and prosperity in Northeast Asia as well as the world.

Northeast Asian Economic Cooperation and the Korean Peninsula Economy: The Impact of the Changjitu Development Plan

이남주 한국학중앙연구원 한국학중앙연구원 2011 Korea Journal Vol.51 No.2

This study discusses how advancing the Changjitu Development Plan can facilitate Northeast Asian cooperation and contribute to the peace and unification of the Korean peninsula. It uses the concept of the Korean peninsula economy to emphasize that the unification of the Korean peninsula serves as an open process for Northeast Asian cooperation. There are concerns that economic cooperation between North Korea and China may negatively influence the North Korean nuclear crisis. However, this study maintains that factors such as the response proffered by actors such as South Korea can influence the various methods and opportunities to overcome the problem and that North Korea’s active efforts for regional cooperation in the form of the TRADP will not only bring Northeast Asian economic cooperation to a new level but also facilitate the resolution of the North Korean nuclear crisis. Lastly, attempts are made to introduce a development strategy that revolves around clear relations between Northeast Asian economic cooperation and the Korean peninsula economy.

한반도 신경제지도 실현을 위한 무역관광도시항 조성 기초연구 - 북방한계선(NLL)을 중심으로 -

이웅규 ( Lee Woong-kyu ),박영민 ( Park Young-min ) 한국도서(섬)학회 2018 한국도서연구 Vol.30 No.2

This study proposes that in order to realize the new economic map of the Korean Peninsula, Moon Jae-in should conceptualize the foundation of the South region as a space for South-North exchange and cooperation projects centered on the West Sea NLL and the East Sea’s NLL. From the point of view that the starting point of inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation should be found not in confrontation, conflict and division but in super-cooperation, this study started from the perspective of establishing a trade-tourism city in order to realize the new economy map of the Korean peninsula. This basically applies to the relationship between the two Koreas by the fact that the formerly flourishing maritime city has developed around the network and has been developed by cooperation between the countries and cities. For the new relationship between the two Koreas, the South and the West proposed a trade tourism city port, an inter-Korean exchange and cooperation space. This is meaningful in two respects. First, the model of the Kaesong industrial complex that was implemented in the past is not related to the good relationship between North and South since the industrial complex was established on the North side. However, when political and military conflicts arise, North Korea’s unilateral worker withdrawal is a model that can effectively cope with the problem that it is not possible to build a system that can effectively cope with foreclosure of the South Korean enterprise. Second, trading cities in the past were more active than exchanges between countries. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a trade and tourism city, which is an inter-Korean exchange and cooperation space to serve as the outpost of North and South Korea in preparation for future unification. Not only as a part of Eurasia but also as a 'network of links to peace and prosperity around the world as a new tourism and tourism base for peace'. This has the significance of improving the relationship between the two Koreas. Based on these findings, this study summarizes the basic direction of the trade tourism city port for the realization of the new economy map of the Korean peninsula. First, it is a base for peace and prosperity trade tourism city port including neighboring countries. Second, the expansion of the new economic map of the Korean Peninsula linked with the ‘One Belt, One Road (OBOR)’of China and Russia’s New East Policy. Third, it is building a win-win structure for the trade and tourism city port, which has a history of peace.

한반도 평화구상:이론과 추진구도

박종철 국가안보전략연구원 2011 국가안보와 전략 Vol.11 No.1

한반도평화구상을 실현하기 위해서 다음 사항들이 고려되어야 한다. 첫째, 비핵화와 평화체제 이행에 대해서 가장 바람직한 것은 「비핵화와 평화체제 구축의 조율」이다. 이것은 미국의 선 비핵화입장과 북한의 선 평화체제 입장을 조정하여 핵폐기와 평화체제 구축, 미·북관계 개선을 단계적으로 연계한 것이다. 둘째, 한반도평화포럼의 구성 및 운영에 대한 것이다. 한반도평화포럼은 남북미중의 4자로 구성될 가능성이 크다. 이 경우 북한이 대미협상에만 주안점을 두고 한국을 소외시킬 가능성에 대한 대비책을 마련해야 한다. 어떤 경우든지 한국의 주도권을 확보할 수 방안을 강구해야 한다. 셋째, 한반도평화정착을 위해 군비통제 및 군축이 실시되어야 한다. 군비통제 및 군축을 실시하기 위해서 북한에게 경제적 보상을 제공해야 한다. 북한에게 군비통제 및 군축에 소요되는 비용을 지원하는 한편, 북한 군수산업의 민수전환 등을 통해서 군축이 북한경제발전으로 연결되도록 해야 한다. 넷째, 비핵화 및 평화정착의 단계별로 대북 5대 경협프로젝트를 연계추진해야 한다. 각 단계별로 구체적 목표와 이행지표를 설정함으로써 북한의 정책변화를 이끌어내고 이것을 관리할 수 있는 이정표를 만들어야 한다. In order to realize a peace initiative on the Korean peninsula, the following elements should be considered. First, the denuclearization of North Korea should proceed in harmony with the process of establishing peace on the Korean peninsula. Second, as a mechanism for implementing peace on the Korean peninsula,a Korean peninsula peace forum might be formed, composed of four countries:North and South Korea, the United States, and China. North Korea is likely to concentrate on bilateral negotiations with the U.S., isolating South Korea. South Korea needs to take the initiative in the negotiation process. Third, arms control and arms reduction should be implemented in the process of establishing a peace regime on the Korean peninsula. As an incentive to persuade North Korea to accept arms control, economic compensation measures may be provided to North Korea. There may also be economic assistance for covering the costs of arms control and arms reduction. In addition, assistance for converting North Korean military industries into civilian industries may be provided. Fourth, economic development projects between North and South Korea should be linked with the stages of denuclearization and the establishment of a peace regime on the Korean peninsula. At each stage, specific goals and policy agendas must be set in order to induce North Korea’s compliance

