지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 연구보고서
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2006.4
- 수록면
- 2 - 2 (75page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The Council on East Asian Affairs(CEAA), an affiliate of the East Asia Foundation, held a seminar entitled: “Korea-Japan Roundtable: New Korea-Japan Relations and Prosperity in East Asia” at the ANA Hotel in Tokyo on Dec. 10, 2006. Participants, including politicians, businessmen and academic scholars, exchanged ideas on improving the often strained relations between the two countries ?a major agenda for PM Shinzo Abe’s new government in Tokyo, and on dealing with the threats to regional security posed by North Korea’s nuclear program. Also among the issues discussed were how South Korea’s expected free trade agreement(FTA) with the United States could affect its stalled free trade talks with Japan and how to put those negotiations back on track. The seminar was the first one that the CEAA jointly organized with the Japan Economic Foundation, following the former’s first R.O.K.-Japan bilateral seminar held at the Jeju Island of South Korea in April 2006. Yoshihiro Mori, former Prime Minister of Japan, stressed the need for regional integration in Northeast Asia and the leading roles expected from South Korea and Japan in his key note speech at the luncheon meeting, which was attended by a high-profile audience of about fifty from both countries.
In the first session, the panelists exchanged their views on the Abe government’s prospects and discussed ways to improve the deteriorated relationship between the two countries while building a stronger framework for cooperation. A presenter from Japan expected the Abe government to continue the structural reform policies of the Koizumi administration but to make more efforts to refine its diplomatic strategies. Abe would likely take a moderately conservative approach while working to build a cooperative relationship with South Korea. The panelist claimed that cooperation between the two countries would be crucial for the success of the six-party talks as well as free trade agreements in the region. He also stressed the need for a permanent confidence-building mechanism to deal with political tensions repeatedly rising between the two countries.
In response, a South Korean presenter pointed out that Koreans were very much interested in how the Abe administration will pursue a policy of ‘strong Japan,’ since he is the first prime minister from the post-war generation. The presenter argued that Japan’s new generation of politicians should recognize the country’s militarist past and adopt a fresh approach in establishing peaceful relationships with neighboring countries. Throughout the discussions, panelists agreed on the need for frequent meetings between the leaders of both countries to deal with crisis situations in better ways. There was also consensus on the need to construct a wider range of friendly relationships in order to ease political discord stemming from differing perspectives over history and territory. With regard to the debate over Japan’s new history textbooks, which Koreans criticize as attempting to whitewash Japan’s wartime atrocities, a South Korean panelist questioned whether Prime Minister Abe is using the history card to boost his domestic approval rate. Responding to the comment, a Japanese presenter pointed out that since the Japanese public remained divided over history issues, including politicians’ visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, the Abe government adopting a hard-line approach toward those subjects might not necessarily help win elections.
The South Korean and Japanese panelists displayed a gap between their views over the uncertainties caused by North Korean nuclear program, which was the topic of the second session. A Japanese panelist claimed that North Koreans would not easily give up their efforts to acquire nuclear capability as they link it to the survival of the regime. Therefore, North Korea’s actions could not be predicted by applying deterrence theory, the panelist said. He went on to argue that North Korea would likely not use nuclear weapons unless facing a serious threat to its existence, thus inducing regime transformation in the country would be the ideal strategy to achieve denuclearization. The panelist also claimed that the recent nuclear weapons test exposed the failure of current diplomatic strategies toward Pyongyang by neighboring countries. The concerned countries are beginning to show diverging views over the North Korean nuclear crisis, the panelist said, with their geopolitical stances becoming more distinguishable. In response, a South Korean panelist claimed that South Korea, the Untied States, Japan and China should equally be held accountable for allowing the North Korean nuclear crisis to intensify. The North Korean efforts to acquire nuclear capabilities are part of their strategy to force the U.S. to the negotiation table, the panelist said. Thus, the connection between potential U.S.-North Korea bilateral talks and the larger six-party talk framework would be a determining factor in resolving the nuclear crisis, he said.
A Japanese panelist was skeptical about the prospects of the six-party talks, pointing out that each country involved in the process has a different view about the future of North Korea. These views include speculation over whether the regime will continue to exist; whether it shall merge with the South while keeping its political system; steer towards a South-led unification; or be absorbed by China. Thus, he stressed that strengthening security cooperation between South Korea, U.S. and Japan would be most effective in resolving the nuclear crisis. A South Korean panelist claimed that an engagement strategy is the only way to improve inter-Korean relations. This approach should be pursued in order to find a peaceful resolution to the North Korean nuclear crisis, as well as a means of improving inter-Korean relations, he said. A Japanese discussant claimed that strengthening the alliances between South Korea, the U.S. and Japan would be the key to solving the North Korean nuclear crisis. Another panelist put more emphasis on the changing relationship between North Korea and China. Since China does not want the North Korean situation to intensify to a point where it affects China’s relationship with the U.S., there is a real possibility that the nuclear crisis could be solved through a multilateral approach, the panelist said.
