“레드라인” 공개와 북한의 선택은? - 통일뉴스

“레드라인” 공개와 북한의 선택은? - 통일뉴스


“레드라인” 공개와 북한의 선택은?<칼럼> 곽태환 전 통일연구원 원장
곽태환 | thkwak38@hotmail.com





승인 2017.08.28 18:40:29






곽태환 / 전 통일연구원 원장/한반도 미래전략연구원 이사장


미 국무부 대변인은 외신기자 회견(8.16)에서, 핵 실험· 탄도 미사일 시험발사와 동북아의 안정을 저해하는 언행 중단 등 북·미 대화의 3대 조건을 제시했다. 또 렉스 틸러슨 국무장관도 기자회견에서 "북한과의 대화에 도달하는 방법을 찾는 데 계속 관심을 둘 것"이라며 "그러나 그것은 김정은에게 달려있다"고 밝혔다. 북미간 대화 분위기 조성을 위해 미국의 노력이 보이기 시작하고 있어 다행이다.

이런 시기에 문재인 대통령의 취임100일 기자 회견(8.17)에서 구체적인 '레드라인 (red line, 금지선)'의 정의를 규정하고 처음으로 공개한 것은 북한이 레드 라인을 넘는 것만은 막겠다는 의지를 보인 것은 시의적절하고 의미심장하다. 문 대통령은 레드라인은 “북한이 ICBM(대륙간탄도미사일) 급 미사일을 완성하고 거기에 핵탄두를 탑재해 무기화 하는 것”이라고 정의하고 “북한이 레드라인 임계치에 점점 다가가고 있다”고 밝혔다. 본 칼럼에서 문 대통령이 ‘레드라인' 공개의 동기와 목표는 무엇인가? 북한이 레드라인을 넘지 않도록 어떤 인센티브를 준비해야 하는가? 김정은 위원장의 선택은 무엇인가? 등을 논의하고자 한다.

북한은 핵 무기와 핵탄두를 탐재 한 미사일 운반체를 소유한 핵 보유국으로 ICBM 완성 단계로 달리고 있다. 문 대통령은 북한이 핵탄두 ICBM을 가지면 북한이 레드라인을 넘어서는 것이라고 규정한다. 이런 설명에도 불구하고 ICBM 완성 단계를 놓고 전문가들의 이견이 존재한다. 설사 ICBM 완성단계에 대한 합의를 이룬다 해도 다른 문제가 제기된다. 즉 북한이 핵무기를 실전 배치한 핵보유국이 되는데 만약 북한이 레드라인을 넘어서면 한미가 어떻게 하겠다는 건가? 문 대통령은 회견에서 “북한이 또 다시 도발한다면 더 강도 높은 제재와 직면할 것이고 결국 견뎌내지 못할 것”이라면서 “더는 위험한 도박을 하지 말 것을 경고한다”고 밝혔지만 북한이 어떠한 처벌을 받게 될 것인지에 관해 구체적 내용에 대해 한미가 합의된 것은 없는 것 같다.

그동안 한미 양국은 레드라인을 언급하면서도 구체적 기준을 설정하는 대신에 레드라인의 전략적 모호성을 유지하여 왔다. 전략적 모호성을 유지하는 것이 북한을 상대하는데 유리하게 작용한 것으로 이해되었다, 그러나 일단 레드라인을 공개하면서부터 한미의 정책적 선택지가 좁아지는 것으로 보인다. 북한이 대륙간탄도미사일(ICBM) 급 '화성-14형'을 처음 시험발사한 7월 4일 직후 문 대통령이 "북한이 레드라인을 넘어설 경우 어떻게 대응할지 알 수 없다"고 언급한 뒤에도 레드라인의 전략적 모호성을 유지해 왔다. 그러나 이번레드 라인의 정의를 공개한 이유는 북한이 '이 선을 넘지 말라고 확실한 경고를 하기 위한 목적이 있다고 이해된다.

그런데 북한이 핵 억제력 강화를 위해 ICBM 완성하면 레드라인을 넘게 되는 것인데 이 단계는 북한이 결정해야 할 선택이다. 지금까지 북한의 행태를 봐서 레드라인을 넘지 못하도록 인센티브가 북한에 제공되지 않은 한 핵탄두 ICBM 완성을 위해 레드라인을 넘을 것이 뻔하다. 그러나 만약 한미가 북한과의 대화를 통해 거래(deal)를 한다면 북한이 레드라인을 넘지 않을 수도 있지만 이런 조치는 한.미.북 3자간 상호양보와 타협이 전제가 되어 3자간 건설적인 대화가 이뤄지고 협상이 상당히 진전된 경우일 것이다.

그렇지 않고 현 북미간 기 싸움 환경에서 강 대 강 관계가 지속되고 북한이 계속해 핵 억제력을 강화하여 궁극적으로 ICBM 무기체계를 완성하여 레드라인을 넘으면 한.미가 북한에 대해 어떤 조치들을 선택할 것인지에 대한 한미간 논의가 시급하다. 북한이 레드라인을 넘을 경우에 손실을 계산하게 되여, 북한이 레드라인을 넘으면 한미가 어떻게 하겠다고 분명히 밝히는 것이 북한에게 레드라인을 넘지 못하도록 인센티브를 제공하는 것이 되어 오히려 북한을 대화로 유인하여 딜(deal)을 하게 되면 북한은 레드라인을 넘지 않을 것이라고 생각한다.

문 대통령은 같은 기자회견장에서 ‘전쟁 불가론’을 재강조하였다. 만약 북한이 레드라인을 넘으면 문 대통령이 어떤 보복을 구상하고 있는지 궁금하다. 이미 문 대통령은 한반도 전쟁 불가론을 선포하였기 때문에 군사력을 사용하는 모든 행동은 자제해야 하고 아무리 국지전이라고 해도 전면전으로 번질 확률이 높기 때문에 한미간 선택의 폭이 좁아지게 된다.

이미 지적한 바, 문 대통령이 레드라인을 공개하기 전에 미국과 협의가 없었던 것 같다. 아직도 레드라인의 전략적 모호성을 유지하고 있는 트럼프 행정부와 갈등을 유발할 가능성마저 배제하지 못한다. 문재인 대통령의 레드라인 설정은 청와대 외교안보팀과 전략적 평가를 심사숙고한 후에 내린 합리적인 결정이라고 생각한다. 만약 북한이 ICBM 완성하고 북한의 최종목표인 핵보유국이 되면 게임 체인저(game changer)로 한반도 안보 지형에 지각변동이 일어나게 된다.

북한은 궁극적으로 한미동맹을 와해하는데 기본 목표를 두고 있다. 북한이 ICBM 전략 무기를 보유하게 되면 한미동맹의 균열이 생기게 될 것으로 보인다. 그래서 북한은 문재인 대통령이 규정한 레드라인을 넘어 설 개연성이 높을 것으로 보인다. 첫째로. 미국의 핵우산 공약에 의문을 제기 할 수 도 있다. 미국의 확장억제전략(extended deterrence)에 빨간 불이 켜 보인다. 프랑스 드골 대통령이 미국에게 제기한 의혹이 되살아난다. 미국이 나토(NATO) 국가들을 위해 핵전쟁을 희생할 수 있는가 라고 물었다. 마찬가지로 한국 지도자들이 미국이 핵전쟁을 해서 대한민국을 방어하겠는가라고 묻지 않을 수 없다. 미국의 확장억제전략 공약을 의심하게 되어 한미동맹이 균열이 생기게 될 개연성이 높아 보인다.

