박정희 정부의 전략적 리더십과 대외안보전략 : 1961~1972

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to identify the factors that influenced the pursuitofvarious externalsecurity strategies by analyzing the cases thatPark Junghee administration implemented in Asia-pacific region in order to enhance its security capability while maintaining a strong alliance with the United States during the Cold war era. The fundamentalstarting pointofthis research was a thoughton the
necessity ofnationalsecurity framework in the mid to long-term
contextin accordance with the change ofsecurity situation in the regional structure including the rise of China.
To this end, this study established two hypotheses based on Neoclassical realism. First hypothesis is a sfollows: "as the Republic of Korea(ROK)'s decision-makers demonstrate higher level of strategic leadership capability, the possibility of implementation and the outcome of external security strategy in the Asia-pacific region increases." Second hypothesis is a sfollows: "while the ROK pursues complimentary measures of the alliance in order to further its security, the possibility of implementation of complimentary measures that the ROK formulated will increase proportionally to the U.S.' positive perception toward the ROK's complimentary measures of alliance."
Based on the above mentioned hypotheses,this study analyzed three cases: the foundation of Asia-Pacific Council, Vietnam Conference, and formulation of Asia-pacific Treaty Organization. The summary of research results are as follow:
First, the factors that influence the formulation and implementation of the ROK's external security strategy are the strategic leadership of the ROK's decision-makers,and the U.S.' perception on thecomplementary measures of the ROK-U.S. alliance that the ROK pursues.
The U.S.' perception on the ROK's externalsecurity strategy is based on its own regional hegemonic strategy. It was confirmed that the internationalsystem and regionalhegemonic system should be considered as leading variables that influence the U.S.' regional hegemonicstrategy.
Second, the analysis on the Park Junghee administration's implementation of external security strategies in the Asia-pacific region revealed that even though ROK is a weak state, it can afford to initiate and pursue its own external security strategy in the Asia pacific region.
Third, the ROK, as a weak state, is heavily relying on the ROK-U.S. alliance for its security while ROK seeks its complementary measures of the alliance in order to secure its national security. The study on the three cases of the Park Junghee administration's implementation of external security strategies in the Asia-pacific region demonstrate that the possibility of effective implementation ofcomplementary measures ofthe alliance increases when the two factors of the ROK decision-makers' strategic leadership and the U.S.' perception on the ROK's complementary measures of the allianceare appropriately composed.
The academic significance drawn from the results of the study re as follows. First, the study empirically shows that a weak state can initiate various complementary measures for enhancing its national security in the anarchic international system. This finding does not coincide with neorealists' argument that weak states can hardly exercise their own security initiatives in the anarchic international system.
Second, the study also found the fact that even within the limited framework of the international system, implementation and results of a weak state's external security strategy varies based on the factors of the unit level of the international system. This finding shows that the argument of neoclassical realism, which values the state level factors for better explanation of the state's external security strategy, can be applied to the ROK cases.
Third, this study focused on comprehensive analysis of the complementary strategy ofthe ROK-U.S.alliance thatused to be neglected in the realm of security studies. Therefore, it is timely and meaningful in terms of preparing for the change of the regional hegemonic system including the rise of China. Because this type of study can exercise caution of the tendency of insensitively focusing on the ROK-U.S. alliance in studying and designing of our national security.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구의 목적은 냉전기에 박정희 정부가 미국과 강력한 양자동맹체제를 유지하는 가운데 자국의 안보역량을 강화하기 위해서 역내에서 다양한 대외안보전략을 추진한 사례들을 분석하여 추진에 영향을 미친 요인을 밝히는 것이다. 근본적인 연구의 출발점은 지역체제에서의 중국의 부상을 포함한 안보상황의 변화에 따른 중장기적인 차원에서의 국가안보전략 구상의 필요성에 대한 고민이었다. 이를 위해 신고전적 현실주의 이론을 토대로 2가지 가설을 설정하였다.
첫 번째 가설은 “한국의 국가정책 결정자들이 높은 전략적 리더십 역량을 발휘할수록 한국 정부의 아시아･태평양지역 내에서의 대외안보전략이 추진되고 성과를 낼 가능성이 높아진다”는 것이다. 두 번째 가설은 “한국은 자국의 안보를 위해서 동맹의 보완적 방안을 모색하는데,이러한 동맹의 보완적 방안에 대한 미국의 인식이 긍정적(positive)일수록 한국이 구상한 방안 모색의 실현 가능성이 높아진다”는 것이다.
