White House Mentions Withdrawal of US Troops from South Korea: What Measures Will Seoul Take?

Published in Segye Ilbo
(South Korea) on 18 Aug 2017
by Editorial (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Myung Jeon. Edited by Rachel Pott.
Proposals for U.S.-China deal on North Korea in exchange for a nuclear freeze arise. President Moon sticks to Seoul-led resolution. A new roadmap for North Korea policy is needed.

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said in a magazine interview that he might consider a deal in which China would have North Korea freeze its nuclear missile program and the U.S. withdraw its troops from South Korea. Likewise, the U.S. news media began to report on a possible peace treaty between Washington and Pyongyang, the possibility of a public discussion of American withdrawal from the South and the suspension of U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises as a bargaining chip. Henry A. Kissinger, a long-time foreign policy guru, has reportedly proposed to Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson that Washington commit Beijing to removing most of its troops from the Korean Peninsula after a North Korean collapse, on the condition that China gets the North to dismantle its nuclear weapon program. It is deeply worrisome that such suggestions for the North Korea problem, which are critical to South Korean national security, are presented without much consideration of the South.

It is hardly likely that either the removal of U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula in an exchange for a North Korean nuclear freeze, or a big U.S.-China deal with the North will be witnessed any time soon. The official stance of the U.S. has been to not legitimize North Korea as a nuclear power. Recently, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert made it clear during a press briefing that the Trump administration’s goal is to denuclearize the region, not to freeze Pyongyang’s nuclear missile program. However, a policy change might be in the air. Secretary of State Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis said in a joint statement released on Aug. 26, 2017, “We remain open to negotiations.”

There is growing sentiment in the U.S. that Washington should acquiesce to North Korea’s nuclear missile program, and this sentiment has seen a steep rise since Pyongyang’s nuclear missile threat against Guam, an unincorporated and organized territory of the U.S. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a nationally televised interview, “Ideally I love a denuclearized North Korea but as I learned when I went there and had some pretty intense dialogue with them, that is a nonstarter with them.” He suggested, “I think our process, our thought process here ought to be on accepting it and trying to cap it or control it.” Similarly, Susan E. Rice, a national security adviser to former President Barack Obama, wrote in an op-ed article, “History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War.” Such nuclear freeze proposals are rooted in the realization that North Korea’s development of a nuclear missile program cannot be deterred unless China cut offs oil supplies to its ally.

Meanwhile, President Moon Jae-in recently said in a speech, “No one can take any military action on the Korean Peninsula without South Korean agreement,” and the U.S. press interpreted this comment as a warning against Washington. In the face of proposals for a big U.S.-China deal on the North Korea issue, a crack in the U.S.-South Korea alliance will damage national security. While the U.S.-Japan alliance is getting stronger, China and Russia are taking North Korea’s side. Given that the dynamics in the region have completely changed, President Moon’s simplistic thinking that Seoul should take the wheel to resolve the North Korea problem cannot solve the complex equation of security in the Korean Peninsula.

In particular, U.S.-China big deal proposals are lethal to South Korean national security. Such a deal would only allow the recalcitrant regime to take control, let alone allow Seoul to take the lead in resolving the situation with the North. A peace treaty in exchange for a nuclear freeze and an American withdrawal from the South is exactly what Kim Jong Un wants. The Moon administration should draw a new road map to its North Korea policy. It should be wise enough to sternly warn Pyongyang, which has already crossed the red line, and defer its Seoul-led dialogue-oriented resolution. If Washington and Beijing make a deal on Pyongyang without Seoul, the fate of the Korean Peninsula will stand on a precipice.


백악관서 나온 주한미군 철수론… 우리 대책은

中에 북핵 동결 대가 빅딜 주장 / 문 대통령, 한반도 운전자론 치중 / 대북 정책 밑그림 다시 그려야

미국 백악관의 스티브 배넌 수석전략가가 언론인터뷰에서 “중국이 북핵을 동결시키는 대가로 주한미군을 철수하는 외교적 딜을 고려해야 한다”고 했다. 미국 언론도 미·북 평화협정 체결과 주한미군 철수 이슈화 가능성, 한·미 연합군사훈련 중단 카드 활용 방안 등을 제기하기 시작했다. 미국 외교의 거물 헨리 키신저도 북핵 폐기와 주한미군 철수 맞교환 카드를 렉스 틸러슨 국무장관에게 제안했다고 한다. 한국 안보에 중요한 이 같은 의제가 한국과는 무관하게 불거지고 있어 심히 우려스럽다.

핵동결 전제의 주한미군 철수론과 미·중 빅딜론이 당장 현실화될 가능성이 높지는 않다. 미국은 공식적으로는 북한을 핵 보유 국가로 인정할 수 없다는 입장이다. 나워트 국무부 대변인은 핵 동결이 아닌 비핵화가 트럼프 행정부의 목표라는 점을 분명히 했다. 그러나 이 방침이 언제까지 고수될지 알 수 없는 흐름이 전개되고 있다. 틸러슨 국무장관과 제임스 매티스 국방장관이 공동으로 언론기고문을 싣고 “미 정부는 북한과 협상할 의향이 있다”고 밝힌 상황이다.

‘북핵 용인론’은 미국 내에서 점점 커지고 있다. 북한의 미국령 괌 미사일 포위사격 협박 이후 심해졌다. 제임스 클래퍼 전 미국 국가정보국(DNI) 국장은 “북한에 가서 보니 비핵화는 애초에 고려할 가치가 없는 생각”이라며 “미국은 북핵을 받아들이고 통제해야 한다”고 했다. 수전 라이스 전 백악관 국가안보보좌관도 “냉전시대 소련 핵무기 수천 기를 용인했던 것처럼 북한 핵무기를 용인할 수도 있다”고 했다. 핵동결 협상론은 중국이 원유공급을 차단하지 않는 한 핵개발을 막지 못한다는 현실적인 한계에서도 나온다.

문재인 대통령은 “그 누구도 한국의 동의 없이 군사행동을 할 수 없다”고 했다. 미국 언론은 이 언급을 미국에 대한 경고라고 해석한다. 대북 빅딜론이 나오는 국면에서 한·미 동맹을 금 가게 해선 국가안보를 해치게 된다. 미·일 동맹은 탄탄해지고 중국과 러시아는 북한 편에 서고 있다. 내용과 구도가 예전과 판이하게 달라졌다. 운전대를 한국이 잡아야 한다는 단선적인 사고로는 한반도 안보의 고차방정식을 풀 수 없다.

북핵 인정을 전제로 한 빅딜론은 한국 안보엔 치명적이다. 그렇게 될 경우 한국이 한반도 문제의 운전석에 앉기는커녕 북한이 북핵 게임의 주도권을 쥐게 된다. 핵 동결과 주한미군 철수를 전제로 한 평화협정 체결은 김정은의 노림수다. 정부는 대북정책의 밑그림을 다시 그려야 한다. 레드라인을 넘은 북한에 단호하게 경고하고 독자적인 대화론은 유보하는 지혜가 필요하다. 한국이 소외된 채 빅딜론이 현실화되면 한반도 운명은 벼랑 앞에 서게 될 것이다.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Topics

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Poland: Meloni in the White House. Has Trump Forgotten Poland?*

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Mauritius: Could Trump Be Leading the World into Recession?

India: World in Flux: India Must See Bigger Trade Picture

Palestine: US vs. Ansarallah: Will Trump Launch a Ground War in Yemen for Israel?

Related Articles

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Poland: Meloni in the White House. Has Trump Forgotten Poland?*

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Mauritius: Could Trump Be Leading the World into Recession?