둘째로, 북한이 핵보유국이 되면 한국 보수파들이 핵 무장을 강력하게 주장할 것이다. 지금 핵무장을 해야 한다는 목소리보다 더 강력하게 핵무장을 주장하게 되면 핵 무장을 반대해온 미국은 과연 어떤 입장을 유지 할까? 만약 핵무장을 용인하지 않는다면 한미동맹 관계는 어떻게 진화 될 것인가? 만약 대한민국이 핵무장을 한다면 일본과 대만도 핵무장을 하게 될 것이고, 이렇게 진행되면 핵확산 금지 체제(Non-Proliferation regime)는 하루아침에 무너지기 시작한다. 그래서 문재인 대통령은 이런 상황을 사전에 예방하기 위해 레드라인의 정의를 공개하게 된 것이 아닌가 생각한다.

그러면 문제는 북한이 레드라인을 넘어서지 않아야 하는데 북한에게 어떤 인센티브(incentives)을 제공하면 레드라인을 넘지 않을지에 대한 문재인 정부가 어떤 로드맵을 구상하고 있는지 묻고 싶다. 아직 없다면 한미간 협의하여 레드라인을 북한이 넘지 않도록 로드맵 만들기에 총력을 기울기를 촉구한다. 그러나 한미정부가 레드라인을 만들어 북한에게 지키라고 강요한들 레드라인을 준수할 김정은이가 아님을 누구보다 문 대통령은 잘 이해할 줄 안다. 만약 레드라인을 북한이 넘을 경우에, 한미는 북한에 대해 어떤 응징과 처벌을 할 것인지가 궁금해진다.

북한이 핵탄두를 장착한 ICBM은 향후 1-2년이면 완성 단계라고 한국 군부는 평가하고 있는 듯하다. 그러면 북한과 거래(deal)할 수 있는 기간이 한정되어 있어 한미당국은 이제 한반도 문제를 군사적으로 해결할 수 없음을 인식하고 있어 남은 대안은 외교거래를 통해 평화적으로 북한과 딜(deal)을 하는 것인데 북한에게 레드라인을 넘지 않게 하려면 엄청난 인센티브를 제공하여야 할 것이다. 그러면 이런 인센티브를 조속한 시일 내에 마련하여 북한과 딜을 해야 할 것이다. 이것이 문재인 정부가 운전석에 앉아서 한반도 문제의 평화적 해결을 위해 북미간 가교역할(bridge-building role)과 한.미.북 3자 대화를 통해 협상을 시작해야 하는 이유이다. 필자가 제언한 북핵문제를 평화적으로 해결하기 위해서는 북한에게 인센티브를 제공하고 5대 핵심조건을 만들어 나가야 한다고 주장하여 왔다. [필자의 북핵 해법은 북한에게 인센티브를 제공하기 위해 5대 핵심조건 조성 제안과 관련하여 필자의 칼럼 참조, “북핵문제를 어떻게 풀어야 하나? 통일뉴스(2016.6.20)]

마지막으로 김정은 노동당 위원장은 문재인 대통령의 경고와 충고를 가볍게 흘려들어선 안 된다. 향후 핵. 미사일 시험 발사를 포함한 군사적 도발 행위를 일체 중단하고 ‘레드라인을 넘지 말기를 바란다. 김정은 위원장은 국제사회 특히 미국으로부터 핵보유국으로 인정받고 싶지만 현실적으로 불가능한 요구이고 핵을 포기하면 북한체제와 정권을 보장 받을 수 있고 한반도에서 평화 공존을 통해 북한의 경제적 지원과 한반도 평화조약 체결로 북한은 국제사회의 책임 있는 일원으로 등장하고 경제발전과 평화 공존을 누리며 선진복지국가 건설로 진입하게 될 것이다.

최근 미국은 대북 우호적이고 화해 시그널을 보내고 있다. 북한이 미국의 우호적인 시그널을 수용하여 북미간 대화와 협상의 기회를 놓쳐서는 안 될 것이다. 한편 문 대통령은 한반도에서 전쟁 불가론을 밝혔다. 전쟁을 예방하기 위해선 강력한 전쟁 억제력을 강화하여 앞에서 지적한 대로 북한을 대화의 길로 유인하기 위해서는 북한이 거절할 수 없는 인센티브를 제공하여 북한이 두려움 없이 핵을 포기할 수 있는 해법을 모색하길 기대한다.


곽태환 (미 이스턴 켄터키대 명예교수/전 통일연구원 원장)




한국외국어대 학사, 미국Clark대학원 석사, 미국 Claremont Graduate University국제관계학 박사. 미국Eastern Kentucky대학교국제정치학교수; 전경남대극동문제연구소 소장/교수; 전통일연구원원장. 현재 미국 이스턴 켄터키대 명예교수, 한반도미래전략연구원이사장, 한반도중립화통일협의회이사장, 통일전략 연구협의회(LA) 회장 등, 글로벌평화재단이 수여하는혁신학술연구 분야 평화상 수상(2012). 31권의저서,공저및편저; 칼럼, 시론, 학술논문 등 250편 이상 출판; 주요 저서: 『국제정치속의한반도: 평화와통일 구상』 공저: 『한반도평화체제의모색』 등; 영문 책 Editor/Co-editor: One Korea: Visions of Korean Unification (Routledge, 2017); North Korea and Security Cooperation in Northeast Asia (Ashgate, 2014); Peace-Regime Building on the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asian Security Cooperation (Ashgate, 2010) 등.

Has Trump Threatened Nuclear War on North Korea?

Has Trump Threatened Nuclear War on North Korea?


Has Trump Threatened Nuclear War on North Korea?
As President Trump threatens North Korea "with the fire and the fury like the world has never seen," the need for diplomacy is as urgent as ever, says veteran journalist Tim Shorrock





Full Episode
North Korea
 North Korea Fires Missile Over Japan: What Happens Next?


As Trump Threatens North Korea, US Preps War Games Next Door


Wilkerson: Trump and Kim Jong-un Sound the Same


72 Years After Bombing Nagasaki, US Threatens Another Nuclear War


Has Trump Threatened Nuclear War on North Korea?


Wilkerson: Trump is Clueless on North Korea


Wilkerson on North Korea Crisis: U.S. Should Stop the Threats & Own Up to its Role


The Overlooked Past Behind U.S.-North Korea Tensions & How South Korea Could Forge Peace


5 Things You Can't Do In Angola


North Korea's "Hate America Month"?


GOP to Obama: North Korea Sanctions Aren't Enough


What Drives US North Korea Policy?


