탈냉전시대의 미국 대북한정책 변화 연구

김관옥(Kim Kwanok) 계명대학교 사회과학연구소 2007 한국사회과학연구 Vol.26 No.1

The U.S. foreign policy toward North Korea has had profound impacts on the issue of North Korean nuclear weapon development as well as security of Korean Peninsular. Given the importance of U.S. foreign policy toward North Korea, this study attempts to compare and contrast the foreign policy toward North Korea of the Clinton administration and Bush administration to identify changing aspects of the policies and the factors that determined changes of the policies. As a result of the comparative analysis of the both administrations' foreign policies toward North Korea, it identified some differences and similarities between the two administrations' policies. It found major differences between the two governments in perception of North Korean regime, specific approaches in dealing with North Korea, and negotiation framework. However, the outcomes of analysis show that there have not been significant differences between Clinton and Bush governments in pursuing a grand strategy to maintain the U.S. hegemony and nonproliferation treaty in the post-cold war era. Thus, this study may imply that there will be less possibilities to change the fundamental aspects of U.S. foreign policy toward North Korea even in the future.

국제협상에서의 국내적 제약의 역할

김관옥(Kim, Kwanok) 동아시아국제정치학회 2009 국제정치연구 Vol.12 No.1

The Korea-U.S. beef trade negotiations which had held between January 2006 and June 2008 went through tough and conflictual processes and resulted in more favorable outcomes to South Korea which was weaker than the U.S. What made such processes and outcomes in the Korea-U.S. beef trade negotiations? This paper attempts to define the major factors that determined the processes and outcomes of the negotiations by analyzing Korea-U.S. beef trade negotiations with a two-level game approach which emphasizes both domestic factors like "distribution of preferences and coalition among domestic actors," "public opinion" and "domestic political system" and international factors like "distribution of capabilities among states" and "role of international institutions. The results of the analysis show that processes of the Korea-U.S. beef trade negotiations had to be tough and conflictual because both Korea and the U.S. maintained small size of "win-sets." That means both states did not have not many things to yield to each other. Since the both states announced beef trade agreement on April 18, 2008 which eliminated any kinds of barrier to import all kinds of American beef which many Korean people worry about safety, many powerful social actors in Korean society began to build coalitions and opposed the full opening of Korea beef market to import American beef, and there had been overwhelming public opinion that opposed opening beef market. Those Korean domestic factors drastically reduced "win-sets" size of Korea and enlarged American "win-sets" size, and eventually helped Korea achieve favorable outcome over the U.S. which utilized favorable balance of power with Korea and verification of the international institutions (OIE) about American beef safety to fully open Korean beef market. This case study confirms the arguments of the two-level game approach which emphasizes both international and domestic factors in determining the processes and outcomes of the Korea-U.S. beef trade negotiations.

2012년 미국대선 오바마민주당후보와 롬니공화당후보의 북한정책 비교연구

김관옥(Kwanok Kim) 동아시아국제정치학회 2012 국제정치연구 Vol.15 No.1

This study is to define the foreign policy choices that a declining hegemony adopts toward challenging state which undermining existing international order. Specifically it attempts to find the foreign polices that next U.S. government adopts toward North Korea which undermines nuclear nonproliferation norm that has supported the U.S. dominating international order. For the purpose, it compares and contrasts the North Korean policies of Obama Candidate of Democratic Party with those of Romney Candidate of Republican Party who run for the 2012 U.S. Presidential election. The results of the analysis confirm that Obama Candidate may adopt an offshore balancing strategy which emphasizes arms reduction and burden shifting to allies as well as a selective engagement strategy that stresses strengthening alliance with South Korea and Japan and overwhelming military capabilities to contain and prevent North Korea from undermining existing order. On the contrary, Romney Candidate likely pursues a selective engagement strategy that focuses on enhancement of alliance as well as a global hegemony strategy which emphasizes arms buildup. In that sense, it may anticipate Obama next government may adopt a “Omnidirectional Containment policy with conditional dialogue” since it emphasizes more on the recovery of economy and avoids unnecessary military conflicts with North Korea. On the other hand, Romney next administration may pursue “an absolute high-degree containment policy” which includes preemptive attacks toward North Korea to lead it to self-destruction.