이러한 가설을 토대로 ASPAC 창설,월남 참전국 회의,APATO 구상이라는 3가지 사례를 분석하였으며, 연구 결과를 요약해보면 다음과 같다. 첫째,약소국인 한국의 대외안보전략 구상과 추진에 영향을 주는 요소는 한국 정부 정책결정자들의 전략적 리더십과,한국이 추진하는 동맹의 보완적 방안에 대한 미국의 인식임을 확인할 수 있었다. 미국의 이러한 인식은 자국의 지역패권전략을 기초로 하는데,국제체제와 지역 패권의 형태는 미국의 지역패권전략이라는 체제 차원의 독립변수에 영향을 미치는 선행변수로 고려해야 하는 사항임을 확인할 수 있었다. 둘째, 박
정희 정부의 대외안보전략 추진 사례에 대한 분석 결과,한국이 약소국이지만 나름대로 역내에서 대외안보전략을 구상하고 추진할 여력이 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 셋째,약소국인 한국이 한미동맹을 안보의 근간으로 하면서도 항상 한미동맹 이외의 다양한 보완적 방안들을 모색하는데, 한국의 정책결정자들의 전략적 리더십과 한국이 추진하고 있는 동맹의 보완적 방안에 대한 미국의 인식이 역내에서의 대외안보전략 추진과 성과를 내는데 적합하게 구성될 경우 효과적인 동맹의 보완적 방안 모색이
가능함을 보여준다.
이러한 연구 결과를 바탕으로 도출한,본 연구의 학문적 의의는 다음과 같다. 첫째,본 연구는 무정부적 국제체제의 틀 속에서도 약소국이 자국의 안보를 강화하기 위한 다양한 보완적 방안이 있음을 실증적으로 보여주고 있으며,이러한 사실은 약소국이 독자적인 목소리를 낼 수 없다는 신현실주의 주장과는 일치하지 않는 것이다. 둘째,국제체제가 한정하는 틀 내에서도 단위수준의 요소에 따라 국가의 대외안보전략 추진과 성과가 편차를 보이는 연구결과는 단위수준의 영향이 있다는 신고전적 현실주의 이론이 한국의 사례에도 적용됨을 실증적으로 보여주고 있다. 셋째,기존에 소홀이 다루었던 동맹의 보완전략을 포괄적으로 분석하여 중국의 부상을 포함한 지역 패권의 형태 변화에 대비하는 차원에서 시의적절하고 유의미하다.우리의 안보전략을 연구하고 구상함에 있어서 무감각적으로 한미동맹에 사고가 함몰될 가능성을 경계할 수 있기 때문이다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ.서 론 ···································································································1
• 제1절 문제제기와 연구의 목적 ···············································1
• 제2절 기존 연구의 검토 ······························································8
• 제3절 연구의 방법과 논문의 구성 ·····························12
• 1.연구의 방법 ·············································································12
• 2.논문의 구성 ·············································································18
• Ⅱ.이론적 논의와 분석틀 ······················································20
• 제1절 기존 이론 논의 ··································································20
• 1.대외안보전략･정책 결정에 관한 일반 이론 ···········20
• 2.기존 이론의 한계 ·································································24
• 3.대안적 이론으로서의 ‘신고전적 현실주의’··············28
• 제2절 대안적 분석틀 ····································································39
• 1.가 설 ···························································································39
• 2.변 수 ···························································································42
• 3.변수의 측정지표 구체화 ···················································60
• Ⅲ.아시아･태평양 이사회(ASPAC)창설 ···········69
• 제1절 ASPAC 개관 ······································································70
• 1.ASPAC 창설 구상과 준비 ··············································70
• 2.ASPAC의 운용과 성과 ·····················································75
• 제2절 ASPAC 창설 추진의 영향요인 :미국의 인식
• ················································································84
• 1.국제체제의 형태 ·································································84
• 2.동아시아 지역 패권의 형태 ········································86
• 3.미국의 아시아･태평양지역 패권전략 ···················89
• 1)미국의 동아시아 전략 ················································89
• 2)미국의 대한반도 안보정책 ·····································100
• 3)ASPAC 창설 추진 시기 미국의 지역패권전략
• ·····························································································110
• 4.ASPAC 창설 추진에 대한 미국의 인식 ·········113
• 제3절 ASPAC 창설 추진의 영향요인 :전략적
• 리더십 ····················································································117
• 1.정책결정자들의 외부환경 인식 ······························117
• 2.국내자원 동원과 추출 능력 ·····································139
• 3.국내지지 유지 ····································································145
• 4.ASPAC 창설 추진 시기 한국의 전략적 리더십
• ·····································································································151
• 제4절 동맹의 보완적 방안으로서의 ASPAC 창설
• 추진 ·························································································156