North Korea Seeks End to US Sanctions and Isolation


North Korea Sees Itself Surrounded by Enemies


Inside Story - Behind the Korean crisis


Talk of war over sinking of South Korean ship












audio














I support this network as contributors are allowed the time to develop their arguments - CM
Log in and tell us why you support TRNN







biography

Tim Shorrock is a Washington-based journalist who spent part of his youth in South Korea and has been writing about North and South Korea since the late 1970s. He just returned from a two month stay in Gwangju, South Korea, where during the Korean president campaign he interviewed South Korea�s President Moon Jae-In. He writes about US-Korea relations for The Nation and the Korea Center for Investigative Reporting.
transcriptAARON MATE: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Mate. Has President Trump threatened nuclear war on North Korea? Well, here's what he said today.

DONALD TRUMP: North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal statement and as I said they will be met with fire, fury, and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.

AARON MATE: Trump's comments come as the Washington Post reports, North Korea has produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles. The Post story said to US intelligence assessment, "If true, it would be a major step in North Korea's nuclear weapons program." The crisis escalated this week after the UN security council imposed new sanctions on North Korea, but Trump's comments threatened to take tensions to a whole new level. Tim Shorrock is a journalist who covers US-Korea relations for The Nation and the Korea Center for investigative reporting. Tim, welcome.

TIM SHORROCK: Thank you.

AARON MATE: Let's start with Trump's comments, "They will be met with the fire, and fury, and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before." Tim, when you heard that, what was your reaction?

TIM SHORROCK: Frankly, I was rather shocked. This sounds like the North Koreans that the US is always drawing caricatures of, this kind of bluster and threats we often hear from Pyongyang. We've been hearing it for years when they've come close to tensions like this, when they've come close to war like this, but to hear it from President Trump is definitely frightening because he's clearly going way beyond what the situation calls for. Frankly, I think we're at an emergency situation now because I think that there's so much pressure on this administration, within the administration and from outside, from think tanks and various television networks like CNN, to have a war.

People want to have a war with North Korea and I think it's ... For a while I've been thinking that the Trump administration was focusing on diplomacy, which Tillerson, the Secretary of State keeps talking about, and Mattis, the Secretary of Defense keeps talking about. Then you hear other comments from his National Security Advisor, McMaster about military action. Then you hear this kind of bluster from Trump today. I mean, this kind of fire and brimstone the world has never seen before. Well, let's tell President Trump that actually the world has seen this kind of fire before, it was the last Korean War when the US completely obliterated North Korea almost from the face of the earth. They've seen it before.

AARON MATE: Tim, what does this situation call for? I mean, what do you think of the sanctions that were just passed with the unanimous support of the UN security council?

TIM SHORROCK: First of all, let's go back to the report you mentioned at the top of the hour, which was this defense intelligence report that was leaked to the Washington Post today and reported on by three of their better reporters. I'm a little surprised by this report, because for one thing it's clearly not the collective conclusion of the entire intelligence community. It's someone in the DIA and there's no real analysis of what they say. They just say it has this miniature warhead that they can now put on a ICBM. Well, they've said that before in years past. It hasn't proven to be true and I'm wondering why this is coming out right now. That seems very dangerous on the face of it. Someone is trying to push, someone within the administration, within the intelligence community is pushing for a military response by leaking this kind of report.

It doesn't have the full discussion that you usually see in intelligence reports, so I'm very skeptical of it for that reason. Going back to the sanctions, I mean, it was pretty surprising to see China and Russia vote for these very severe sanctions, which as Nikki Haley described on Sunday, over the weekend these sanctions will cut North Korea's exports by at least 1/3 and cut very deeply into their one earnings. They could be very damaging sanctions, but what the US media never seems to pick up is what the Chinese and both the Chinese and the Russians say to the United States, which is, "Okay. We're going to vote for these sanctions and help enforce these sanctions, but you, the United States, must proceed on a path of dialogue and negotiations to resolve this. This will not be resolved by sanctions and tough words alone."

AARON MATE: Tim, obviously the fact that they voted for it means that ... Or, let me ask you if you think it means that Russia and China do think that these sanctions will help foster that dialogue?

TIM SHORROCK: I think they're hoping that it fosters that dialogue, but they made very strong statements at the UN when the meeting was held at the security council the other day, and also in meetings that have taken place in Thailand this week where Secretary of State Tillerson is and where the North Korean Foreign Minister is also, where they have emphasized the path of negotiations. The Chinese have also said that they very much oppose the US deployment of THAAD, the Theater Anti-Missile Defense system that's been deployed to South Korea and they want to see that revoked. They're still supporting sanctions, but they want another path and they see this as one part of a path to get North Korea to denuclearize.

AARON MATE: On this point about the sanctions, let's talk about their impact. I want to play you a clip from Bill Richardson. He is a former US Ambassador to the UN and also the former Governor of New Mexico. He was talking to NPR today and asked about what these sanctions target. This is what he said.

BILL RICHARDSON: Well, they affect 90% of North Korea's economy. It's a small economy. They embark on cutting off of coal, food stuffs, a lot of North Korean foreign workers that make money through energy. These sanctions have bite. I have to give the administration credit and most credit I think has to be the ability to get the sanctions passed in the UN security council without a veto from China and Russia, especially China.

AARON MATE: Tim, that's a former Democratic Governor saying that he gives credit to the Trump administration for helping push through these sanctions, and he notes that they target North Korean food stuffs. Now, I was just struck by that, because we're talking about a starving country already.

TIM SHORROCK: Well, apparently it cuts off seafood exports from North Korea to other countries, that's one thing. Clearly, these kind of sanctions are going to hurt ordinary people, there's no doubt about it. In her comments the other day, Nikki Haley at the UN said, 'The US, with these sanctions they're going to try to put the screws on the North Korean government like the North Korean government has put on the people' Well, these will definitely affect the people and I don't see any sign that in the past that sanctions have worked to dissuade North Korea from its goals. I think that sanctions when you have a very positive negotiating strategy and diplomacy going on, that might work together, but when you only have sanctions and there's no negotiations. I mean, Tillerson said the other day that he would welcome talks with North Korea and he actually dropped one of the conditions. He said, 'If they stopped their missile tests, they would talk.' Beyond that, there's been little movement toward direct negotiations.

As I've been saying for years, that's the only way to resolve this. North Korea made very clear in its statements in the last couple of days that its nuclear arms are aimed at the United States and anyone who collaborates with the United States to attack them, but they're aimed at the United States. This confrontation is between the United States and North Korea. There was a lot of talk at the UN about the fact that this is now a global problem. Why is it a global problem? It's a global problem because the North Koreans say and apparently US intelligence agrees that they now have missiles that can hit the United States. Therefore, because the United States can be hit, it's now a global problem.

However, you do not hear a foreign minister from another country talk about having a war with North Korea. You do not hear a UN ambassador from another country talking about using military force. You do not hear a national security advisor from another country also talk about military force and you do not hear senators or lawmakers from other countries saying, "We're going to have a war over there and not over here," like Senator Lindsey Graham said last week. This is between the United States and North Korea and it should be up to the United States and the American people to resolve and create some kind of move toward peace and move away from this war talk.

