본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

부시 행정부의 외교정책이념과 대북한 정책

김현
세종연구소 (The Sejong Institute)|2008.03|국가전략 (National Strategy)|제14권 제1호|pp. 123-153

0

조회

0

다운로드

14

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

현실주의realism신보수주의neo-conservatism외교정책이념부시행정부 대북정책schools of thought of foreign policyNorth Korea policy of the Bush Administration
주제분류정치외교학

초록

이 논문의 목적은 미 부시행정부의 대북한 정책과 그 변화를 외교정책이념 접근법과 정부정치모델을 적용하여 설명하는 것이다. 분석의 결과로서 첫째, 대북정책을 둘러싸고 부통령실과 국방성 중심의 강경파와 국무성 중심의 협상파가 갈등하였는데, 각 정책연합이 선호하는 정책입장은 각자가 공유하는 외교정책이념에 의해 주로 결정되었다. 즉 강경파가 선호한 압박정책은 신보수주의 이념의 정책처방을 주로 반영한 것이었다. 반면에 협상파는 현실주의의 정책처방을 반영한 관여정책을 선호하였다. 둘째, 2006년 10월까지 지속된 대북 압박정책은 정부정치모델이 가정하고 있듯이 강경파와 협상파간 경쟁과 갈등의 결과로서 정책결정에서 주도권을 잡은 강경파가 선호하는 정책입장을 반영한 것이었다. 셋째, '2.13 북핵 합의'에서 구체화된 관여정책으로의 변화는 정책결정의 주도권이 국무성 협상파로 넘어간 결과였다. 변화된 관여정책은 협상파가 공유하는 현실주의 이념에 의해 주로 결정되었다.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explain the Bush Administration's policy toward North Korea and its change from theoretical perspectives of the schools-of-thought of foreign policy and the governmental politics model. As the result of the analysis provided by this study, first, there were divisions and conflict over North Korea policy between hard-liners in the vice-president's office and the Defense Department, on one hand, and moderates mainly in the State Department, on the other hand. And their policy positions were largely determined by schools of thought of foreign policy shared by decision makers of each coalition. Whereas a policy of pressure favored by the hard-liners reflected prescriptions offered by neo-conservatism, a policy of engagement preferred by the moderates was guided by realism. Second, the policy of pressure, which continued until October 2006, was the political resultant of competition and conflict between the hard-liners and the moderates, and reflected the policy position favored by the former who had the initiative and control over the policy-making process. Third, a change of policy to one of engagement, which was actualized in the Feb. 13 Agreement on the North Korean nuclear problem, resulted mainly from the factor that the initiative and control over the policy-making process were shifted to the hands of the State Department moderates. The changed policy of engagement was primarily determined by the realist school of thought shared among them.

참고문헌 (63)

