페레스트로이카 이후의 구소련 정치행정체제의 변화 분석 [ 1 ]

엄구호 ( Gu - Ho Eom ) 한국행정연구원 1993 韓國行政硏究 Vol.2 No.3

최근 유라시아 정세와 한국의 대중앙아시아 외교 방향

엄구호 ( Eom Gu-ho ) 한국외교협회 2022 외교 Vol.142 No.0

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have political and economic impacts in Central Asia. Politically, first, Central Asian countries will strengthen cooperation with neighboring regional powers such as India, Turkey and Iran to hedge their political and economic security. Second, while China’s influence in Central Asia will increase, SCO will be more economic cooperation organization. Third, the future direction of Central Asian regionalism will be uncertain. Although it is unlikely, if Uzbekistan shows anti-Russian behavior, regionalism in Central Asia may weaken. Fourth, it is unlikely that the US role will be expanded again in Central Asia after the Ukraine War. Economically, first, it is highly likely that the status and centripetal force of the Eurasian Economic Union will be weakened. Second, if Europe’s anti-Russian energy policy is strengthened and green energy policies are accelerated, the renewable energy policies of Central Asian carbon-centered energy producing countries such as Kazakhstan in particular can be accelerated. Third, if the logistical obstacles of TSR persist, the bypass logistics infrastructure going to Central Asia through India, Iran, Pakistan, etc. instead of through Russia will be activated. It seems inevitable to shift Korea’s diplomacy toward Central Asia to a certain level to organically link value-oriented diplomacy and economic security strategies. In this context, first, the existing diplomatic strategies and economic cooperation policies toward Central Asia must be freed from the tendency to view Central Asian countries only as a sphere of influence from Russia. Second, in a situation in which economic cooperation between Korea and Russia is inevitably severely curtailed due to western sanctions against Russia and geopolitical conflicts, it is necessary to strengthen economic cooperation with Central Asian countries as a means of circumventing economic cooperation with Russia. Third, there is a possibility that the northern policy of new governments may be weakened due to the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, thus the cooperation with Central Asian countries may also shrink. It will be necessary to maintain and develop the previous government’s cooperation platform with Central Asian countries.

최근 유라시아 정세와 한국의 대중앙아시아 외교 방향

엄구호(Eom Gu-ho) 한국외교협회 2022 계간 외교 Vol.- No.142

헬싱키 정상회담 이후 미·러관계 전망

엄구호(Eom Gu-ho) 한국외교협회 2019 계간 외교 Vol.- No.130

헬성키 정상회담 이후 미·러관계 전망

엄구호 ( Eom Gu-ho ) 한국외교협회 2019 외교 Vol.130 No.0

Some experts are worried about the recent relationship between US and Russia as new Cold War, but the international context and character of the current US-Russia relationship is completely different from the Cold War era. Nevertheless, US-Russia relations seem to be inevitable for a considerable period of time as much as during the Cold War. The root cause is that the national and international identities of the two countries are based on incompatible value systems embodied in the competitive forms of exceptionism and universalism. Considering Trump’s domestic policy ability, the degree of conflict between US foreign policy under the new administration of the United States, and the degree of sanctions (persistence or mitigation), the four scenarios are possible. Considering that foreign policy conflicts between two countries are unlikely to be lowered, sanctions are likely to continue, and Trump is likely to be re-elected, the scenario of maintaining the current situation of managing escalation of conflicts is realistic to be. With the breakdown of the INF Agreement and the uncertainty of the New START extension in 2012, the threat to strategic stability between the two countries is likely to increase significantly. The conditions for improving bilateral relations can be considered as follows. First, nuclear equality for strategic stability between two countries should not be undermined. Second, the spread of MD in Europe is refrained. Third, compromise of Russian concessions and mitigation measures of US sanction against Russia in the eastern Ukraine issue should be made. Fourth, a joint response to international terrorism must be restored. Fifth, the United States does not unduly deteriorate relations with China and Iran. Finally, it provides a mechanism for cooperation in which Russia can cooperate with the United States as a key stakeholder of the region in the North Korean nuclear issue, which is easy to embrace. However, as long as both countries believe that time is on their side, it is unlikely that this condition will be established.

