박문재 박사 엘에이에서 강연회 진행

페이지 정보

작성자 편집국 작성일18-10-05 15:32 댓글0건

본문

박문재 박사 엘에이에서 강연회 진행

“3자 정상회담 필요성과 남북 경제 및 정치 제도의 융합에 대한 제언”

편집국

▲남북정상회담과정을 지켜보며 감동하여 눈물 흘렸다고 말하는 박문재 강연자

10.4공동선언 11주년을 맞으며 재미동포엘에이지역연합회를 비롯하여 한반도평화통일포럼, 한반도 중립화 통일운동 LA지부 주최로 재미동포연합의 박문재 수석부회장을 모시고 10월 4일 저녁 6시 30분 평화의 교회에서 강연회를 진행하였다.

40여 명의 동포들이 모인 강연회는 정신화(재미동포엘에이지역연합회 회장)의 사회로 애국의례, 조경미(한반도평화통일포럼 회장)의 인사말, 강사소개, 강연의 순서로 진행되었으며, 박문재 박사가 “3자 정상회담 필요성과 남북 경제 및 정치 제도의 융합에 대한 제언”를 주제로 강연하였다.

박문재 박사는 심장내과 전문의사, 재미동포전국연합회 수석부회장, 의학과학자분과위원회 위원장으로서 <조미의학과학교류 촉진회(US-DPRK Medical Scieence Exchange)회장으로 활동하며 남북화해와 협력운동에 크케 기여하였다. 그는 현재까지 수년 동안 뉴욬타임즈, 워싱턴포스트를 포함하여 미주류 언론에 코리아평화를 위한 글을 투고하였고 Korean Quarterly 계간지에 3개월마다 우리나라의 문제에 관하여 영문으로 기고해왔다.

박문재 박사는 강연회를 시작하며 최근 남북정상회담에서 김정은 위원장과 문재인 대통령이 판문점에서 악수하는 모습, 백두산에서 잡은 손을 높이 들어 올린 모습, 문 대통령이 시민들에게 인사하고 평양시민들은 김 위원장이 아닌 남녘 대통령을 향하여 환호하는 모습 등 놀랍고도 감격적인 모습들을 슬라이드로 보여주며, 본인은 이 장면들을 볼 때마다 감동의 눈물을 흘린다고 하였다.

그는 4.27판문점공동선언과 9월평양선언에서 나온 선언문들을 잘 이행하려면 어떤 부문에서는 미국의 협조가 필요하므로 이제 남과 북, 미국이 3자정상회담을 해야 하며, 이 회담을 통하여 미국의 더 많은 양보와 조정을 이끌어내어야 할 때라고 하였다. 3자정상회담은 조미관계정상화, 코리아반도의 비핵화, 조미평화협정체결, 대북경제제재 철폐로 이어질 것이며, 세 정상의 폭넓은 합의는 통일코리아의 문을 더 활짝 열어줄 것이라고 하였다.

그는 남과 북이 서로의 강한 점과 부족한 점을 바르게 평가하고 변화하여 남북을 함께 이롭게 하는 새로운 통일개념으로 잘 융합할 때 진정한 하나의 코리아가 탄생될 것이라고 하면서, 경제분야, 정치분야, 교육분야, 군사분야, 의료분야, 인구문제에서 남과 북이 발전적으로 변화활 점을 지적하였다.

경제분야에서는 북이 사회주의를 유지하고 남은 인센티브제도를 유지하되 극단적인 경쟁과 양극화를 부추기는 지나친 민영화나 제벌제도를 제거할 것을 제언하였다.

군사분야에서는 남북의 상비군을 합치면 그 수가 1백 8십 5만이 되는데, 이 세계 5위의 군력을 우주군대, 대양군대, 핵군대로 전문화하여 통일국가의 호율적이며 강력한 군대로 발전시킬 것을 제언하였다.

정치분야에서는 북의 1당제는 유지하더라도 북 정부의 수직적 통제구조를 수평젹 구조로 바꾸어 경제발전에 맞게 변화할 것을 제언하며, 통일코리아의 당 제도는 미국의 제도가 아니라 직업별 대표들을 바탕으로 민주적 제도를 구축한 스위스 정부제도가 모델이 될 수 있다고 하였다.

