[특집] 한미동맹체제와 주한미군:역할 변화의 모색

The Korea-U.S. Alliance and the U.S. Forces In Korea:Searching for the New Roles

Ⅰ. In 1995, the U.S. Department of Defense published the United States Security Strategy for the East Asian Region, which spelled out the security details for the Clinton Administration's strategy of 'engagement' and 'enlargement' in the East Asian region. The U.S. security strategy for East Asia, enumerated in the EASR, aims at maintaining the leadership role of the U.S. in the region through the four specific measures: 1) revitalizing the alliance with Japan: 2) engaging China: 3) consolidating the alliance with South Korea: and 4) combining bilateralism with multilateralism. The primary means for this strategy is the forward-deployed U.S. forces of about 100,000 in the region. Under the strategic framework, it. is important whether the interests of the U.S. and of Korea converge with each other. One important area where the interests coincide is one in which Korea, for the purpose of survival and the U.S. in order to protect its leadership, need an equilibrium within the region where Korea is located. An hegemonic order in Northeast Asia would threaten the U.S. leadership position as well as the political independence of Korea. Since the equilibrium most conducive to Korea's political autonomy is based on continued U.S. participation in the East Asian security system, Korea will continue to prefer to manage the regional equilibrium in alliance with the U.S. However, the convergence of interests does not always guarantee policy coordination, since Korea and the U.S. can have different policy priorities. This is shown in their North Korea policy. The first priority of the Clinton Administration's North Korea policy lies at the global level where the U.S. deals with North Korea to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction to other regions. The second priority is based on the regional level in that the U.S. policy to North Korea is interconnected with its policy of' checking' China. At the level of the Korean peninsula, which is the last priority, the U.S. must reduce the tension between the two Koreas in order to prevent the outbreak of a war on the peninsula and must also seek the ways by which the sudden collapse of North Korea can be successfully managed. On the other hand, Korea's priorities in its North Korea policy are in the reverse order. The Korean government is more concerned with how to harmonize and speed up the progress of improving the relationship of Washington-Pyongyang with that of Seoul-Pyongyang. The problem has been that North Korea has yet to start restoring trust with South Korea, though it has been vigorous in carrying out negotiations with Washington. If the U.S.-North Korea negotiations proceed abreast with the improvement of relations between Seoul and Pyongyang, Korea - U.S. relations will remain smooth, but otherwise, their relations will face various complexities. In this respect, the importance of cooperation between Korea and the U.S. is emphasized. The resolution for the priority divergence between Korea and the U.S. can be achieved through redefinition of the alliance that is to be focused on regional priorities. In other words, both countries need to put their first priority on the strategic interests in Northeast Asia including the Korean peninsula. This is the way by which the global interest of the U.S. and the peninsular interest of Korea can be converged at the regional level. Thus, both countries should emphasize that the Korea-U.S. alliance, that was created to deter North Korea's military threat, will ultimately contribute to stability in Northeast Asia, and that the alliance will continue even after the threat from North Korea disappears. In addition, Korea and the U.S. should start preparing for crisis management in the case of North Korea's collapse. As a measure of redefining the Korea-U.S. alliance, both countries need to announce the “Joint Security Declaration” as soon as Korea's new administration is inaugurated in February 1998.