러시아의 동북아 가스정책과 극동, 동시베리아 가스의 공급 안정성

엄구호 ( Gu Ho Eom ) 한국외국어대학교 러시아연구소 2013 슬라브연구 Vol.29 No.2

This study aims to analyze Russia`s gas policy toward the Northeast Asia from a perspective of supply satisfaction of the East Siberian and Far Eastern gas and to get our implications. The stability of Russian gas supply to the Northeast Asia needs to be assessed from the following four aspects; potential demand, production capacity, transport capacity, and financial capacity of the East Siberian and Far Eastern gas. First of all, it has been known, the investment size for the development of oil and gas fields in the East Siberia and the Russian Far East region is so enormous that Russia alone cannot afford the investment. Second, for a virtuous circle of the gas cooperation in the Northeast Asia, we need to induce participation of the Northeast Asian countries in the development of gas fields and construction of transportation network, taking into account Russia`s insufficient financial capacity. Third, the uncertainty of Russia`s capability for gas supply to the Northeast Asia is definitely a financial matter, because the Russian gas supply satisfaction in the Northeast Asian countries is closely related to the appropriateness of its price. Fourth, if taking into account of Russia`s gas supply capacity, the rate of development, and financial capacity, a full-scale production of the East Siberian and Far Eastern gas will be able to begin after 2017. Fifth, both policy of the Xi Jinping government to maintain and expand the China-Russia strategic relationship and policy of the Abe government on Northern Territories will have positive influences upon the stability of gas supply from Russia`s East Siberia and Far East. To secure stability of the East Siberian and Far Eastern gas supply to the Northeast Asia, Russia should make a great effort not only to smoothen the price negotiation process with the Northeast Asian countries, but also to build up her financial capacity through preparing a system to allow and induce investment from the Northeast Asian countries in the development of gas fields and transportation infrastructure. Without this fundamental change in Russia`s gas policy toward the Northeast Asia, it is hard to make a positive evaluation on the stability in supply of the East Siberian and Far Eastern gas to the Northeast Asia.