교육제도와 의료제도는 북의 무상제도가 우월하며, 하나의 코리아에서는 고등교육의 내용을 균일화하며 특별학교의 입학요건은 나라가 통제하도록 제언하였다.

인구문제는 현재 7천만 남북의 인구를 1억 5천만으로 늘릴 것을 제안하였다.

그는 남북이 서로의 강점을 취하여 잘 융합하고 협동하면 강대한 국가가 될 것이 확실하다고 하였다.

박문재 박사의 강연이 끝나고 참가자들은 밤늦도록 통일코리아와 남, 북 조국과 미국의 현실에 대하여, 남북관계개선과 코리아의 평화와 번영, 통일의 이정표로 되는 남북공동선언이행과 통일코리아에 대해 토론하였다. 참가자들은 5000년을 함께 하고 70년 헤어져 살아온 남과 북은 이질적인 것보다 동질적인 것이 더 많다는데 동의하면서 남북이 잘 융합하고 협동하여 번영하는 자주평화통일국가가 되기를 간절히 소망하였다.

Calls for a tri-party summit at Pyongyang

=Working out a One Korea Concept=

By Moon J. Pak

(September 2018)

The year 2018 has been an epochal year for the Korean peninsula, in which the world has observed leaders of the two Koreas take deliberate steps to end the nearly 70-year old division of the country.

In North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or DPRK), the era began with the emergence in North Korea of Chairman Kim Jong-un, succeeding his (deceased) father Kim Jong-Il.

In the South, President Moon Jae-in was elected in the spring of 2017. His election came after the so-called Candlelight Revolution, during which hundreds of thousands of Koreans in cities across the country took to the streets with candles in peaceful demonstrations every night for many weeks in an effort to remove the conservative, corrupt regime of President Park Geun-hye.

One additional benefit during this era is the presence of Donald J. Trump in the White House; although he often appears unpredictable, on matters pertaining to Korea, he has proven to be a rational and useful partner in the cause of peace.

The decision of the North to participate in the Winter Olympics held in PyeongChang, South Korea in early 2018 led to a cascade of positive diplomatic events between the two Koreas and also between the U.S. and North Korea that were not even imaginable a year ago.

The first event following the Olympics was the summit meeting between Moon and Kim in the village of Panmunjom, located in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that produced the Panmunjom Declaration of April 27. The five points of the Declaration opened a new era of peace and reconciliation between the two Koreas, however, the symbolic image of the two leaders embracing each other and crossing the border between the two Koreas added profound meaning to the event.

On June 12, the second historic summit was held at Singapore, this time between Trump and Kim. As in the first summit, the visual image of a friendly encounter between the two leaders, and the flags of the two countries shown together had significant impact. The brief agreements that came out of the meeting amounted to a promise for eventual denuclearization of the North and pledge to officially end the state of war between the two countries that has existed for nearly 70 years since the end of the Korean War in 1953.

After a series of diplomatic communications between Washington, Seoul and Pyongyang, a third summit meeting was held on September 18 in Pyongyang between Moon and Kim that resulted in the Joint Agreement between the two Koreas. This agreement laid the groundwork for multiple specific concepts, projects, and routes of cooperation and communication. Recent images of the two leaders communicating with each other, and the ardent acceptance of the South Korean President and First Lady by the general North Korean public, were profound and created a mood of optimism among all the Koreans.

In reviewing the multiple agreements produced from the three summits, it is obvious that all the agreements, even those of the North and South, will depend in some form on the approval and/or cooperation of the U.S. Thus, there is now a call from both Koreas for another summit between Kim and Trump!

It is however, the considered opinion of many that the next diplomatic dialogue should be a tri-party summit with Kim, Moon and Trump. The location would preferably be Pyongyang, with Trump presiding. With this structure, and with all parties at the table, decision-making would be quicker. In having Trump preside, the hope is that he would be more invested in having a successful summit, and therefore more inclined to make concessions and adjustments needed in the U.S. position.

The expected outcome of a tri-party summit would be a resolution to normalize the international relationship between the U.S. and DPRK. This agreement could also cover peninsular denuclearization, removal of sanctions on the North and a peace treaty between the two countries. This type of broad agreement would open the door for the realization of a “One Korea Concept”between the two Koreas, which was so dramatically presented at the summits of the two Koreas held April 17 and September 18.