In the final session of the seminar, the panelists shared their views on the proposed free-trade agreement(FTA) between South Korea and the U.S. and its possible impact on a free trade accord to be negotiated between South Korea and Japan. Panelists from both sides agreed that South Korea and Japan should not hesitate to resume their free trade talks. A Japanese presenter pointed out that security issues as much as economic reasons were important factors determining the outcome of free trade negotiations between South Korea and the U.S. He added that the KORUS FTA will have a massive ripple effect on the regional economy should the talks go through. The panelist forecasted that China would speed up FTA negotiations with South Korea as its exports of grain to South Korea are falling dramatically. Japan would consider reopening FTA negotiations with South Korea after it witnesses the benefits bestowed on Korean companies doing business in the U.S., thanks to the KORUS FTA.
A South Korean panelist described Japan’s strategy in free trade talks as having the following four characteristics: centering on forging economic partnerships with ASEAN countries; opening markets for the country’s manufacturing sector while delaying the opening of its agricultural sector; protecting investment rules and intellectual property rights; and using free trade deals as a diplomatic-security tool. The outcome of South Korea’s free trade talks with the U.S. will have an effect not only on the country’s FTA negotiations with Japan and China, but also on trilateral FTAs among the three northeast Asian countries, the panelist said.
Another South Korean panelist pointed out that the free trade talks between South Korea and Japan were stalled mainly due to the contrasting views over the depth and breadth of market opening in the agriculture sector, as well as different understandings over tariff exemptions and their application to a range of industrial sectors. The free trade accord between South Korea and Japan could only be achieved through political determination from both countries, the panelist said. A Japanese panelist claimed that the gap between South Korea and Japan in their views over agricultural markets was negotiable, and wondered if South Korea was politically motivated to brush off Japan’s attempts to negotiate over the issue. A South Korean panelist commented on the leading roles played by Germany and France in the process of economic integration into the European Union(EU) and stressed that Japan should show more leadership and political will in forging economic partnerships with countries that have different political systems, economic capacities, and industrial structures.
In the first session, the panelists exchanged their views on the Abe government’s prospects and discussed ways to improve the deteriorated relationship between the two countries while building a stronger framework for cooperation. A presenter from Japan expected the Abe government to continue the structural reform policies of the Koizumi administration but to make more efforts to refine its diplomatic strategies. Abe would likely take a moderately conservative approach while working to build a cooperative relationship with South Korea. The panelist claimed that cooperation between the two countries would be crucial for the success of the six-party talks as well as free trade agreements in the region. He also stressed the need for a permanent confidence-building mechanism to deal with political tensions repeatedly rising between the two countries.
In response, a South Korean presenter pointed out that Koreans were very much interested in how the Abe administration will pursue a policy of ‘strong Japan,’ since he is the first prime minister from the post-war generation. The presenter argued that Japan’s new generation of politicians should recognize the country’s militarist past and adopt a fresh approach in establishing peaceful relationships with neighboring countries. Throughout the discussions, panelists agreed on the need for frequent meetings between the leaders of both countries to deal with crisis situations in better ways. There was also consensus on the need to construct a wider range of friendly relationships in order to ease political discord stemming from differing perspectives over history and territory. With regard to the debate over Japan’s new history textbooks, which Koreans criticize as attempting to whitewash Japan’s wartime atrocities, a South Korean panelist questioned whether Prime Minister Abe is using the history card to boost his domestic approval rate. Responding to the comment, a Japanese presenter pointed out that since the Japanese public remained divided over history issues, including politicians’ visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, the Abe government adopting a hard-line approach toward those subjects might not necessarily help win elections.
The South Korean and Japanese panelists displayed a gap between their views over the uncertainties caused by North Korean nuclear program, which was the topic of the second session. A Japanese panelist claimed that North Koreans would not easily give up their efforts to acquire nuclear capability as they link it to the survival of the regime. Therefore, North Korea’s actions could not be predicted by applying deterrence theory, the panelist said. He went on to argue that North Korea would likely not use nuclear weapons unless facing a serious threat to its existence, thus inducing regime transformation in the country would be the ideal strategy to achieve denuclearization. The panelist also claimed that the recent nuclear weapons test exposed the failure of current diplomatic strategies toward Pyongyang by neighboring countries. The concerned countries are beginning to show diverging views over the North Korean nuclear crisis, the panelist said, with their geopolitical stances becoming more distinguishable. In response, a South Korean panelist claimed that South Korea, the Untied States, Japan and China should equally be held accountable for allowing the North Korean nuclear crisis to intensify. The North Korean efforts to acquire nuclear capabilities are part of their strategy to force the U.S. to the negotiation table, the panelist said. Thus, the connection between potential U.S.-North Korea bilateral talks and the larger six-party talk framework would be a determining factor in resolving the nuclear crisis, he said.
