북한이 주장하는‘대북 적대시 정책’주장 분석 및 대응 전략

Abstract

This paper focuses on North Korea’s claim of ‘the hostile policy against North Korea.’ This paper aims to analyze the substance of their claims and what their intentions are and to suggest strategies to confront their claims to the governments of South Korea and the United States. This study concludes that North Korea has been actively using the hostile policy as a justification and logic to achieve its strategic goal of unification under communism. On the one hand, North Korea has argued for logic and strategies such as the U.S.-North Korea peace treaty, declaration of the end of the war, withdrawment of the U.S. troops from South Korea, permanent suspension of the ROK-U.S. joint exercises, neutralization of the armistice system, and dismantlement of the U.N. Command. North Korea’s purpose of this strategy is to expel the U.S. from Korean Peninsula and destroy the ROK-U.S. alliance. On the other hand, North Korea has actively used its nuclear and missile development to justify the overthrow of the South Korean regime and its military superiority. It has also developed strategies of withdrawing dual standards, prohibiting high-tech weapons, inter-Korean cooperation(Uriminzokkiri), and abortive NLL. In sum, North Korea’s ultimate goal is to firstly expel the U.S. from the Korean peninsula in order to break down the ROK-U.S. alliance, build the capabilities of military superiority against South Korea, and defeat the South Korean regime through various strategic measures for the unification under communism. To achieve these goals, North Korea abuses the justification and logic of the so-called hostile policy. This paper suggested the joint confrontation strategies of the U.S. and South Korea related to North Korea’s logic of claims of the hostile policy toward them. First of all, the goal of the confrontation strategies of the ROK and the U.S. is to pressure North Korea to abandon their plan of unification under communism by making their logic about the hostile policy completely impossible. This paper also proposed three bases of confrontation, twelve countermeasures and logic for each issue, respectively, and concluded with three policy suggestions.