‘한반도경제’의 과제와 전략: 네트워크 경제모델의 제안

이일영 한국사회과학연구회 2012 동향과 전망 Vol.- No.84

이 논문에서는 환경·과제·전략으로 구성된 ‘한반도경제’ 모델을 논의하였다. ‘한반도경제’는 세계 체제·분단 체제·국내 체제에서의 삼중의 환경 변화 조건을 종합적으로 고려하였다. ‘한반도경제’는 평화질서·남북연계·혁신국가라는 삼중의 과제를 수행해야 한다. 이러한 과제를 수행하기 위한 전략과 제도·조직 형성의 원리는 ‘네트워크 경제’다. ‘한반도경제’ 모델에서 삼중의 과제와 대응하는 네트워크는 국가·초국가 네트워크, 지중해경제 네트워크, 혁신적 네트워크 경제조직 등으로 구성된다. 국가·초국가 네트워크는 국가 내부와 국가 간에 존재하는 제도와 정책결정 과정에서 존재하는 공유된 연결망이다. 지중해경제 네트워크는 한국·북한·중국·일본 등의 여러 도시들 사이에 존재하는 반복적·지속적인 연결망이다. 혁신적 네트워크 경제조직은 대기업·중소기업 간, 지역 간 생산력 격차에 대응하는 조직 간·지역 간 연결망이다. In this paper, I try to build the model of ‘Korean Peninsula Economy’. This model comprises three environmental factors, three tasks, and three strategies. There are environmental factors in a three-dimension; the world system, the division system of the Korean peninsula, and the South Korean economic system. ‘Korean Peninsula Economy’ might be formed through performing three tasks; making the peaceful order in the world system, the linkage of South-North Korea, and the innovative state. It is ‘network economy’ that is a strategy for transition and a principle of forming institutions and organizations. And, ‘Korean Peninsula network economy’ consist of the intra- and hyper- national networks, the North-east Asian Mediterranean network, the innovative economic network organization.

개성공단사업의 현황, 정책적 함의와 개선과제

홍양호 ( Yang Ho Hong ) 평화문제연구소 2015 통일문제연구 Vol.27 No.1

Gaeseong Industrial Complex(GIC) is a complementary and mutually beneficial inter-Korean economic cooperation project, combining South Korea’s capital and technology with North Korea’s labor and land resources. GIC is virtually jointly managed and operated by the two Koreas based on official agreements signed between South Korean industrial developers including Hyundai Asan and Korea Land and Housing Corporation(LH) and North Korea’s GIC-related organizations such as National Asia-Pacific Peace Committee and Committee for National Economic Cooperation. GIC is also in operation on the basis of inter-Korean institutional schemes established to protect invested assets and ensure safe entry, exit and stay of investors. However, GIC has inherent limitations since it is geographically located in North Korean territory and out of South Korea’s scope of control. In addition, North Korea’s several access blockage and suspension of operation based on political and military grounds significantly eroded stability and confidence of the complex. Nevertheless, GIC has never been fully shut down and continued its normal operation thanks to its strategic and policy value between the two Koreas despite a series of ups and downs. GIC has lots of implications in terms of policies: In economic perspective, GIC helps South Korean small and midsize companies find good manufacturing base and realized inter-Korean co-prosperity and economic cooperation. In political and military terms, GIC eased the North’s hostility towards the South and created peaceful mood between the two Koreas. In social and cultural policies, South and North Korean workers improved mutual understanding and restored the sense of national homogeneity. GIC also encouraged changes in North Korea. In process of preparing for unification, GIC is a inter-Korean economic community and a good example of unification preparation. On the other hand, GIC satisfies the needs of North Korea’s national policy: GIC earns foreign currency, helps learn advanced manufacturing technology and know-how on how to run an industrial complex, ensures livelihood of North Korean workers, enhances peaceful image to outside world, and creates favorable investment conditions for other economic zones. In a nutshell, GIC ‘creates peace on the Korean Peninsula and serves as a model for inter-Korean co-prosperity and unified economy.’ In this regard, GIC, which has solidified its status as a symbolic exemplary model for inter-Korean economic cooperation based on such strategic and policy values, must accomplish further expansion and development. However, a number of tasks lie ahead for further progress: 3C issues(Come-and-Go, Communication, Customs) which are regarded between the South and North Korean authorities as inter-Korean tasks to be addressed for ‘normal operation of GIC’ on August 14, 2013, globalization of GIC, reinforced protection of personnel safety, establishment and operation of Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee, stable supply of North Korean workers, companies’ flexible management on North Korean workers, strict compliance of law and regulations, etc. Active and sincere South and North Korean authorities-led negotiations and solutions are required to solve such diverse challenges in order to achieve further expansion and development of GIC rife with a variety of policy implications.

