미국의 대북 경제외교 (Marcus Noland, 2004. 7. 29)

미국의 국제경제연구소 선임연구원인 마커스 놀런드는 이 글에서 “미국은 자국의 국제경제외교를 통해 여러 정치적 현안들이 북한에 불리하게 작용하도록 조절하고 있다”라고 주장하고 있다.

미국의 대북 경제외교 (Marcus Noland, 2004. 7. 29)

US Economic Diplomacy Toward North Korea

미 정부는 꼭 북한을 겨냥한 것은 아니지만 북한에 많은 경제제재를 가하고 있다. 예를 들면 북한은 미국의 수출입은행융자를 통한 보조금이나 해외투자보장 등의 혜택을 보지 못한다. 북한이 공산주의 국가이기 때문이기도 하지만 수출입은행융자 문제는 북한의 NPT탈퇴가 주 이유이다. 또한 모든 국제적 금융기관들(IMF, World Bank, ADB)에 있는 미국 대표들이 테러지원국, 마약밀매국, 대량살상무기확산국, 인권유린국 등에 대해 항상 반대표를 던지기 때문이다.

북한은 실제로 87년 이후 테러를 하지 않는 것으로 알려져 있으며 테러를 반대하는 성명서까지 발표했다. 그러나 적군파를 비호해 준 것이 문제가 되고 있다. 또한 미국이 제재를 하지 않는다고 해도 금융 투명성이 보장되지 않아 혜택을 보기 어렵다.

마약의 경우 북한은 점점 더 많은 생산과 유통을 하고 있음에도 불구하고 미국무성은 주생산국 명단에 올리는 것을 반대하고 있는데 호주에서 있었던 풍수호 사건의 해결에 따라 미국의 태도가 주목된다. 인권 문제에 있어서 북한은 최악의 상태이지만 미국과 북한의 경제관계에 있어서 위의 문제들보다는 작은 변수라고할 수 있다.

마지막으로 북한에서 멸종위기의 동물들의 거래가 diplomatic pouch(공문서화물)까지 사용하면서 이루어지고 있다. 이 때문에 환경 단체들이 강한 경제제재를 주장하기 때문에 경제관계를 지속하기 힘들어지고 또 각종 국제 금융기관에도 환경조항을 조건으로 제시하면 더더욱 힘들어질 것이다.

미국은 자국의 국제경제외교를 통해 여러 정치적 현안들이 북한에 불리하게 작용하도록 조절하고 있다. 아이러니컬하게도 한국 입장에서 보면 이것들은 미국의 진보주의자들과 연관되어 있다. 제재를 가하는데 있어 대통령은 상당한 재량권을 갖고 있어 외교적 협상의 여지가 있을 수 있지만 지금 기류는 위와 같은 조건들이 미국 정책에 많이 반영되는 방향으로 가고 있고, 북한의 태도에 별다른 변화가 없을 경우, 위의 요건들은 앞으로도 중요한 요소로 남아있을 것이다.

(원문)

US Economic Diplomacy Toward North Korea

by Marcus Noland

CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. Essay by Marcus Noland

III. Nautilus Invites Your Responses

——————————————————————————–

I. Introduction

This essay by Mark Noland, Senior Fellow at the Institute for International Economics, argues that “the US conditions its international economic diplomacy on a variety of political concerns that redound to the detriment of the DPRK.” Thus as long as “the trend is toward adding more such conditions to US policy, and absent significant changes in North Korean behavior, these considerations will remain relevant for the foreseeable future.”

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Nautilus Institute. Readers should note that Nautilus seeks a diversity of views and opinions on contentious topics in order to identify common ground.

II. Essay by Marcus Noland

-US Economic Diplomacy Toward North Korea

Essay by Marcus Noland

As demonstrated at the Asian Development Bank (ADB) meeting at Jeju-do, American economic diplomacy toward North Korea reflects US laws that use restrictions on economic relations as a means of encouraging desirable action or behavior with respect to global policy concerns such as workers’ rights or nuclear proliferation causes often promoted by political progressives in the United States. Unlike trade sanctions these laws are not directed at North Korea per se, but they affect the DPRK nonetheless.

North Korea currently is excluded from US government programs that effectively subsidize trade (through Export-Import Bank financing) and outbound foreign investment (through Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) guarantees). As in the case of normal trade relations tariff status, North Korea is among a handful of countries ineligible for these programs because of their status as Marxist-Leninist states. Even if North Korea were somehow able to convince US authorities that it was no longer communist, under existing US law it still would not qualify for these programs due to its repression of workers’ rights, and in the case of the Ex-Im Bank, the country’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The DPRK is also affected by US policy toward the international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and ADB. The US executive directors at these institutions are instructed to vote against lending and technical assistance to countries that are designated by US authorities as being state sponsors of international terrorism, drug trafficking, the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, and the egregious abuse of human rights, including religious rights.

North Korea remains on the US government list of state sponsors of terror, although it is not known to have committed any terrorist acts since 1987, and has subsequently made public statements condemning terrorism. It continues to harbor aging Japanese Red Army airline hijackers however. Under a US law enacted when US airplanes were regularly hijacked to Cuba, the provision of sanctuary to hijackers is one of the specific legal triggers for US opposition to IFI lending. The DPRK has also not resolved the issue of Japanese abductees. Both issues are mentioned in the recent US State Department report on terrorism, and until they are settled it is doubtful that the United States will remove North Korea from the list of terror-sponsors. Even if the United States were to drop its opposition to DPRK membership in the IFIs, it is unclear whether the DPRK would accept the degree of financial transparency required for membership.

With respect to narcotics, despite apparently increasing involvement in the production and trafficking of drugs by the North Korean state, in its annual report, the State Department declined to list the DPRK as a major producer or trafficker in illicit drugs. In this regard, the on-going resolution of the Pong Su case involving alleged heroin trafficking in Australia may significantly affect future US action.

The DPRK government is probably world’s worst abuser of human rights and it would be hard to certify North Korean human rights practices under any meaningful criteria. That said, under current US law the executive probably can act with more discretion with respect to the human rights requirements than those relating to other concerns, so while the North Korean human rights situation is dismal, it probably constrains US-DPRK economic interaction less than the previously mentioned issues.

Finally, North Korean involvement in the smuggling of endangered species parts also runs afoul of US policy. (Due to repeated instances of North Korean diplomats using diplomatic pouches to smuggle endangered species parts, the DPRK was issued a formal diplomatic demarche by the secretariat of the multilateral Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species, the only government to have achieved this dubious distinction.) The issue is of prospective political importance, precisely because it puts the DPRK in the crosshairs of yet another political constituency, and Greens favor economic sanctions as tool to encourage compliance with international environmental agreements – even with respect to nonsignatories. Currently the ability to bring sanctions to bear against state sponsors of this kind of activity is limited. But it is would not be surprising if environmental provisions were added during the periodic legislative reauthorizations of GSP, Ex-Im, OPIC, and US support for the IFIs.

The US conditions its international economic diplomacy on a variety of political concerns that redound to the detriment of the DPRK. Ironically, from a South Korean perspective, these causes are typically associated with political progressives in the United States. The president has a fair amount of discretion in implementing the rules, so there is room for diplomatic maneuver. Yet the trend is toward adding more such conditions to US policy, and absent significant changes in North Korean behavior, these considerations will remain relevant for the foreseeable future.

-출처: Nautilus Institute