미국과 중국의 외교패권경쟁

김관옥(Kim, Kwanok) 동아시아국제정치학회 2016 국제정치연구 Vol.19 No.1

The United States began to adopt a ‘rebalancing foreign policy’ toward China since 2011. It is to check the Chinese growing power not only strengthening its military capabilities in Asia but also by consolidating existing alliance as well as by promoting relations with other Asian states. On the other hand, China declare the ‘New Type of Relations among Major Countries’ as a major Chinese foreign policy toward the U.S. The foreign policy is to make Chinese status equal with the U.S. and to guarantee its own ‘core national interest’ in relations the U.S. Fore the purpose, China began to create such international institutions as SCO, AIIB, NDB as well as ‘One Belt One Road’ strategy. Why the U.S. and China severly compete in diplomatic relations? what factors determine the both states to adopt such foreign policies toward each other? Which theoretical approach more appropriately explain diplomatic competition between the U.S. and China? The results of the research show that the conflictual interactions between the U.S. and China made the Obama administration to identify China as a ‘competitor’ or ‘challenger.’ So the Obama government adopted a ‘rebalancing policy’ toward China based on the identity. In the same vein, China began to pursue a ‘balancing diplomacy’ or ‘the New Type of Relations between Major Countries’ by accepting the ‘superpower’ identity of its own. As constructivism that this paper adopted as a theoretical approach argues, changes of identities for the U.S. and China determined their own national interest and eventually facilitated diplomatic competition between them. Thus, both the U.S. ‘a rebalancing diplomacy’ and China’s a ‘balancing diplomacy’ were generated by changes of identities resulted by interactions between the U.S. and China. Furthermore, the diplomatic competition between them has been severer due to the confrontation of role identity of ‘superpower.’

미중 무역전쟁 연구 : 트럼프정부의 보호무역정책 요인분석을 중심으로

김관옥(Kim, Kwanok) 동아시아국제정치학회 2018 국제정치연구 Vol.21 No.1

As China is strongly resisting the Trump administration`s unprecedented retaliatory trade policy toward China, the trade conflict between the two countries goes beyond the level of trade conflict and deteriorated into a `trade war`. Why has the Trump administration initiated a trade war by imposing a large tariff on China? Why has China strongly resisted against the pressure and demand of the U.S., not like Japan did in the past? To what extent does the trade war between the U.S. and China develop and ultimately turn into a protectionist international trade order? The study results showed that the US-China trade disputes resulted from both the United States` protective trade policy and China`s strong retaliatory measures toward each other were more than just aimed at creating a favorable trade balance. It was confirmed that the trade war between the U.S. and China showed signs of economic power competition, technological competition and production competition as part of the hegemony competition. In other words, the trade war between the U.S. and China is a competition to secure superior economic power, which is the condition of the hegemonic power, as the hegemonic stabilization approach argued. The declining U.S. has pushed for a mercantilist trade policy to protect its industries and increase exports in order to regain its dominant economic power, on the other side, China has to secure control over capital, market and technology in order to emerge as a hegemonic power.

트럼프정부의 대중국 안보정책: 바이든정부와의 비교연구

김관옥(Kim, Kwanok) 동아시아국제정치학회 2021 국제정치연구 Vol.24 No.2

바이든정부는 좀 더 유화적인 대중국정책을 추진할 것이라는 예상과는 달리 트럼프정부의 대중국안보정책을 그대로 계승하고 있다. 왜 바이든정부는 트럼프정부와 동일한 정책기조를 유지하는가? 본 연구는 바이든정부의 중국안보정책은 미국의 쇠퇴와 중국의 부상 사이에서 전개되고 있는 미중패권경쟁의 요인에 의해서 결정되었다고 주장한다. 패권유지는 정당과 개별 정부를 초월하는 미국대외정책의 최종적 목표라는 점에서 중국이 미국패권을 위협하는 한 대중국봉쇄정책은 행정부의 변화와 무관하게 지속된다는 것이다. 연구결과도 본 연구의 주장을 확인하고 있다. 오바마정부 정책을 극단적으로 비판했던 트럼프 전대통령도 오바마정부의 대중국정책 기조를 그대로 계승했으며 트럼프를 인정하지 않았던 바이든대통령도 트럼프정부의 대중국정책을 이어받았다. 즉 중국을 견제하기 위해 전체 미군사력의 60%를 아시아에 배치하는 오바마정부의 ‘재균형정책’을 트럼프정부는 계승해 ‘인도-태평양전략과 쿼드’로 확대 재생산했으며, 바이든정부는 이에 추가적으로 아시아에 강력한 군사력 주둔과 더불어 인권과 민주주의를 통한 중국압박을 강화하는 것이다. 중국봉쇄전략은 정권의 교체와 무관하게 미국 대중국안보정책으로 자리잡고 있다. 따라서 미국정부의 중국안보정책은 국내적 요인보다는 중국과의 패권경쟁이라는 국제구조적 요인에 의해서 결정되고 있음을 확인할 수 있는 것이다. 즉 중국이 급속히 증가된 국력을 바탕으로 군사 및 경제적 수단을 동원해 미국의 패권적 위상과 국익을 위협하는 상황에서 패권을 유지해야 하는 미국정부는 정권과 무관하게 ‘잠재적 패권 도전국’인 중국을 봉쇄하는 전략을 채택하게 된다는 것이다. Biden"s foreign security policy toward China is not different from the one of Trump government, although President Biden had criticized Trump"s foreign policy during the presidential election period. Why has Biden government maintained same foreign security policy as Trump government"s ‘Indo-Pacific strategy’ toward China. Furthermore, Biden has even been strengthening “the Quad system” that Trump had initiated to contain China. This paper argues that since China"s military and economic power have rapidly grown and exerted its power over the Indo-pacific region, which undermined U.S. national interest in the region, the U.S. governments have adopted containment policy toward China to maintain its hegemonic status and favorable balance of power in the region regardless who charges the U.S. government. The results of the research show that the Biden government’s foreign security policy toward China has succeeded the Trumps government’s policy under the hegemonic competition with challenging China. The research results have confirmed the arguments of this paper that such international factors as hegemonic competition between the U.S. and China have determined the U.S. government"s security policy toward China regardless who is in power and which party gets the power.