AARON MATE: Yeah. Tim, speaking of war talk, you mentioned Lindsey Graham's comments. Let's just flesh out what those were. He said something to the effect of that the Trump administration might be forced to launch nuclear war saying that it has to choose basically between homeland security and regional stability. The implication was that he's going to choose homeland security.

TIM SHORROCK: Well, is he discounting the fact that the United States has 30,000 American soldiers in South Korea and 70 to 80,000 in Japan nearby within range of the North Korean missiles? I mean, any way would draw in US forces there and would lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, as well as, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Koreans and possibly Japanese. It was just an outrageous statement by Graham and really smacks of racism. Just to say, "Oh well, we don't really care because the war will be over there, not over here with us Americans." Asia's already seen enough war and particularly in Korea has too.

I think it's really, it's just imperative to find a way between what North Korea says and what the United States says to have some kind of accommodations, some way to begin talks. North Korea says it wants an end to the US hostile policy. That to me is the key. They said, "They will not negotiate nuclear weapons. They will not negotiate missiles until and unless the US drops its hostile policy." We could do some work on that here. Why does the United States maintain this hostile policy toward North Korea? What is it? How could that be changed? In what way could we adopt a less hostile policy and move North Korea to a situation where it doesn't feel threatened by the United States?

AARON MATE: Tim Shorrock, veteran reporter who's covered US-Korea relations for years. Thank you very much.

TIM SHORROCK: Thank you.

AARON MATE: Thank you for joining us on The Real News.

---

남북대화 개시를 위한 첫 단추 - 통일뉴스

남북대화 개시를 위한 첫 단추 - 통일뉴스
남북대화 개시를 위한 첫 단추<칼럼> 이영재 재미 한반도평화활동가

유엔 인권최고대표사무소의 이북 식당종업원들과 김련희씨 면담조사를 허가해야 한다


먼저 문재인 대통령이 발표한 ‘베를린 구상’의 문제점을 두 가지만 지적한다면, 첫째 북핵은 이북 입장에서 최대 안보 위협인 미국이 이북과 협상해 풀어야 문제인데 이남이 ‘비핵화’를 얘기하며 그 주도권을 가지고 풀겠다는 선언을 한 것이고, 둘째 이명박, 박근혜 9년간의 대북적폐들을 청산하겠다는 어떤 의지도 보이지 않았다는 점이다.

이 글에서는 북핵에 대한 것들보다 남북대화에 대해 얘기하고 싶다.

지난 7월 17일 군사회담과 적십자회담을 열자는 문재인 정부의 제안에 이북 정부가 아무런 반응을 보이지 않고 있다. 이로써 추석을 즈음한 이산가족상봉은 힘들게 되었다.

그럼 이북이 이산가족상봉까지 답을 하지 않는 이유는 무엇인가? 문재인 정부가 이북에 신뢰를 줄 사전작업이 없었고 지금도 없다. 촛불혁명에 의해 선출된 민주 대통령이니까 문재인 정부가 내미는 손을 이북은 바로 잡아야 한다? 이명박, 박근혜 9년간 이북에 무너뜨린 신뢰는 이남의 촛불혁명이 회복시키는 건가?

나는 문재인 정부에 묻고 싶다. 문재인 정부 출범 후 이명박, 박근혜 9년의 적폐들을 청산하면서 왜 대북적폐 청산은 하지 않는가?

대화와 교류를 하기 위해서는 상대방이 원하는 것이 무엇인가를 먼저 파악해야 한다. 이북이 한국 정부가 이산가족 상봉 제안에 앞서 이북 식당 여종업원 12명과 김련희 씨를 즉각 송환하라고 요구했고 문재인 정부는 현재 적십자회담 요구에 답을 주지 않는 이북과 마찬가지로 이에 어떤 답도 주지 않고 있다.

문재인 정부가 이북을 대화의 장으로 이끌기 위해서는 이북이 원하는 것들에 성의라도 보여줘야 한다. 문재인 정부입장에서는 아직 무시하지 못할 힘과 세력을 가진 보수세력들의 반대로 이북과 식당 여종업원들과 김련희씨 문제를 바로 협의하기 힘들 것이다. 그래서 문재인 정부는 먼저 박근혜 정권이 막았던 유엔 인권최고대표사무소(OHCHR)의 탈북 종업원들 면담조사를 요청해야 한다. 물론 그 조사에 김련희 씨도 포함시켜야 한다.

유엔인권사무소의 이북인권조사를 주장했던 이남 보수세력들이 유엔 인권최고대표사무소의 탈북여종업원들과 김련희 씨 조사를 완강히 반대하지 못할 것이다. 또한 이 조사는 이북에 있는 식당 종업원들의 부모들이 유엔 인권최고대표와 유엔 인권이사회(UNHRC) 의장에게 도움을 요청해 시작된 것이니 이북에서도 받아들일 것이다. 이 방법이 이북 식당 종업원들과 김련희 씨 문제를 푸는 첫 단계일 것이다.

북핵 군사해결이 거의 불가능한 상황에서 미국은 이북과 협상을 할 수 밖에 없다. 만약 북미협상이 시작된 후에 남북대화를 하게 된다면 이남이 한반도 협상에서 위치가 크게 줄어들 것이고 국내에서는 보수세력으로부터 많은 정치공세를 받을 것이다. 그러므로 문재인 정부는 북미협상 이전에 이북과 대화와 교류를 시작할 수 있도록 모든 노력을 다해야 한다.

위에서 언급한 이북 식당 종업원들과 김련희 씨의 문제를 푸는 것은 이북과 대화와 교류를 시작하는데 아주 중요한 신뢰회복이 될 것이다.



* 이 글은 본인의 6월 7일 페이스북 글과 ‘북 해외식당 종업원 기획탈북 의혹사건 해결을 위한 대책회의’에 개인적으로 제안했던 내용으로 썼습니다. 그리고 이 글은 오마이뉴스에도 실릴 예정입니다.

이영재  |  tongil@tongilnews.com

승인 2017.08.02  14:41:01

이영재(재미 한반도평화활동가) - 미국내 한반도 평화운동 - 2007년 이북 국립태권도시범단 미국 초청 5개도시 순회 1차 Goodwill Tour 공동기획 (www.usnktkd.com) - 2011년 이북 국립태권도시범단 미국 초청 3개도시 순회 2차 Goodwill Tour 공동기획 - 현재 이북 소년태권도시범단과 장애자 예술단 미국 초청 순회 3차 Goodwill Tour 준비 중

The grandmother and the girl | Australian Women's History NetworkAustralian Women's History Network

The grandmother and the girl | Australian Women's History NetworkAustralian Women's History Network

The grandmother and the girl

by MANAGING EDITOR posted on DECEMBER 1, 2016

Vera Mackie explores women’s experiences of militarised sexual abuse during the Asia-Pacific War, and the survivors’ campaign for acknowledgement by the Japanese government in the eighth post in the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence series.

I opened the white box and took out the figurine of a girl, a miniature chair, and a little pedestal with an inscription in Japanese, English and Korean. I assembled the diorama, placing the girl on the low pedestal, with the empty chair beside her. Without context, this act might have seemed like child’s play – like placing a doll in a doll’s house.

MINIATURE REPLICA OF THE PEACE MONUMENT. PHOTOGRAPH BY VERA MACKIE.