• Ⅳ.월남 참전국 회의 ································································165
• 제1절 월남 참전국 회의 개관 ··············································167
• 1.월남 참전국 정상회담 ··················································167
• 1)한국 정부의 월남 참전국 정상회담 제의 ······167
• 2)참전국들의 반응 ··························································170
• 3)월남 참전국 정상회담 개최와 성과 ··················176
• 2.월남 참전국 외상회의 ··················································179
• 1)제1차 월남 참전국 외상회의 ································180
• 2)제2차 월남 참전국 외상회의 ································184
• 3)제3차 월남 참전국 외상회의 ································188
• 4)비공식 월남 참전국 외상회의 ······························192
• 5)제4차 월남 참전국 외상회의 ································194
• 6)제5차 월남 참전국 외상회의 ································197
• 제2절 월남 참전국 회의 추진의 영향요인 :미국의
• 인식 ··························································································199
• 1.국제체제의 형태 ·······························································199
• 2.동아시아 지역 패권의 형태 ·····································202
• 3.미국의 아시아･태평양지역 패권전략 ·················205
• 1)미국의 동아시아 전략 ··············································205
• 2)미국의 대한반도 안보정책 ·····································213
• 3)월남 참전국 회의 추진 시기 미국의
• 지역패권전략 ·································································219
• 4.월남 참전국 회의 추진에 대한 미국의 인식 222
• 제3절 월남 참전국 회의 추진의 영향요인 :전략적
• 리더십 ····················································································225
• 1.정책결정자들의 외부환경 인식 ······························225
• 2.국내자원 동원과 추출 능력 ·····································242
• 3.국내지지 유지 ····································································248
• 4.월남 참전국 회의 추진 시기 한국의 전랴적
• 리더십 ······················································································254
• 제4절 동맹의 보완적 방안으로서의 월남 참전국 회의
• 추진 ·························································································259
• Ⅴ.아시아･태평양 조약기구(APATO)구상 ··271
• 제1절 APATO 구상 개관 ·······················································273
• 1.박정희 정부의 APATO 구상 ·································273
• 2.미국과 주변국의 반응 ··················································279
• 1)미국의 반응 ···································································279
• 2)주변국의 반응 ·······························································281
• 3)APATO 구상 신중론 제기와 추진의 포기 ··284
• 제2절 APATO 구상 추진의 영향요인 :미국의 인식
• ······································································································287
• 1.국제체제의 형태 ·······························································287
• 2.동아시아 지역 패권의 형태 ·····································290
• 3.미국의 아시아･태평양지역 패권전략 ·················293
• 1)미국의 동아시아 전략 ··············································294
• 2)미국의 대한반도 안보정책 ·····································305
• 3)APATO 구상 시기 미국의 지역패권전략 ·····313
• 4.APATO 구상에 대한 미국의 인식 ·····················316
• 제3절 APATO 구상 추진의 영향요인 :전략적
• 리더십 ····················································································319
• 1.정책결정자들의 외부환경 인식 ······························319
• 2.국내자원 동원과 추출 능력 ·····································341
• 3.국내지지 유지 ····································································347
• 4.APATO 구상 추진 시기 한국의 전략적 리더십
• ·······································································································354
• 제4절 동맹의 보완적 방안으로서의 APATO 구상 360
• Ⅵ.결 론 ·············································372
• 참고문헌 ················································································384
• 사료인용 관련 일러두기 ·························································418
• Abstract························································································419