  1. 빅터 차, "북핵 퍼즐: 관여전략논쟁" (2007), 따뜻한 손
  2. 프랜시스 후쿠야마, "기로에 선 미국" (2006), 랜덤하우스코리아
  3. Allison, Graham, "Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd ed." (1999), Longman
  4. Asher, David, "The North Korean Criminal State, its Ties to Organized Crime, and the Possibility of WMD Proliferation" (2005), Policy Forum Online 05-92A, Nautilus Institute
  5. "A Framework for Peace and Security in Korea and Northeast Asia,” Policy Paper"[URL]
  6. Auster, Bruce, "Upping the Ante for Kim Jong Il" (2003), U.S. New & World Affais
  7. Berry, William, "The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Program: A Comparison of the Negotiating Strategies of the Clinton and Bush Administrations in Perspectives on U.S. Policy Toward North Korea; Stalemate or Checkmate?" (2006), Lexington Books
  8. Billinton, Mike, "U.S. Diplomats Revolt Over Policy Toward North Korea", Executive Intelligence Review, 24 (2006)
  9. Boot, Max, "Neocons, Foreign Policy", (140), pp.20~28 (2004)
  10. "State of the Union Address, Jan. 29"[URL]
  11. Calllahan, Patrick, "Logics of American Foreign Policy: Theories of America's World Role", pp.2004, Pearson
  12. Campbell, Kurt, "The New Tribalism: Cliques and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy", The Washington Quarterly, 30(1), pp.193~203 (2006)
  13. "Kim Jong Il Confronts Bush and Wins: A New Page in North-South Korean Relations,”Japan Focus, Oct. 9"[URL]
  14. DeYoung, Karen, "Policy Successes or U-Turns: Views Differ on Bush Moves on Iran, N. Korea, Mideast" (2007), Washington Post
  15. "Hawk Engagement: A Dangerous Turn in the US Plans for Korea"[URL]
  16. Ellisworth, Robert, "Realism’s Shining Morality", pp.5~10 (2004), The National Interest
  17. "Pragmatism Trumps Ideology on North Korea,” Center for American Progress, Feb. 23"[URL]
  18. Gordon, Michael, "U.S. Readies Plan to Raise Pressure on North Koreans" (2002), The New York Times
  19. Gordon, Philip, "The End of the Bush Revolution", Foreign Affairs, 85(4), pp.75~86 (2006)
  20. Ha, Michael, "Multi-Lane Highway’Approach Key to Korean Peace Treaty", Korea Times, 17 (2007)
  21. Haass, Richard, "Paradigm Lost", Foreign Affairs, 74(1), pp.43~58 (1995)
  22. Haass, Richard, "Regime Change and Its Limits", Foreign Affairs, 84(4), pp.66~78 (2005)
  23. Harrison, Selig, "In a Test, a Reason to Talk" (2006), The Washington Post
  24. "Statement at the Closing Plenary of the Fourth Round of the Six-Party Talks"[URL]
  25. Hulsman, John, "A Paradigm for the New World Order: A Schools-of-Thought Analysis of American Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era" (1997), St. Martin’s Press
  26. "The Six-Party Talks Agreement,” Foreign Policy in Focus"[URL]
  27. Ikenberry, John, "Liberal Realism: The Foundations of a Democratic Foreign Policy", pp.38~49 (2004), The National Interest
  28. "After North Korea’s Missile Launch: Are the Nuclear Talks Dead?”Policy Briefing"[URL]
  29. Joseph, Jofi, "The Proliferation Security Initiative: Can Interdiction Stop Proliferation?”" (2004), Arms Control Today
  30. Kahn, Joseph, "U.S.-Korean Deal on Arms Leaves Key Points Open" (2005), The New York Times
  31. Kessler, Glenn, "The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy" (2007), St. Martin’s Press
  32. Kessler, Glenn, "Democrats Blast Bush Policy on N. Korea" (2006), Washington Post
  33. Kessler, Glenn, "Nations Seek to Hold North Korea to Text of Agreement" (2005), Washington Post
  34. Khong, Yuen Foong, "Neoconservatism and the Domestic Source of American Foreign Policy: The Role of Ideas in Operation Iraqi Freedom,”in Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases", pp.251~267 (2008), Oxferd University Press
  35. "Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World"[URL]
  36. Kurlantzick, Josh, "After the Bush Doctrine" (2006), The New Republic
  37. "Hawks Push Regime Change in North/Korea,”"[URL]
  38. Maynes, Charles, "Contending Schools", The National Interest, (63), pp.49~58 (2001)
  39. Mazarr, Michael, "The Long Road to Pyongyang: Issue A Case Study in Policymaking Without Direction", Foreign Affairs, 86(5), pp.75~94 (2007)
  40. "A Denuclearization Deal in Beijing,”Japan Focus, Feb. 14"[URL]
  41. "Financial Sanctions and North Korea: In Search of the Evidence of Currency Counterfeiting and Money Lanundering,” Part II, Japan Focus"[URL]
  42. Monten, Jonathan, "The Roots of the Bush Doctrine: Power, Nationalism, and Democracy Promotion in U.S. Strategy", International Security, 29(4), pp.112~156 (2005)
  43. "Worst Weapons in Worst Hands:U.S.Inaction on the Nuclear Terror Threat since 9/11,and a Path of Action,"March 15"[URL]
  44. North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program, "Niksch. Larry", ~ (2006)
  45. North Korean Nuclear Weapons Development and Diplomacy, "Niksch. Larry", ~ (2007)
  46. Nuruzzaman, Mohammed, "Beyond the Realist Theories: ‘Neo-Conservative Realism’and the American Invasion of Iraq", International Studies Perspectives, 7, pp.239~253 (2006)
  47. Oberdorfer, Don, "What really behind the Bush administration’s course reversal" (2007)
  48. "on North Korea and can the negotiations succeed? Newsweek"
  49. Preston, Thomas, "Presidential Leadership Style" (2004)
  50. Eugene Wittkopf, "The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence, Lanham", pp.363~380, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
  51. Reiss, Mitchell, "A Nuclear-armed North Korea: Accepting the ‘Unacceptable’?", Survival, 48(4), pp.97~110 (2006)
  52. Rennie, David, "Rumsfeld calls for regime change in North Korea", Daily Telegraph, 22 (2003)
  53. "Condi’s Conundrum: Will Rice get Powelled?”The Washington Monthly, April"[URL]
  54. Sanger, David, "U.S. Said to Weigh a New Approach on North Korea", The New York Times, 18 (2006)
  55. Sigal, Leon, "An Instinct for the Capillaries", Policy Forum Online 06-36A (2006), Nautilus Institute
  56. Skidmore, David, "Paradoxes of Power: U. S. Foreign Policy in a Changing World" (2007), Paradigm Publishers
  57. "Resolution 1718,” 2006, Oct. 14"[URL]
  58. "Nuclear Posture Review (Excerpts), January 8"[URL]
  59. "Treasury Designates Banco Delta Asia as Primary Money Laundering Concern under USA PATRIOT Act"[URL]
  60. "Treasury Targets North Korean Entities for Supporting WMD Proliferation"[URL]
  61. "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"[URL]
  62. Wit, Joel, "United States, North Korea and South Korea", The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 15(2), pp.109~124 (2002)
  63. Zakaria, Fareed, "No Policy Is Not Good Policy" (2005), Newsweek