This figurine, however, is potent with historical and political – indeed, geopolitical –significance. A series of these figurines were recently produced and sold by advocates for the survivors of the system of militarised sexual abuse perpetrated by the Japanese military during the Asia-Pacific War.

From the 1930s to the 1940s, thousands upon thousands of women throughout the Asia-Pacific region were enslaved by the Japanese army and navy, forced to provide sexual service. Estimates of the numbers vary from 100,000 to 200,000 or even higher.

This history is an issue which continues to be the source of tension between Japan and its neighbouring countries. The movement for redress has been a transnational one, involving activists from the Asia-Pacific region, Europe and North America.

There is no acceptable term for this militarised sexual abuse. Some refer to military sexual slavery, while some refer to enforced military prostitution. Some reluctantly refer to ‘military brothels’ or use the offensive term ‘comfort stations’ in quotation marks, as this has come to be the most widely understood term.

As for the survivors, they are commonly referred to as ‘grandmothers’ (halmŏni in Korean), a term of respect which avoids the offensiveness of the term ‘(former) comfort woman’, or the sensational and demeaning ‘(former) sex slave’. The term halmŏni has gained currency in English and Japanese activist circles. In the Philippines and Taiwan, too, local vernacular terms for ‘grandmother’ are used. Indeed, the museum on the issue, which opens in Taipei in December, is called the Grandmothers (Ama) Museum.

THE PEACE MONUMENT, SEOUL. PHOTOGRAPH BY VERA MACKIE

My figurine is a miniature recreation of a life-sized statue from central Seoul. The statue was erected on 14 December 2010 opposite the Japanese Embassy. It depicts a young woman seated on a chair, facing the Embassy, with an empty chair beside her. On the platform beside the statue is a plaque, with inscriptions in Korean, Japanese, and English. The English inscription reads:

December 14, 2011 marks the 1000th Wednesday demonstration for the solution of Japanese military sexual slavery issue after its first rally on January 8, 1992 in front of the Japanese Embassy. This peace monument stands to commemorate the spirit and the deep history of the Wednesday demonstration.

The figure depicted in the bronze statue wears Korean ethnic dress (chima jeogori). Her hair is bobbed, suggesting that she is a young unmarried woman; her fists are clenched on her lap. She does not smile but stares steadfastly ahead. Her bare feet suggest vulnerability, or someone fleeing from danger.

A small bird is perched on one shoulder. Behind her, at pavement level, is a mosaic, suggesting the shadowy figure of an old woman. The mosaic also includes a butterfly. The statue and its ‘shadow’ suggest the different stages of life of the survivor – the young woman before her ordeal, and the old woman who refuses to forget. The bird is an icon of peace and of escape, while the butterfly has spiritual connotations.

THE PEACE MONUMENT, SEOUL, SHOWING THE GRANDMOTHER’S ‘SHADOW’. PHOTOGRAPH BY VERA MACKIE.

The empty seat suggests those who are missing, but also provides a site for performative participation in the installation, as demonstrators or visitors can have their photographs taken seated beside the young woman.

Statues are often monumental, larger than life-size, standing on a tall pedestal, looking down on passers-by. The Seoul statue is at street level and is life-sized. Because she is seated she seems approachable.

There is, however, another reason why she is sitting. The fragile elderly women who have been demonstrating in front of the Japanese Embassy every week for over twenty years generally sit there on portable stools rather than standing.

The statue does not simply commemorate the ordeal of the thousands and thousands of women who suffered from militarised sexual violence. It also commemorates the determination of the demonstrators and supporters to keep the issue alive. Placed at the very site where these demonstrations have now occurred for over twenty years, the statue is a form of petition to the Japanese government and its diplomatic representatives. The face of the statue is composed, steadfastly staring at the Japanese Embassy, an avatar for the elderly demonstrators.

CLOSE-UP OF THE PEACE MONUMENT, SEOUL. PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY VERA MACKIE.

When I visited Seoul in February 2013, I spent an afternoon taking photographs of the statue on a quiet Tuesday afternoon, and came back on the next day to observe the Wednesday demonstration. February is the coldest time of the year in Seoul. It had been snowing in the few days before and there was still some snow on the ground. Supporters had dressed the statue in a warm winter coat, woollen hat with ear muffs, a scarf, a long, red, embroidered winter skirt and socks. On the seat next to the statue were cute stuffed toys – a teddy bear and a puppy. Behind her there was a row of cheerful yellow potted plants.

By dressing the statue in protection against the cold, the supporters are symbolically expressing their concern for the halmŏni, the ‘grandmothers’ who have survived. This also symbolises care for the spirits of the countless women who did not survive.

The statue has been replicated in other sites, such as the War and Women’s Human Rights Museum, which opened in May 2012 in another part of Seoul. The museum uses a butterfly as its logo.

The museum houses a historical exhibit, where wall panels explain the history of militarised sexual abuse perpetrated in the Asia-Pacific War. There is a reproduction of the bronze statue that sits across from the Japanese Embassy. The statue is more or less the same as the one in central Seoul, but without the plaque or the mosaic of the shadowy older woman. This statue, too, has an empty seat beside it.

THE PEACE MONUMENT IN THE WAR AND WOMEN’S HUMAN RIGHTS MUSEUM. PHOTOGRAPH BY VERA MACKIE.

The statue faces a video screen running footage of the Wednesday demonstrations, a virtual suggestion of the location and context of the original statue. The statue in central Seoul needs a plaque to provide basic information. Here, the museum as a whole provides historical context on the militarised sexual abuse perpetrated in wartime, the campaigns for redress, the Wednesday demonstrations, and the commemorative statue.

Another replica of the peace monument has been erected in Glendale, California. The statue, chair and platform are identical to the original installation in Seoul, but the words on the plaque are slightly different. There is a caption ‘I was a sex slave of the Japanese military’, and an explanation of the statue’s iconography of old woman, bird and butterfly. The text of the plaque is in English only.

The original Seoul statue commemorates the activism of those who participate in the Wednesday demonstration, while the plaque on the Glendale statue commemorates the ‘more than 200,000 Asian and Dutch women who were removed from their homes to Korea, China, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, East Timor and Indonesia to be coerced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Armed Forces of Japan between 1932 and 1945’.

The plaque also refers to the local situation in Glendale, where Asian-American and Asian diasporic communities had led the campaign for an acknowledgment of the issue, leading to the announcement of ‘Comfort Women Day’ by the City of Glendale on 30 July 2012. The plaque also acknowledges House Resolution 121 passed by the United States Congress on 30 July 2007, calling on the Japanese government to apologise and provide compensation. There was a similar campaign in Australia, with a few local governments passing resolutions, but none passed at the national government level. In each of these places, diasporic communities played an important role.

THE PEACE MONUMENT, GLENDALE. PHOTOGRAPH BY VERA MACKIE.

The Glendale statue is in a park, in front of the local community centre and public library. There are benches and tables in the park, suitable for family picnics. When I visited there in May 2014, it was a sunny spring day. The bright sunlight cast the features of the statue into relief. As in Seoul, supporters had offered colorful potted plants. There was no need, however, for the affectionate touches of scarves and warm clothing seen on the Seoul statue on a cold winter day.

