[특집] 베트남 평화협정 및 중동 평화협정

The Comparative Analysis of the Vietnamese and Middle East Peace Process

This comparative analysis of the Vietnamese and Middle East peace negotiations has two purposes. First, it reexamines the bargaining positions of the negotiating parties and constraints that each party had faced during the peace process. Second, it uses this issue to examine whether we can learn lessons from those different negotiating process to prepare for peace talks with North Korea. The analyses conclude that the domestic politics of the U.S. have a significant impact on the nature and stability of negotiated outcomes. Specifically, in case of Vietnamese peace process, Washington has tried hard to put the pressures on Hanoi to get the concessions. However, the strong demand from home for withdrawing U.S. ground forces from Vietnam made the U.S. administrations difficult to deal with Hanoi from the strength. The U.S. negotiators had done their utmost to get the settlement without losing face. Therefore, it had never given Saigon a real chance to represent themselves in the whole process. In case of Middle East, coalition politics play the major role in determining negotiation outcomes, while political leadership plays only a minor role. Under Rabin and Peres, a stable arrangement over Jerusalem's future and peace deal were expected. However, Netanyahu took over and peace deal with Arafat and the Palestinian National Authority were failed despite Clinton's intervention. Now, Ehud Barak and other key Israeli actors become willing to make dramatic concessions. It remains to be seen whether Barak will bring peace within 15 months as he wished However, no peaceful settlement over the Jerusalem's future remains possible, even though there are several small victories for peacemakers. In conclusion, concerning parties at the peace talks still believe that nothing is more important than having prepared themselves with power and strength. Political leadership in the U.S. will play the initiating roles in breaking the peace in Middle East as former presidents Carter and Clinton has done before. However, their efforts will be recorded only a step forward to the long journey to the potential settlement over the future status of Jerusalem in Middle East.