이원집정부제 러시아 정부의 불안정성에 관한 연구

엄구호(Eom Gu Ho),김연규(Kim Youn Kyoo) 한국국제정치학회 2006 國際政治論叢 Vol.46 No.3

중앙아시아의 민주주의와 씨족 정치

엄구호 ( Gu Ho Eom ) 한국세계지역학회 2009 世界地域硏究論叢 Vol.27 No.3

본 논문은 중앙아시아의 민주주의를 설명함에 있어서는 합성체제론(hybrid regime)과 비공식 구조(informal structure)에 대한 병행적 이해가 필요하며, 특히 중앙아시아의 독특한 비공식 구조인 씨족에 주목해야 한다고 주장한다. 합성체제론과 비공식 구조에 대한 이해가 병행되어야 하는 이유는 첫째, 선거 권위주의와 같은 합성체제에서는 공식제도가 정파주의와 비민주적 권력관계를 보존하는 비공식 제도와 양립가능하기 때문이다. 다시 말해 공식적으로 민주적 제도가 있다 하더라도 인맥이나 씨족 같은 비공식적 연계망이 실제의 정치를 좌우하고 있는 것이다. 둘째, 불완전 민주주의가 실제에서 비민주체제로 안정화되었을 때는 불완전 또는 전환적 형태의 민주주의로 다루는 것은 적절치 않기 때문이다. 중앙아시아는 안정적 비민주주의 현상을 보여주고 있으며 이러한 안정적 비민주주의는 민주주의로 전환하기가 매우 어려운데 그 이유는 비민주주의임에도 안정성을 보이는 것은 비공식적 구조가 안정화 또는 고착화되어 있기 때문이다. 셋째, 중앙아시아 국가들은 실제로는 민주주의의 최소 요건도 아직 제도로 갖추진 못하고 있어 대중과 엘리트들이 어느 정도 민주적 가치를 수용하고 있는가 또는 정당 시스템은 어느 정도 제도화 되어 있는가와 같은 민주주의 평가의 서구적 기준은 아직 적용되기가 어렵기 때문이다. 이 논문은 중앙아시아 5개국의 씨족정치를 비교 분석하여 다음과 같은 결론을 얻을 수 있었다. 첫째, 중앙아시아에서 정치지도자가 안정적 장기 집권 기반을 마련하면 씨족간 균형을 추구하면서 탈씨족정치화 하는 경향을 보인다. 둘째, 씨족 형성의 기반이 혈족이냐 지역이냐가 씨족 구조의 견고함에 영향을 미친다. 예를 들어 씨족이 혈통보다는 지역에 기초한 우즈베키스탄의 경우 씨족 정치가 상당히 완화되어 있는 반면에 카자흐스탄의 경우 나자르바예프 대통령의 씨족 균형적 인사정책에도 불구하고 씨족 구조의 견고함은 계속 유지되고 있다. 특히 주목할 점은 씨족 기반과 지역 갈등이 중첩된 경우는 씨족 갈등의 증폭되어 정국 안정을 기하기가 어렵다는 것이다. 전체적으로 보면 중앙아시아 국가들의 지배 중심은 국가에 있으나 씨족들의 정치적 영향력은 다소 차이가 있다. 우즈베키스탄과 키르기스스탄은 정치적 영향력은 다소 간접적인 정경유착형 후견시스템(patronage)의 성격을 보이고 있으며 카자흐스탄은 정치적 영향력이 다소 직접적인 후견주의적 정당 성격을 보이고 타지키스탄과 투르크메니스탄은 독재적 도당화 성격을 보이고 있다. 셋째, 중앙아시아의 정치체제가 초대통령제인 것은 사실이나 씨족들에 의해 상당부분 제약되는 것이 사실이다. 넷째, 중앙아시아의 경우 씨족 정치와 자원저주 현상(resource curse)의 관계에 주목해야 한다. 카자흐스탄과 투르크메니스탄 같은 자원 부국의 경우 자원으로 인한 국가수입을 경쟁 씨족을 달래고 개인 권력을 증대시키는데 사용할 수 있기 때문이다. 시장경제의 성장과 부의 분배가 이루어져야 부가 집중된 권위주의 체제의 민주화를 이룰 수 있고 씨족과 후견 네트워크(patron-client network)를 없앨 수 있음을 분명해 보인다. This article argues that explanations on democracy of the post-Soviet Central Asia should pay parallel attention to both `hybrid regime` and `informal structure,` especially clans, the structure unique to the Central Asian politics. The grounds for the equal emphasis of this article on `hybrid regime` and `informal structure` are as follows; first, in a hybrid regime like `electoral authoritarianism,` the formal political system can coexist with informal institutions that hold particularism and non-democratic power structure. Even if the Central Asian countries formally have democratic institutions, in other words, it is informal network such as clans and personal connections that control their real politics. Second, when a non-democratic regime has been stabilized from incomplete democracy, it is not proper to regard the regime as an incomplete or transitional democracy. The contemporary Central Asian politics assume the characteristics of stable non-democracy, which is hard