관련 논문AI추천

부시(George W. Bush) 행정부의 이란 정책: 외교정책이념과 정부정치의 동학김현한국아메리카학회 · 미국학 논집2009 · 제41권 제2호제2기 부시 행정부의 대북정책과 핵문제: 진단과 전망김연수북한연구학회 · 북한연구학회보2005 · 제9권 제2호부시 2기 대북 정책 전환의 이유: 미국 국내 정치적 설명하태원극동문제연구소 · 한국과 국제정치2025 · 제41권 제3호체계, 선거, 그리고 대통령: 무엇이 미국의 대북정책을 결정하는가?이상신극동문제연구소 · 한국과 국제정치2010 · 제26권 제2호부시 2기 미국 행정부의 대외정책과 한반도 정책 전망박광기한국세계지역학회 · 세계지역연구논총2004 · 제22권 제2호조지 W. 부시행정부의 대북정책 결정요인에 관한 분석박성관동아시아국제정치학회 · 국제정치연구2008 · 제11권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)

외교력 연구: 개념적 분석과 정책제언김태현pp. 5-34한국의 국가안보전략에 대한 소고: 참여정부의 평화번영정책신성호pp. 35-62한국 미사일 방어에 관한 주요 쟁점 분석박휘락pp. 63-94한국 방위산업의 발전전략에 대한 연구:박정희 시대의 방위산업 발전전략을 중심으로김진기pp. 95-121미국-이란 핵 갈등과 미국의 에너지 안보조성권, 장노순pp. 155-184
원문 보기