The Glendale statue has brought controversy, with historical denialists from Japan putting pressure on the local government for its removal, but a court case decided that the statue could stay. A similar controversy has been seen in Strathfield, in the Western suburbs of Sydney. Members of the Korean-Australian community were initially successful in convincing Strathfield Council to approve a memorial. After pressure from the conservative denialists from Japan, however, Strathfield decided not to go ahead. A replica is, however, currently housed in a community centre. There has been a similar controversy in Germany.

Another iteration of the Peace Memorial has recently been erected in Seoul in a park some remove from the city centre. In this version, the statue of a young woman in Korean ethnic dress is joined by the statue of a young woman in Chinese ethnic dress, with another empty chair and space for future statues to be added. The juxtaposition of the Chinese and Korean statues is in one sense a demonstration of transnational solidarity, staged at a strategic moment just before Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzō’s official visit with South Korean President Park Geun-hye in October 2015.

In December 2015, two months after Abe’s meeting with Park, the South Korean and Japanese governments issued a joint communiqué. The Japanese representative stated that the Japanese government would provide the South Korean government with funds for the establishment of a fund for the care of the survivors.

The statement was met with hostility by the South Korean survivors, who felt they should have been consulted before any government-to-government agreement was reached, a basic principle of restorative justice. Meanwhile, survivors from other countries were angered at this being treated as a bilateral issue between Japan and the ROK. In short, the Japan-ROK joint communiqué was a matter of geopolitics, an attempt to forge a closer alliance between the governments of the US, Japan and South Korea against China.

The South Korean government representative confirmed that the issue was ‘resolved finally and irreversibly’ and that the Republic of Korea and Japan would ‘refrain from accusing or criticizing each other regarding this issue in the international community’. While the statue was not mentioned in the Japanese statement, the South Korean statement included an acknowledgment that ‘the Government of Japan is concerned about the statue built in front of the Embassy of Japan in Seoul’ and that the South Korean government would ‘strive to solve this issue in an agreeable manner through taking measures such as consulting with related organizations about possible ways of addressing this issue’.

The survivors do not feel that the issue is resolved and do not feel it is appropriate to refrain from further criticism. The Wednesday demonstrations will continue.

In a further development, a replica of the statue with the Korean and Chinese figures was erected at Shanghai Normal University in October 2016.

The miniature figurine of the Peace Monument was widely disseminated in support of the survivors at the time of the Japan-ROK joint communiqué.

Everyone who touches one of the figurines is reminded of the issue of militarised sexual violence and the campaigns for redress. In the case of the full-sized statues, they are humanised by being life-sized, at street level, and with a place to sit in solidarity with the figure of the girl by the grandmother’s shadow.

CLOSE-UP OF THE FACE OF THE STATUE OF THE GIRL IN THE WAR AND WOMEN’S HUMAN RIGHTS MUSEUM. PHOTOGRAPH BY VERA MACKIE.

The shadow of the grandmother reminds us of the gap between the elderly survivor and her younger self, before the ordeal of militarised sexual violence, the decades of painful memories, and the decades of political campaigns.

The figurine affects the emotions in a similarly tangible way. When one takes the figurine in one’s hands, its doll-like presence evokes childhood innocence. On contemplating the meaning of the empty chair, one is reminded of the issue of militarised sexual violence that the diorama commemorates. The grandmother’s shadow on the pedestal reminds us of the dignity and determination of the survivors who demonstrate every Wednesday.

For the survivors, the issue of wartime military sexual abuse is more than an historical issue. Their campaign for redress continues. The problem is also not confined to the past, with sexual violence continuing to occur in situations of military conflict around the globe.

~

To support these campaigns, see the websites of the House of Sharing, the War and Women’s Human Rights Museum, the Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace, the Taipei Women’s Rescue Foundation and Lila Pilipina.

Vera Mackie is Director of the Centre for Critical Human Rights Research at the University of Wollongong. Her essay on transnational activism on the issue of militarised sexual violence will appear in Barbara Molony and Jennifer Nelson (eds) Women’s Activism and “Second Wave” Feminism: Transnational Histories (Bloomsbury) in 2017.

Follow Vera on Twitter @veramackie.

THIS ENTRY WAS POSTED IN 16 DAYS AGAINST GENDER VIOLENCE. BOOKMARK THE PERMALINK.

'잊혀진 위기국가' 북한에서 활동 중인 6개 .. : 네이버블로그

'잊혀진 위기국가' 북한에서 활동 중인 6개 .. : 네이버블로그

North Korea's impending perfect storm | The Japan Times

North Korea's impending perfect storm | The Japan Times

North Korea’s impending perfect storm

Severe drought and deforestation puts the country in danger of devastation

BY MARTIN SEITZ

• AUG 28, 2017
  ARTICLE HISTORY
• PRINT
• SHARE

WASHINGTON – According to a 2017 report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), North Korea is experiencing its most severe drought since 2001. While the more obvious consequences of this include food shortages, there is another major impact to consider — severe flooding. Major flooding impacted the country every year from 2010 to 2016 and will continue into the foreseeable future.

During a drought, soil becomes dry and compact without moisture over extended periods of time, making it more difficult for the ground to absorb rainfall. If an area impacted by drought is suddenly hit with large amounts of precipitation, major flooding will soon follow. California, for example, experienced an extended drought from 2011-2017. When the rain picked up in 2017, California witnessed large amounts of flooding throughout the state.

The same thing will continue to happen in North Korea. The difference being, California is able to handle strain on its flood network, whereas North Korea does not have the comparable infrastructure to support such natural disasters. For instance, when Typhoon Lionrock passed over North Hamgyong Province in August 2016, the area was devastated, including the loss of at least 133 lives, damage to 30,000 homes, and displacement of almost 70,000 people.

To make matters worse, North Korea’s geography is extremely mountainous, increasing the possibilities of mudslides and landslides. This is especially likely in agricultural areas — often located on uneven, barren mountain slopes — where loose soil is vulnerable during heavy rain, resulting in agricultural resource destruction and, thus, even further decreased access to critical domestic food sources.

North Korea’s Pyongan Province witnessed a potential foreshadowing of larger destruction via Typhoon Lionrock in July 2016 when, in the midst of an extended drought, heavy monsoon rains caused landslides in Uiju County resulting in 10 dead, four missing, 55 injured, and destruction of agricultural infrastructure. Perhaps more telling, a series of droughts and subsequent floods in the mid to late-1990s led the Kim Jong Il regime to make a rare appeal for international help as malnourishment and poor emergency management led to the deaths of more than one million citizens.

North Korea is even more susceptible to flooding now than in the 1990s because of persistent deforestation. Trees reduce surface water runoff by decreasing the rate at which rainfall reaches the ground. This allows more time for natural and man-made drainage systems to reduce the severity of flooding by preventing a sudden rise in the floodplain. However, large areas of North Korean land are bare after decades of cutting down trees in wooded areas for firewood and clearing room for farmland, particularly in more impoverished areas where flooding can be the most destructive. Deforestation has become such an issue that Kim Jong Un reportedly mentioned in a March 2015 speech, “Unauthorized felling of trees is tantamount to treachery. All the people on this land should treasure and protect even a blade of grass and a tree of their country.”