반복(Echoes)에서 선택(Choices)으로

임혁백(Hyug Baeg Im) 한국국제정치학회 2018 국제정치논총 Vol.58 No.2

This paper elucidates, first, why different US administations have repeatedly “echoed” regime change, pressure, and sanctions on North Korea rather than dialogue and compromise with regard to denuclearization of North Korea and peace building in the Korean Peninsula; then, traces how the three leaders--Moon Jae In, Donald Trump, and Kim Jong Un--have made new policy “choices” since the end of 2017, and collaborated to open the dismantling of the Cold War in the Korean Peninsula through Inter-Korean and US-North Korea summit meetings. First, I will reveal the myth of North Korean “collapsism” and explain why the North Korean regime has shown exceptional survivability against the prediction of the collapsists. Second, I will explore the motivation of the North Korean regime to develop nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War and the process of completing the development of nuclear weapons and long range missiles by the end of 2017. Third, I will explain why the prescription of collapsists such as international sanctions and pressures on North Korea have not worked and why Obama’s “strategic patience” as a collapsism in disguise did not bring the North Korean regime to collapse but, on the contrary, gave the North Koreans ample time to develop nuclear weapons. Fourth, I will discuss how “possibilist” policies and theories such as Wang Yi’s Two Track Approach and Perry’s “Three Nos” policy have emerged as North Korea has been completing the development of its nuclear program and heightened the imminent danger of another Korean War. Finally, I will explore how the three political leaders of denuclearization and peace building in the Korean Peninsula-- Moon Jae In, Donald Trump, and Kim Jong Un--have made policy “choices” of change and found clues to solving the problem of breaking down the last remaining Cold War legacy in the Korean Peninsula.

한반도 접경지역에서 나타나는 ‘안보-경제 연계’와 영토화와 탈영토화의 지정-지경학

박배균(Bae-Gyoon Park),백일순(Yilsoon Paek) 대한지리학회 2019 대한지리학회지 Vol.54 No.2

본 논문은 한반도의 접경지역이 지니고 있는 다중적이고 복합적이며 혼종적 성격을 드러내는 것을 목적으로 한다. 특히, 경계와 영토에 대한 포스트 영토주의적 입장을 바탕으로, 한반도의 접경지역을 국경을 둘러싸고 살아가는 다양한 사람들과 행위자들의 복잡한 상호작용과 역동적 실천들 속에서 구성되고 항상 새롭게 만들어지는 사회적 구성물이라 바라본다. 보다 구체적으로는 국경과 접경을 영토성과 이동성의 복합적 교차공간으로 인식할 것을 제안하면서, 한반도 접경지역이 영토성에 기반한 ‘안보’의 논리와 이동성을 지향하는 ‘경제’의 논리가 서로 경합하면서 결합되는 ‘안보-경제 연계’를 바탕으로 사회적으로 구성되는 과정을 살펴본다. This paper aims at highlighting the multi-dimensional, complex and hybrid nature of the borderland in the Korean peninsula. Relying on the post-territorialist view to the territory and border, it suggests to see the borderlands as a social product that has been created and re-produced through complicated interactions among, and dynamic practices of, various forces and actors who have been living and operating along the border line in the Korean peninsula. More specifically, with the suggestions of seeing the borders as a complex crossing space of territoriality and mobility, this research explores the ways in which the border regions of the Korean peninsular have been socially constructed on the basis of ‘security-economy nexus’, in which the logics of security and economy have competed and intertwined with each other.