본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

남북정상회담의 前史 ― 남북협상과 1950년대 통일논의 ―

Pre-History of the 2000 Inter-Korean Summit: Negotiations Between South and North for Unification and Movement for Unification in the 1950s

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류역사학

초록

At a time when the South-North negotiations mark its 60th anniversary, a new evaluation has a very important meaning academically and in reality. First, the negotiations were part of the efforts to build a modern nation state. It was a test of whether the developments of modernization - since Korea was forced to join the global system of modern capitalism by Japan - could lead to building a nation state. Second, the inter-Korean negotiations tried to achieve an independent modern nation. The 35 years of the Japanese colonial rule turned many Koreans into traitors. There was also a doubt whether the interim government and independence movement activists could establish a new nation. Moreover, the doubt was strong as the 1945 independence was achieved by outside power rather than by Korean themselves. In that sense, the negotiations were a test bed for whether to overcome such historical limits. Third, the negotiations were a peaceful movement to build a nation. At the time, many Koreans in South and North felt the threat of a potential war. They worried that the establishment of the two governments would immediately lead to the outbreak of civil war. Nationalists, who were against the war, called for and joined inter-Korean negotiations to prevent it. Fourth, although there were limitations, socialists and nationalists reached an agreement. The agreement was not enough for a new nation's system. Still, it was meaningful in that it gave them the possibilities of seeking specific ways. Such historic achievement of the negotiations was reconfirmed in the 2000 inter-Korean Summit. In that sense, the negotiations take the position as pre-history of the summit. However, despite such historic significance, the negotiations had limitations as well. First, negotiations with the forces led by Lee Seung-Man who independently sought the establishment of a government were not considered. It was a matter of strategy for socialists, but there were some problems with nationalists. Second, the participants of the negotiations saw the process of the establishment of the Republic of Korea completely as an anti-national act. It shows nationalists understood the establishment of a nation as a higher value than its system. Their attitude eventually led to shut themselves off from the cause of involving in the establishment process.

Abstract

At a time when the South-North negotiations mark its 60th anniversary, a new evaluation has a very important meaning academically and in reality. First, the negotiations were part of the efforts to build a modern nation state. It was a test of whether the developments of modernization - since Korea was forced to join the global system of modern capitalism by Japan - could lead to building a nation state. Second, the inter-Korean negotiations tried to achieve an independent modern nation. The 35 years of the Japanese colonial rule turned many Koreans into traitors. There was also a doubt whether the interim government and independence movement activists could establish a new nation. Moreover, the doubt was strong as the 1945 independence was achieved by outside power rather than by Korean themselves. In that sense, the negotiations were a test bed for whether to overcome such historical limits. Third, the negotiations were a peaceful movement to build a nation. At the time, many Koreans in South and North felt the threat of a potential war. They worried that the establishment of the two governments would immediately lead to the outbreak of civil war. Nationalists, who were against the war, called for and joined inter-Korean negotiations to prevent it. Fourth, although there were limitations, socialists and nationalists reached an agreement. The agreement was not enough for a new nation's system. Still, it was meaningful in that it gave them the possibilities of seeking specific ways. Such historic achievement of the negotiations was reconfirmed in the 2000 inter-Korean Summit. In that sense, the negotiations take the position as pre-history of the summit. However, despite such historic significance, the negotiations had limitations as well. First, negotiations with the forces led by Lee Seung-Man who independently sought the establishment of a government were not considered. It was a matter of strategy for socialists, but there were some problems with nationalists. Second, the participants of the negotiations saw the process of the establishment of the Republic of Korea completely as an anti-national act. It shows nationalists understood the establishment of a nation as a higher value than its system. Their attitude eventually led to shut themselves off from the cause of involving in the establishment process.

참고문헌 (38)