A Japanese panelist was skeptical about the prospects of the six-party talks, pointing out that each country involved in the process has a different view about the future of North Korea. These views include speculation over whether the regime will continue to exist; whether it shall merge with the South while keeping its political system; steer towards a South-led unification; or be absorbed by China. Thus, he stressed that strengthening security cooperation between South Korea, U.S. and Japan would be most effective in resolving the nuclear crisis. A South Korean panelist claimed that an engagement strategy is the only way to improve inter-Korean relations. This approach should be pursued in order to find a peaceful resolution to the North Korean nuclear crisis, as well as a means of improving inter-Korean relations, he said. A Japanese discussant claimed that strengthening the alliances between South Korea, the U.S. and Japan would be the key to solving the North Korean nuclear crisis. Another panelist put more emphasis on the changing relationship between North Korea and China. Since China does not want the North Korean situation to intensify to a point where it affects China’s relationship with the U.S., there is a real possibility that the nuclear crisis could be solved through a multilateral approach, the panelist said.
In the final session of the seminar, the panelists shared their views on the proposed free-trade agreement(FTA) between South Korea and the U.S. and its possible impact on a free trade accord to be negotiated between South Korea and Japan. Panelists from both sides agreed that South Korea and Japan should not hesitate to resume their free trade talks. A Japanese presenter pointed out that security issues as much as economic reasons were important factors determining the outcome of free trade negotiations between South Korea and the U.S. He added that the KORUS FTA will have a massive ripple effect on the regional economy should the talks go through. The panelist forecasted that China would speed up FTA negotiations with South Korea as its exports of grain to South Korea are falling dramatically. Japan would consider reopening FTA negotiations with South Korea after it witnesses the benefits bestowed on Korean companies doing business in the U.S., thanks to the KORUS FTA.
A South Korean panelist described Japan’s strategy in free trade talks as having the following four characteristics: centering on forging economic partnerships with ASEAN countries; opening markets for the country’s manufacturing sector while delaying the opening of its agricultural sector; protecting investment rules and intellectual property rights; and using free trade deals as a diplomatic-security tool. The outcome of South Korea’s free trade talks with the U.S. will have an effect not only on the country’s FTA negotiations with Japan and China, but also on trilateral FTAs among the three northeast Asian countries, the panelist said.
Another South Korean panelist pointed out that the free trade talks between South Korea and Japan were stalled mainly due to the contrasting views over the depth and breadth of market opening in the agriculture sector, as well as different understandings over tariff exemptions and their application to a range of industrial sectors. The free trade accord between South Korea and Japan could only be achieved through political determination from both countries, the panelist said. A Japanese panelist claimed that the gap between South Korea and Japan in their views over agricultural markets was negotiable, and wondered if South Korea was politically motivated to brush off Japan’s attempts to negotiate over the issue. A South Korean panelist commented on the leading roles played by Germany and France in the process of economic integration into the European Union(EU) and stressed that Japan should show more leadership and political will in forging economic partnerships with countries that have different political systems, economic capacities, and industrial structures.
목차
Executive Summary
서문(序文)
1. 회의 개요(?議の?要)
2. 각 세션의 요점 및 요약(各セッションの要点と?容要約)
3. 종합평가와 정책제언(?合評?と政策提言)
참석자 명단(List of Participants)(出席者名簿(List of Participants))
일본어 번역문
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
한일 안보협력을 둘러싼 국내적 수준과 국제적 수준의 상충성 분석과 함의
국제정치연구
2015 .12
-
North Korea and South Korea-Japan Relations : With Reference to Japan's Two-Korea Policy
국제정치논총
1985 .12
-
제4차 6자회담의 의미와 한국의 정책방향
국제관계연구
2005 .09
-
FTA 시대의 남북경협과 관세법 개정 방안에 대한 연구
관세학회지
2007 .05
-
An Enduring Dilemma on the Korean Peninsula: The North Korean Nuclear Conundrum and South Korea’s Strategic Choices
The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis
2016 .01
-
한일회담 개시 전 한국정부의 재일한국인 문제에 대한 대응 분석 : 대한민국의 국가정체성과 '재일성'(在日性)의 기원
아세아연구
2009 .03
-
민주화이후 한국정부의 대북정책 성향 및 전략 비교 : 김대중-노무현 정부와 이명박 정부를 중심으로
국제정치연구
2010 .12
-
Nuclear-Armed North Korea and South Korea’s Strategic Countermeasures
The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis
2004 .01
-
김정은 정권의 대일 접근과 북일관계
국제정치연구
2016 .12
-
남북 및 북중간 무역 및 투자현황과 과제
무역연구
2010 .01
-
북일 국교정상화 교섭과 북한의 체제전환
국제정치연구
2018 .12
-
A Japanese Perspective on North Korea: Troubled Bilateral Relations in a Complex Multilateral Framework
International Journal of Korean Unification Studies
2009 .01
-
韓中貿易と韓日FTA(自由貿易協定)の推進方向に關すゐ硏究
관세학회지
2005 .05
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0