to be transformed to democracy because its stability comes from that the informal structure became permanent. Third, it is not easy to apply Western standards for evaluating democracy-such as the degree in which the mass and elite accept to democratic values, or the degree in which political party system is institutionalized-to the Central Asian countries, because these countries at large have not fulfill yet the minimum institutional requirements for democracy. From a comparative analysis on clan politics of the 5 Central Asian countries, this article draws the following conclusions; First, when a political leader gain a stable foothold for the long-term seizure of power in Central Asia, there appears a tendency to seek for a balance of power among clans and to free politics from their influences. Second, the solidity of the clan structure is affected by whether the clan formation is based on blood or region. While in the case of Uzbekistan where the clans are based on region rather than blood, the clan politics has been quite lessened, for example, the solidity of clan structure has been still preserved in Kazakhstan despite the clan-balancing personnel policy of the President Nazarbayev. One thing noteworthy is that it becomes too hard to stabilize the political situation by escalated conflicts among clans when the clan formation is complicated by both blood and region. While the ruling power in the Central Asian countries by and large is centered on the state, there are quite apparent differences among them in the degree of the clans` political influences; Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan take on the characteristics of a more or less indirect patronage system with crony relationship between government and business. Kazakhstan assumes the characteristics of patronage political party whose political influences are quite direct, and Tajikistan and Turkmenistan shows a despotic factionization. Third, although the Central Asian political system is based on strong presidentialism, it is also true that the presidential power is quite limited by the clans. Fourth, especially in case of Central Asia, the relationship between the clan politics and the phenomenon of resource curse should be highlighted. It is because in case of the resource-rich countries such as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan the national revenues from resources can be utilized to pamper rival clans and amplify personal political power. Here it becomes clear that democratizing an authoritarian system and eliminating the clan-based patron-client network based should be preceded by the growth of market economy and proper distribution of wealth.