  1. 도진순, "한국민족주의와 남북관계 - 이승만?김구 시대의 정치사" (1997), 서울대학교 출판부
  2. 이호재, "남북 평화를 향한 초당적 협력 방안 세미나 발표문", 평화포럼 (2000)
  3. 서중석, "남북정상회담 후 되새겨보는 1948년 남북협상", 내일을 여는 역사, (3) (2000)
  4. "중앙일보,1946년 1월 3일자.(http:", url.jsp?ID=NIKH.DB-dh_001_1946_01_02_0110)[DOI]
  5. "동아일보, 1946년 5월 22일자.(http:", url.jsp?ID=NIKH.DB-np_da_1946_05_22_0030)[DOI]
  6. "동아일보, 1946년 1월 18일자", ~
  7. "조선일보, 1946년 4월 26일자", ~
  8. 김구, "삼천만 동포에 읍고함 (1948. 2. 10)", ~
  9. "자유신문, 1948. 4. 17", ~
  10. "조선일보.경향신문,1948. 4. 6.(http:", url.jsp?ID=NIKH.DB-dh_006_1948_04_03_0150)[DOI]
  11. 우사연구회, "남?북협상 : 김규식의 길, 김구의 길" (2000), 한울
  12. "서울신문, 1948년 4월 15일자.(http:", url.jsp?ID=NIKH.DB-dh_006_1948_04_13_0040)[DOI]
  13. "조선일보, 서울신문, 1948년 4월 17일자.(http:", url.jsp?ID=NIKH.DB-dh_006_1948_04_15_0070)[DOI]
  14. "동아일보, 조선일보, 1948년 4월 22일자. (http:", url.jsp?ID=NIKH.DB-dh_006_1948_04_21_0030)[DOI]
  15. "동아일보, 1948년 4월 16일자. (http:", url.jsp?ID=NIKH.DB-dh_006_1948_04_14_0040)[DOI]
  16. "남북조선 제정당?사회단체 공동성명서(1948. 4. 30), 남북조선 제정당?사회단체 대표자연석회의 자료", ~ (1948)
  17. 국사편찬위원회, "북한관계 사료집, 6", pp.62~62 (1988), 국사편찬위원회
  18. 이신철, "북한민족주의운동 연구" (2008), 역사비평사
  19. "서울신문, ?동아일보 1948년 6월 8일자. (국사편찬위원회, 자료 대한민국사, 7, 259쪽)", ~ (1948)
  20. "서울신문, ?조선일보?, 동아일보 ?, 경향신문, 1948년 8월 7일자. (자료 대한민국사, 7, 729쪽)", ~ (1948)
  21. "JOINT WEEKA, WEEKA number33, 1948. 8. 16, 4p", ~ (1948)
  22. "영인본 제2권, 35쪽", ~
  23. "서울신문, ? 조선일보, 1948년 8월 13일자. (자료 대한민국사, 7, 775쪽)", ~ (1948)
  24. 이신철, "1948년 남북협상직후 통일운동세력과 김구의 노선변화에 관한 연구", 한국사학보, (11) (2001)
  25. 사회과학원 력사연구소 인민무력부 전쟁경험연구실, "혁명의 위대한 수령 김일성동지께서 령도하신 조선인민의 정의의 조국해방전쟁사 (3)", pp.235~238 (1973), 사회과학출판사
  26. "1953년 조선민주주의인민공화국 인민경제현황 개관 (「Обзор Состояния народного хозяйства Корейской Народно-Демократической Республики в 1953 г.」, АВПР, ф. 0102, оп.10, п. 57, д. 49), 68쪽", ~
  27. 이신철, "전쟁피해와 조선민주주의인민공화국 사회의 변화", 역사문제연구, 6 (2001)
  28. 리영, "조선 사람끼리 한자리에 모여 절실한 문제를 협의 해결하자, 조국전선, 1954년 10월 31일자", ~ (1954)
  29. 이신철, "1954년 제네바 정치회담시기 남?북의 통일론", 사림, (25) (2006), 성대사학회
  30. 서중석, "조봉암과 1950년대(상)?조봉암의 사회민주주의와 평화통일론", pp.258~258 (1999), 역사비평사
  31. 서중석, "이승만과 북진통일", 역사비평, pp.127~127 (1995)
  32. 홍석률, "중립화통일 논의의 역사적 맥락", 역사문제연구, 12, pp.57~57 (2004)
  33. "로동신문, 1955년 11월 13일자 ; 조국전선, 1955년 11월 19일자", ~
  34. 조국전선 중앙위원회, "조국의 평화적 통일을 위하여" (1956)
  35. "평화통일선언 .조국의 평화적 통일을 위하여(조선로동당 제3차 대회 선언)", ~
  36. 박태균, "조봉암 연구", pp.284~285 (1995), 창작과비평사
  37. 정태영, "북한당국의 평화공세에 대한 진보당의 선언문, 죽산 조봉암 전집, 4", pp.148~150 (1999)
  38. 조봉암, "평화통일에의 길, 진보당 - 당의 활동과 사건관계 자료집", pp.67~67 (1985), 지양사

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)