Recognizing the need for flood mitigation, the North Korean government launched a series of nationwide tree-planting campaigns in recent years but has seen little return on its investments. A report suggests that the country’s newly planted trees are unable to survive due to poor soil conditions, health problems with the saplings, and absence of proper care. The recent severe drought conditions will place even more stress on existing vegetation, and make reforestation initiatives that much more difficult.

The Kim regime surprisingly sought international help in recent years to stifle the country’s deforestation problems — another indication of the severity of flood risk. Neighboring South Korea sent forestry experts to North Korea’s Mount Kumgang Tourist Region in response to an unusual request from Pyongyang in July 2015 to examine a spreading pine tree disease. With recent sanctions and international condemnation of North Korea’s provocative nuclear weapons program, further emergency management assistance is no longer guaranteed and foreign aid will be even sparser than years past.

Continued development of advanced nuclear weapon capabilities is not going to help stem domestic issues facing the regime. According to a March U.N. report, 41 percent of North Koreans are undernourished and one in five do not have access to clean water or adequate sanitation. Reduced access to international aid coupled with recurrent natural hazards will only make conditions direr and will exacerbate new humanitarian needs. Consistently mismanaging natural disasters could prove devastating to a regime that continues to isolate itself from the international community.

While it is clear that Kim views his nuclear weapons program as crucial to the survival of the regime, other personnel within North Korea’s circle of influence may feel emboldened to take action after prolonged negligence of the nation’s people. This could be onset by further mismanagement of natural disasters and famine. As North Koreans continue to gain increased access to outside news through black markets, it is possible that feelings toward the regime will change.

Thae Yong Ho, a former senior North Korean diplomat, defected to South Korea last August and said, “I’m sure that Kim Jong Un’s regime one day will collapse by a people’s uprising,” also claiming that “the traditional structures of North Korean systems are crumbling.”

If this is true, the United States and its allies might find themselves in a position of strength on nuclear weapons negotiations as drought, flooding and famine continue to impact North Korea. Destruction of nuclear weapons capabilities in exchange for disaster assistance is unlikely, but foreign aid could be enough to bring North Korea to the table for serious talks if the regime believes it is in serious danger of a potential uprising.

Considering North Korea’s current drought, prolonged deforestation, food shortages, flood risks, recent sanctions and the deterioration of the country’s international relationships, the regime seems to have created its own potentially perfect storm — the likes of which could be a few major downpours away from causing a collapse. Without a clear path forward on addressing these realities, negotiations with the international community on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program may be the only rational option Kim will have. The results of the neglect of his people and the natural resources of North Korea can be contained for only so long.

Martin Seitz was a David L. Boren Fellow (South Korea 2015-2016) and is now an emergency management specialist at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. © 2017, the Diplomat; distributed by Tribune Content Agency

(11) Truth and Denial （Germany and Japan"s Postwar Redemption) Episode 2 - YouTube

(11) Truth and Denial （Germany and Japan"s Postwar Redemption) Episode 2 - YouTube

"60년간 북한 연구했지만, 나도 김정은 이해 못하겠다" - 1등 인터넷뉴스 조선닷컴 - 문화

"60년간 북한 연구했지만, 나도 김정은 이해 못하겠다" - 1등 인터넷뉴스 조선닷컴 - 문화

이 교수는 한국 학자들이 별 관심을 갖지 않았던 1945년 9월의 '런던 회의'를 주목했다. "2차 세계대전의 전승국 외무장관들이 전후 처리를 위해 모인 회의였습니다. 한반도 문제는 거론되지 않았지만 결과적으로 큰 영향을 미치게 되지요." 소련의 스탈린은 이 회의에서 전후 일본 통치 참여와 지중해 진출을 위한 북아프리카 트리폴리타니아 할양을 요구했지만 미국과 영국이 일축해 버렸다.

런던 회의는 9월 15일쯤 결렬됐고, 이로써 약간 온기가 남아 있던 미·소 관계는 급격히 얼어붙었다. 닷새 뒤인 9월 20일 스탈린은 북한에 진주한 소련군에게 중요한 지령을 내린다. '북조선의 광범위한 반일(反日) 민주주의 정당 연합을 토대로 부르주아적 민주주의 정권을 설립하라'는 것이었다. "이 지령에는 미군과 교섭하거나 협조하라는 말은 전혀 없었습니다. 소련 점령 지역에 단독정부를 세우라는 지시였던 것이죠."
---
1945년 9월 '북한 단독정부 수립'이라는 소련 지령에 따라 1946년 2월에 북조선 임시인민위원회가 수립되고, 1948년 북한 정권 수립으로 이어졌다는 것이다. 이는 지금까지 많은 사람이 분단 고착화의 이유를 남한 단독정부 수립을 촉구한 1946년 6월 이승만의 정읍 발언이나 그해 미·소 공동위원회의 실패 등에서 찾았던 것과는 전혀 다른 시각이다. 이 교수는 "스탈린의 지령은 이승만이 아직 귀국하기도 전에 내린 것"이라고 했다.

스탈린과 김일성이 6·25전쟁을 일으킨 동기에 대해선 "역시 미국의 정책이 큰 역할을 했다"고 말했다. 대한민국 정부 수립 이후 미국은 남한을 태평양 방위선에 포함하지 않고 방기하고 있었던 것이다. 하지만 전쟁이 일어난 뒤 트루먼 미국 대통령은 종전 정책을 180도 바꿔 파병을 결정했다. 중국이 공산화되고 소련이 원자폭탄을 개발하면서 '그대로 뒀다가는 서유럽도 위험해질 수 있다'는 위기감이 커진 결과라는 것이다. 인천 상륙 이후 퇴각하던 김일성은 소련 참전을 애걸하는 편지를 스탈린에게 보냈으나, 스탈린은 '소련 전력으로는 20년 뒤에야 미국을 대적할 수 있고, 지금 개입하면 3차 세계대전이 일어날 수 있다'고 거절했다. 이 일은 이후 김일성이 소련을 불신하는 계기가 된다.

이 교수는 6·25전쟁 이후 김일성이 확립한 수령 중심 체제를 세계인들이 제대로 알아야 한다고 말했다. "수령·당·인민의 '삼위일체' 개념이며, 모든 지혜와 생각이 수령으로부터 나온다고 믿는 체제"라는 것이다. 지금 김정은의 북한은 그 체제를 계승한 변종인 셈이다.

출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/08/08/2017080803254.html

북한이해(2017년 북한이해 )

북한이해(2017년 북한이해 )

2017년 북한이해조회수10497작성일2017-02-14첨부파일 2017 북한이해-내지(최종).pdf ｢2017 북한 이해｣ 는 북한, 어떻게 볼 것인가?, 북한의 정치체제와 통치이념, 북한의 대외정책과 대외관계, 북한의 군사전략과 군사력, 북한경제의 현황과 변화, 북한의 교육과 문화, 북한사회와 주민생활로 구성되어 있습니다. I. 북한, 어떻게 볼 것인가 II. 북한의 정치체제와 통치이념 III. 북한의 대외정책과 대외관계 IV. 북한의 군사전략과 군사력 V. 북한경제의 현황과 변화 VI. 북한의 교육과 문화 VII. 북한사회와 주민생활

Six principles of nonviolence

Michael Nagler on nonviolence

Six principles of nonviolence

Michael Nagler 27 July 2017



Nonviolence can be a safe, effective and lasting way to defeat injustice, but like any other science it takes knowledge, courage and determination.