한국의 중앙아시아 연구 동향

엄구호(Gu Ho Eom) 서울대학교 아시아연구소 2012 아시아리뷰 Vol.2 No.1

지역연구의 바람직한 방향은 인문학적 지역연구와 사회과학적 지역연구의 학제적 통섭, 순수 기초 연구와 응용 정책 연구의 유기적 연계성, 국내적 연구와 국제관계적 연구의 체계적 시각 정립일 것이다. 그러나 2005년 이후 본격화된 한국의 중앙아시아 연구는 아직 역사가 일천하여 위의 기준에서 보면 여전히 많은 문제점을 갖고 있다. 첫째, 최근의 많은 연구들이 스탄국가 중심으로 이루어지고 있으며, 스탄국가를 대상으로 한 연구는 주로 사회과학 배경연구, 스탄 외 국가들에 대한 연구는 주로 인문학 배경 연구로 편중되어 있다. 또한 학제적 연구가 매우 부족한 실정이다. 둘째, 최근의 연구 지원 동향을 보면 순수 기초 연구에 대한 지원이 부족하다. 특히 중앙아시아사 연구에 집중적 지원이 필요하다. 셋째, 중앙아시아 지역의 내적 연관성을 모색하는 연구가 부족하다. 중앙아시아의 지리적 개념이 매우 모호하고 국내 학자 간 합의가 부족한 상황을 감안하면 서투르키스탄 연구자와 동투르키스탄 연구자들 사이의 소통이 시급하다. 넷째, 몽골연구에 비해 위구르·티벳 연구가 급감하고 있어 이 지역 연구의 지속가능성이 염려된다. 다섯째, 스탄국가의 경우 타지키스탄, 키르기스스탄, 투르크메니스탄 연구는 사실상 걸음마 단계에 있다. 여섯째, 1차 전문 연구자의 양성이 시급하다. 특히 스탄국가들의 경우 러시아 연구자들이 병행하는 경우가 많은데 국내 대학원에서도 중앙아시아 학위과정이 활성화될 필요가 있다. 이러한 문제점을 극복하기 위한 바람직한 연구방향으로 세 가지를 제언할 수 있다. 첫째, 독립 후 중앙아시아 지역은 개인적ㆍ민족적ㆍ국가적 정체성의 급격한 변화와 재구성의 과정 속에 있다. 정체성을 키워드로 삼아, 중앙아시아 지역에서 다종교ㆍ다문화ㆍ다민족이 공존하면서 그려내는 복합적, 중첩적 정체성의 전체적 지형도를 그려내는 연구가 필요하다. 둘째, 중앙아시아 지역연구를 위한 공통의 목적 아래 각 학문 분과의 통합보다는 각 학문 분과의 개별적 특성을 존중하고 그것을 심화하며, 공존하게 함으로써 중앙아시아 지역연구의 새로운 모델이 필요하다. 셋째, 중앙아시아 연구가 스탄국가에 한정되어서는 안 된다. 역사적으로 보아 중앙아시아의 지리적 개념은 민족적으로 동투르크인, 동이란인, 몽골족의 분포에 모두 초점을 두어야 한다. 현대 지정학적 관점에서도 스탄 공화국들과 신장과 아프가니스탄을 중앙아시아의 문명 지대의 핵심 지역으로 하고 여기에 이란의 호라산 지역, 파키스탄의 북부지역, 러시아의 타타르스탄 지역, 인도의 라자스탄에서 아그라에 이르는 지역이 포함하는 대중앙아시아 개념을 엄밀히 검토할 필요성이 있다. 위에서 제시한 정체성 중심의 연구와 학제적 연구 지향도 이러한 포괄적인 지리적 개념하에서의 내적 연관성 모색에 기초하지 않으면 그 결실을 보기 어려울 것이다. The recommendable directions for area studies today all have the word ‘interdisciplinary’ as a key: humanities and social science, pure arts and science studies and applied policy studies, and regional area studies and international relation studies. Judging by these standards, the Central Asian studies in Korea seems to be at its infant stage, which is only logical when considering the fact that this academic field was founded in Korea only in 2005. Some of the problems that the Korean academia faces are as follows: First, recent studies in both social sciences and humanities have tended to focus on the stan countries, but only a few of these studies have been interdisciplinary in character. Secondly, financial support for researchers of pure arts or pure science studies have been far from sufficient, and this is especially true for researchers of Central Asian history. Thirdly, more studies focusing on the internal relations within the Central Asian region are required. Meanwhile, the geographical conception of the Central Asian region remains as a contested one among scholars, and therefore, academic exchange and communication between scholars studying West Turkestan and those studying East Turkestan are urgently needed. Fourthly, studies on Uyghur-Tibek have fallen short in number, in comparison to studies on Mongolia. Fifthly, although studies on the stan countries have been accumulating, those on Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan, however, remain in their infant stage. Sixthly, more attention should be given to training our Korean specialists in specific areas. For instance, studies on the stan countries have been dominated by Russian specialists. More courses on Central Asia should be offered by graduate schools in Korea. In order to overcome the above problems, this paper proposes the following three ways: First, the Central Asian region has undergone rapid changes in terms of reconstructions of an individual after the independence, such as the individual’s ethnic and national identity. In this respect, studies focusing on the individual’s ‘identity’ as a key word are required to sort out the complex map of individual identities in the Central Asian region, as well as to shed a new light onto its multilayeredness, namely its multi-religious, multi-ethnic, and multi-cultural characteristics. Secondly, I suggest that every study field be respected for its distinctive character, and that we help to build on them, which will ultimately benefit the field of Central Asian area studies as a whole. Thirdly, the Central Asian studies should not be limited to the stan countries. From a historical perspective, the geographical conception of Central Asia should be based on the distribution of the Turks, East Iranians, and Mongol. Even from the contemporary geopolitical point of view, we need to reset the definition of Greater Central Asia as one which claims the stan countries, Xinjiang, and Afganistan as the core region of the Central Asian civilization, and one which encompasses the Horasan region of Iran, the northern region of Pakistan, the Tartar region of Russia, and the region spanning from Rajasthan to Agra in India. For the identity-focused studies and interdisciplinary studies suggested here to become meaningful in any way, it is necessary that they conform to this comprehensive geographical conception of Central Asia.

페레스트로이카 이후의 구소련 정치 . 행정체제의 변화 분석 [ 2 ]

엄구호 ( Gu - Ho Eom ) 한국행정연구원 1993 韓國行政硏究 Vol.2 No.4