美國의 大韓政策에 關한 小考 : 極東國際政治의 構造的 變化와 關聯하여 = American Foreign Policy toward Korea with a Reference to the Change of the International System in the Far East

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The subject matter of American foreign policy toward Korea, like any other bilateral relationship, needs to be investigated from the perspective of overall American foreign policy. This is especially true today, for it is evident that every significant American foreign involvement, and even the basic premises of United States Policy, are now subject to a range and depth of re-examination of her role in world polities.
At the beginning of this century, America's dominant involvement has begun to recede, and it can be readily indentified that the Korean-U.S. relations will be influenced by that epochal change in the history of American foreign policy. On the other hand, since the end of the Second World War, American foreign policy filled in what has amounted to almost global involvement through the administrations of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. That was the period of direct American participation in the political and economic affairs of dozens of nations.
But it is only in very recent years that demands for retrenchment have become so widespread and so insistent that they can no longer be ignored. The result is that a new American consensus on foreign policy is forming; its central thrust is toward a much lower profile for America's role in world politics than any of us have experienced. This means that it will be necessary for America to make some very diffcult choices, of which the Korea-U.S. relationship is only one pertinent illustration.
[1] The diplomatic-historical aspects of Korea-U.S. relationship.
It was well known that the United States was the first Western power to enter the gate of Korea Since the Korea-American Treaty signed at Yinchuen(Chemulpo), the two countries have been in friendly treaty relation. However, the Korea-U.S. relations were to be influenced by the basic concepts of American East Asia Policy. Those concepts were so called "Open Door Policy" and a balance of power in this area. These traditions of American foreign policy in this area brought about the Japan's control of Korea.
[2] The Post war's international politics and Korea-U.S. relationship.
The end of Second World War was resulted in bipolar system of international politics. In bipolar system, the Korea-U.S. relations were to have special meaning through the U.S. efforts to keep the free world out of the communist threat. In the cold war period the United States applied a limited confrontation policy to the Korean peninsular due to the Korean War. As a matter of fact, Korea was appreciated as having the strategic value of pursuing U.S. containment policy for the communist expansion in Asia. In the context of this U.S. policy. the settlement of the Korean War was at the bottom of the problems in Washington's Korea policy in the past two decade years. Therefore, it may be said that the truce negotiations, the armistice agreement, the Korea-U.S. mutual security pact and other related matters which arose in accordance with the U.S. foreign aid policy in post war era were most significant.
[3] The international politics in the 1970's and U.S. Policy toward Korea.
With the dawning of the 1970's, the international situation shows indications of rapid and sweeping changes to come. A new stage has begun in which the nations which have depended so heavily on the direct confrontion between U.S. and the Soviet Union must establish fundamentally new relations with each other. Nowhere is the need for change more evident nor the adjustment likely to prove more difficult than in East Asia. The recent shifts in American foreign policy toward Asia and Korea in particular, are properly appraised as part of the broader international picture.
The Nixon administration has recognized and endorsed the new situation of the international politics. The so-called Nixon Doctrine reflects an alteration in the structure and dynamics of the global international system from bipolarity, to multipolarity, from the strategic, economic and political dominance of two countries to a far more complex and heterogeneous set of relationships involving many nations.
According Bernard K. Gordon, the Nixon Doctrine included a set of principles. These consisted three parts: first, a posture of gradual U.S. reduction from its forward defence positions in the Asia-Pacific area; second, an insistence that the conutries of Asia must provide their main defense needs out of their own resources, and third, an emphatic assurance that vital American Commitment, and especially, such treaty commitment as those involved with Korea, could be relied upon.
Despite the new problems presented by multipolar international system and the adaptability of the new principles of American foreign policy, recent events indicate that there are two elements of continuity: strategic bipolarity and a competitve Communist-non-communist confrontation in East Asia. Asserting that the multipolar system in world politics has been formed is not to say that the relative power of the United States and the Soviet Union has diminished to the point that other powers can compete with them on equal terms. Also, despite a general reduction of tensions in Europe. Asia remains tense with direct confrontation between revolutionary groups and status quo-orionted governments. It is true that Asia has been continuously at war since 1945 and the potential for future conflict is extemely high. In these international situation the basic principles on which the entire relationships between Korea and United States have rested are now under modification. Today we must ask as a result whether are conditions which brought the United States to its deep involvement in Korean security have so profoundly changed as to warrant a reassessment.
From the perspective of the United States, the important of Korea will be measured primarily in terms of developments affecting the change of the Asia-Pacific region power structure that ultimately is perceived as crucial for the security of the United States.
[4] Conclusion
As I have emphasized, the conditions of early postwar period in East Asia simply do not exist today, and there is little or no reason to believe that the U.S. foreign policy toward Korea will not be changed. But even if these changes proceed, the cautious moves by the United States toward Korea would be to play a more limited and flexible role. It will be appropriate for the United
States policy to adopt a realistic approach to almost any likely set of developments in Korea during the next several years. The trend of those developments will also be in connection with the structural change of international system in East Asia. It is clearly that uncertainty will unavoidably shroud American security alliances with Asian states, including Korea, and any regional military alliance that develop. In this new age that will complicate any international calculations, Korea must rapidly adjust to the realities of a harsh and uncomfortable world in the close relationship with the United States.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 一. 問題의 提起
• 二. 韓美關係의 外交史的 側面
• 三. 戰後國際政勢와 韓美關係
• 四. 極東의 和解構造와 韓美關係
• 五. 美國의 對韓政策의 問題點과 展望
• 六. 結 論