Oakland First Friday Protest, June 2015. Credit: Thomas Hawk, via Flickr. Some rights reserved.



Here are six guidelines that can help you carry out nonviolent action more safely and effectively, while drawing upon nonviolent practices from your own cultural heritage. These guidelines derive, as you’ll see, from two basic points to bear in mind:



We are not against other people, only what they are doing.



Means are ends in the making; nothing good can ultimately result from violence.



1. Respect everyone–including yourself.



The more we respect others, the more effectively we can persuade them to change. Never use humiliation as a tool–or accept humiliation from others, as that only degrades everyone. Remember, no one can degrade you without your permission.



Healing relationships is the real success in nonviolence, something violence can never achieve. Even in a case of extreme violence, Gandhi felt it was possible to hate the sin, not the sinner. In 1942, when India was held down by the British and fearing a Japanese invasion, he advised his fellow compatriots:



“If we were a free country, things could be done nonviolently to prevent the Japanese from entering the country. As it is, nonviolent resistance could commence the moment the Japanese affect a landing.”



Thus, nonviolent resisters would refuse them any help, even water. For it is no part of their duty to help anyone to steal their country. But if a Japanese person had missed their way and was dying of thirst and sought help as a human being, a nonviolent resister, who may not regard anyone as his enemy, would give water to the thirsty one. Suppose the Japanese compel resisters to give them water; the resisters must die in the act of resistance.



2. Always include constructive alternatives.



Concrete action is always more powerful than mere symbolism, especially when that action creates constructive alternatives: setting up schools, forming cottage industries, establishing farming cooperatives, devising community-friendly banking. As Buckminster Fuller said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”



Gandhi initiated 18 projects that enabled Indians to take charge of their own society, making it much easier to “dismiss” British rule and lay the groundwork for their own democracy. Constructive work has many advantages:



It enables people to break their dependency on a regime by creating their own goods and services. You cannot get rid of oppressors when you depend on them for essentials. You are not just reacting to offenses but taking charge. Being proactive helps you shed passivity, fear and helplessness.



It gives a movement continuity, as it can continue when direct resistance is not advisable.



Studies have shown that working together is the most effective way to unite people. It builds community and reassures the general public that your movement is not a danger to the social order.



Most importantly, it establishes the infrastructure that will be needed when the oppressive regime falls. Many an insurrection has succeeded in dislodging a hated regime only to find a new set of oppressors rush into the vacuum.



A good rule of thumb to follow is: be constructive wherever possible, and obstructive wherever necessary.



3. Be aware of the long term.



Nonviolent action always has positive results, sometimes more than we intended. When China was passing through a severe famine in the 1950s, the US branch of Fellowship of Reconciliation organized a mail-in campaign to get President Eisenhower to send surplus food to China. Some 35,000 Americans took part. Our message to the President was a simple inscription from Isaiah: “If thine enemy hunger, feed him.” It seemed as if there was no response. But 25 years later, we learned that we had averted a proposal to bomb targets in Mainland China during the Korean War! At a key meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Eisenhower announced: “Gentlemen, since 35,000 Americans want us to feed the Chinese, this is hardly the time to start bombing them.”



Violence sometimes “works” in the sense that it forces a particular change, but in the long run, it leads to more misery and disorder. We do not have control over the results of our actions, but we can have control over the means we use, even our feelings and our states of mind. Here’s a handy formula: Violence sometimes “works” but it never works (in making things or relationships better, for example). Nonviolence sometimes “works” and always works.



Have clear goals. Cling to essentials (like human dignity) and be clear about your principles, but be ready to change tactics or compromise on anything else. Remember, you are not in a power struggle (though the opponent may think that way): you are in a struggle for justice and human dignity. In nonviolence, you can lose all the battles but still go on to win the war!



4. Look for win-win solutions.



You are trying to rebuild relationships rather than score “victories.” In a conflict, we can feel that in order for one side to win the other must lose, which is not true. Therefore, we do not seek to be winners or rise over others; we seek to learn and make things better for all.



During intense negotiations over the Montgomery, Alabama segregation laws, Martin Luther King, Jr., made an interesting observation that he notes in his book Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story. An attorney for the city bus company who had obstructed the African-American people’s demands for desegregation revealed the real source of his objection: “If we granted the Negroes these demands they would go about boasting of a victory that they had won over the white people; and this we will not stand for.”



Reflecting on this, King advised the participants in the movement not to gloat or boast, reminding them: “Through nonviolence we avoid the temptation of taking on the psychology of victors.” The “psychology of victors” belongs to the age-old dynamic of me-against-you, but the nonviolent person sees life as a “co-evolution” toward loving community in which all can thrive. Gloating over “victories” can actually undo hard-won gains.



5. Use power carefully.



We are conditioned, especially in the West, to think that power “grows out of the barrel of a gun.” There is indeed a kind of power that comes from threats and brute force – but it is powerless if we refuse to comply with it.



There is another kind of power that comes from truth. Let us say that you have been petitioning to eliminate an injustice. Perhaps you have made your feelings known in polite but firm protest actions, yet the other party is not responding. Then you must, as Gandhi said, “not only speak to the head but move the heart also.” We can make the injustice clear by taking upon ourselves the suffering inherent in the unjust system. This allows us to mobilize Satyagraha, or “truth force.” In extreme cases, we may need to do it at the risk of our own lives, which is why it is good to be very clear about our goals. Do this with care.



History, and often our own experience, has shown that even bitter hostilities can melt with this kind of persuasion that seeks to open the eyes of the opponent, whom we do not coerce. Nonetheless, there are times when we must use forms of coercion. For example, when a dictator refuses to step down, we have to act immediately to end the vast amounts of human suffering caused by that person misusing power. Still, it requires strategic thinking and nonviolent care to do it right. But when time does allow, we use the power of patience and persuasion, of enduring rather than inflicting suffering. The changes brought about by persuasion are lasting: one who is persuaded stays persuaded, while someone who is coerced will be just waiting for a chance for revenge.



6. Claim our legacy.



Nonviolence no longer needs to take place in a vacuum. Always note that if you are using nonviolence with courage, determination and a clear strategy, you will more than likely succeed: win or lose, you will be playing your part in a great transformation of human relationships that our future depends on.



These six principles are founded on a belief that all life is an interconnected whole and that when we understand our real needs, we are not in competition with anyone. As Martin Luther King said, “I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. And you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.



About the author

Michael Nagler is Founder of the Metta Center for Nonviolence and author of The Nonviolence Handbook: A Practical Guidebook.



Source from Open Democracy: https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/michael-nagler/six-principles-of-nonviolence