부시정부의 선택적 핵비확산정책 연구

김관옥(Kim, Kwanok),김옥준(Kim, Ok-Joon) 동아시아국제정치학회 2008 국제정치연구 Vol.11 No.1

트럼프 행정부의 ‘미국우선주의’ 대외정책

김관옥(Kim Kwanok) 동아시아국제정치학회 2017 국제정치연구 Vol.20 No.1

Why Trump government"s foreign policy promote uncertainty and unstability? Why Trump president made drastic changes in its foreign policies? Why Trump government adopted ‘America First’ foreign policy? This paper attempts to answer the questions and define the major factors that determined the ‘America First Policy’ of the Trump government. The results of the research show that as the hegemonic stability theory argues, the U.S. which is the declining hegemony became ‘malevolent hegemony’ to maintain its hegemonic status. Unlike the statement of Trump president that the U.S. will be a ‘anti-interventionist’ for international politics, the Trump government has pursued hegemonic status and played hegemonic roles. However, the Trump government has urged its allies like South Korea, Japan, and NOTO member states to pay expensive charges in order to maintain security services and Trade agreements that the U.S. has provided.

동아시아 갈등관계와 불일치외교

김관옥(Kim, Kwanok) 계명대학교 사회과학연구소 2013 한국사회과학연구 Vol.32 No.1

Although East Asia is known as a dynamic region that drives wold economic growth, there have been long lasting conflicts and disputes among regional states. The United States and China compete each other for hegemonic status and China and Japan have disputed over territories in East China islands. Further more, the North Korean nuclear weapon issue has lasted over 20 year and has heightened tension among regional states. Why East Asian states relations have been conflictual unlike European states despite high level of economic interdependence among the states? In that sense, the purpose of this paper is identify major factors that have determined such conflicts and disputes among East Asian countries. For the purpose, it examines some case studies as the competitive relationship between the United States and China, the China-Japan territorial dispute, and the North Korean nuclear weapon dispute. The results of the case studies show that change of distribution of power between the United States and China due to the rapid growth of Chinese national power induced the United States that had preferred to maintain hegemonic power status to restrain and contain China. In contrast, China also began to adopt internal and external measures to make balance with the U.S. power by building strong military capabilities and creating alliance with other states like Russia. Second, the case of China-Japan territorial dispute also confirms that stiff national power growth of China played significant role in intensifying China-Japan dispute. However, the issue of Japanese "past affairs" also provided amplification impact on the bilateral dispute. The North Korea nuclear weapon case indicated that such domestic political and economic factors as maintenance of political power and economic crisis played important role in leading international conflicts among East Asian states. Thus, it is confirmed that not only change of power distribution but also some cognitive and domestic factors like "past affairs" and "economic crisis" have determined conflicts or disputes among East Asian States.

중국의 영유권분쟁과 ‘강대국외교’ 기조

김관옥(Kim, Kwanok) 계명대학교 사회과학연구소 2012 한국사회과학연구 Vol.31 No.1

Recently China has employed aggressive approaches in dealing with the East China Sea dominion disputes with Japan as well as to the Philippines in the South China Sea dominion dispute. Why China has adopted such military force based aggressive approaches in dominion disputes while it has argued its “Peaceful Rise Foreign Policy” toward neighboring states? This study attempts to identify factors that determined such Chinese provocative behaviors by examining the East China dominion disputes with Japan and South China dominion disputes with the Philippines. The results of the analyses confirm that “powerful state foreign policy” that China has pursued since middle of 2000s determined the aggressive approaches against Japan and the Philippines in the dominion disputes rather than "economic interests" or "naval nationalism" has done.