Reunification of the Korean peninsula is not achievable simply by having both leaders walking across the DMZ together, and many of the agreements now proposed will undergo real implementation challenges, even though the proposals are excellent, idealistic and well thought-out.

Likewise, bringing a people who are united in their 4,000-year history and common ethnicity, yet divided by two generations of complete physical division, and by drastically different political and economic systems, is admittedly a tricky prospect.

In addition to their vast differences, both nations have their own merits and shortcomings. The time may be right to compare and evaluate both systems with the goal of developing a new unified concept, uniquely suitable and beneficial to both Koreas – a true “One Korea Concept”.

Economic changes:

In their economies, both Koreas must initiate change if they wish to eventually coalesce. There is, of course, great discrepancies between the size of the economies of the two Koreas; South Korea’s gross domestic product (GDP) is 30 times greater than North Korea’s. Although the North will have to bring about greater changes, the answer may not be a South Korean-style capitalist model, or a Chinese model.

Similarly, systemic economic changes in the South should be in the direction of the socialistic system of North, however, South Korea should maintain profit incentives while eliminating extreme income discrepancies and the corruptive influence of its giant privately-held companies, or “chaebols”.

Political changes:

Compromising the two drastically different political systems of both Koreas is seemingly impossible, but there is some room for change, especially in the North. Its one-party, family-rule system will not change, but the tight vertical control of the government with its few horizontal incentives will have to change, at a minimum, to accommodate the changes needed in its economic system. Eventually, a democratic system based on representation of occupations/professions may replace the current party system in the North and South, thus abolishing politics as a profession. Switzerland’s government achieves representation of its people in government by having various professional or occupational organizations associated with the legislative structure – this is a model worth looking at.

Education system changes:

Education is another area where the two Koreas could successfully develop a uniform single system. The North has a state-controlled merit-based system, where education is provided fully by the state with no individual financial obligation for students, not even cost of room and board. The quality of higher education is largely uniform except for a few specialized institutions. The prerequisite for admission as well as the competition for admission is determined by the state, based on the perceived need for that particular profession by the state.

The youth work force:

The standing army (which in North Korea is a standing youth work force as well) of each side must be unified also. The North has 1.2 million-armed youth and South has 650,000. The combined force of 1.85 million makes it the fifth largest military in the world (after India, China, the U.S. and Russia).

A unified Korea could recruit all of its men and women between age 18-22 for military and non-military service, which would total a force of about 2.5 million. I suggest that all youth serve for the country for two years in the fields of military, agriculture or industry. For those who are not properly educated or trained, the two-year time span could be used for education, or skilled professions so that no one after this two-year time of mandatory service remain jobless or unemployed.

A goal of a highly-educated work force begs the question about jobs for low-skilled workers. To supplement the labor force, a unified Korea could bring transient laborers from other countries, such as the Philippines, China, and Vietnam. The U.S., China, Japan, and other countries have done this, with varying degrees of success. The goal would be to provide short-term contracts for foreign workers, and to raise in turn, the quality of life and level of education for the Koreans.

Being surrounded by the four world powers, China, Japan, Russia and U.S., the unified Korea must maintain an effective, strong and efficient national defense system. It should be highly technically oriented, with an emphasis on an aerospace force, an oceangoing navy, and an open and defensive nuclear weapons base.

Health care changes:

Currently, there is a great gap in the quality of the health care system between the two Koreas, however this reflects the economic discrepancy between the two nations. The gap will lessen as the economies merge. In principle, and in terms of accessibility of care, the North’s system is superior, since it is not based on any financial incentives.

Population changes:

Lastly, a word should be said about the population, and the interesting trend at present of the two Koreas. The South has a population of roughly 45 million and is declining due to a low birth rate, following the trend of Japan. The North has a population of 25 million, and both the birth rate, and growth rate are stable. The combined population of 70 million is about the same as Italy. However, Korea is surrounded by countries whose total population amounts to nearly 70 percent of world’s total. A unified Korea must aim to increase its total population to at least 150 million in within its next generation.

=The End=

(Korean Quarterly: Fall, 2018, VOL.21, NUM 05)