[특집] 북한체제와 한반도 안정

North Korean Regime Dynamics and Stability on the Korean Peninsula

Since late 1980s, the international system has undergone a profound transformation. The dissolution of the Soviet Union not only brought about major political realignments in Europe including the German unification, but also precipitated the end of the Cold War bipolarity. The demise of the Cold War was followed by an elated anticipation on peaceful resolution of the Korean conflict and national reunification among Koreans precisely because the Korean division and conflict were a product of the Cold War hegemonic rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. But such anticipation has been soon shattered, and military confrontation on the Korean peninsula remains as tense as before. Despite its Cold War origin, the Korean conflict has evolved into its own peculiar dynamics. If the international system is less effectual in shaping the nature of peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, what else would serve as critical variables? This article argues that the most critical variable in predicting the dynamics of the Korean politics is domestic politics in both Koreas and impacts on inter-Korean relations. Especially, changes in North Korean domestic politics are likely to serve as the most important factor in affecting the future course of peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. Against this backdrop, the article delineates four scenarios of political changes in the North and traces how each scenario would influence peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. The first scenario involves a sequence of a sudden collapse of North Korea and unification by absorption in South Korean terms. The 'big bang' scenario can entail short-term trauma and instability, but can ensure long-term stability and peace by consolidating the process of unification. One caveat is in order, however, Reunification and the rise of unified Korea as a middle power can cause counter- balances by regional powers, undermining long-term stability. The second one is a 'scapegoat' scenario. Increasing internal insecurity, coupled with factional struggle among ruling elite, especially the military, the Kim Jong Il regime can undertake military provocation on the South. In this case, short-term instability associated with military conflict will arise, but in the long run, South Korea, in cooperation with its allies, will be able to topple the North Korean regime and to foster the process of unification as well as to ensure peace and stability in Korea. This scenario is also predicated on enormous short-term instability and trauma. The third scenario involves stability through international trusteeship of North Korea. The scenario assumes a sequence of division within the ruling circle, proliferation of civil unrest, and the deepening of protracted civil war in the North. Under this circumstance, as in the case of Lebanon or Yugoslavia, warring Korth Korean factions could ask intervention of the United Nations or major powers such as the United States and/or China in the form of international peacekeeping forces. In this case, instability can be confined to North Korea, but prolonged international trusteeship could block chances for Korean unification. The last one is an 'incremental' scenario. The scenario assumes soft-landing of North Korea through open door and reforms, improved inter- Korean relations, and the consolidation of peaceful co-existence on the Korean peninsula. It favors status quo over any drastic changes in inter-Korean relations. It is also assumed that Korean unification would corne through negotiations and consensus rather than Korean unification would corne through negotiations and consensus rather than through big bang or military conflicts. In sum, the article draws a conclusion that the most feasible and desirable scenario for stability and peace on the Korean peninsula is the incremental change in North Korea. Sudden political changes in the North can cause acute short-term instabilities on the Korean peninsula.