탈냉전 이행기 동유럽의 안보 및 동맹전략의 변환과정과 경로에 관한 연구: 체코와 우크라이나의 사례 비교 (A Study on the Path and Process of the Alliance Transformation and Security Strategy Change in the Post-Soviet Transition Period of East Europe: A Comparative Analysis between the case of Ukraine and )

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 국방부군사편찬연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 군사 / 95호 / 141 ~ 183페이지
· 저자명 : 백준기

초록

이 연구의 목적은 소비에트체제의 해체와 동유럽 국가들의 체제이행에 있어서 외교안보 및 군사정책 변화의 ‘요인과 과정’을 분석하고 이것이 남북한 통합과정에 함의하는 바를 도출하기 위한 것이다. 이러한 연구 목적을 달성하기 위한 방법론에 있어서, 이 논문은 ‘세력균형’ 등 현실주의적 정치(Realpolitik)을 강조하는 현실주의적 접근 뿐 아니라 정치 엘리트들의 ‘인식(political perception)과 관념적 요인(ideational factors)’에 주목하는 구성주의적 접근(constructivist approach)을 병행하였다.
연구의 대상으로는 유럽의 집단안보체제이자 대표적인 군사동맹기구인 NATO와 정치·경제적 동맹체제인 EU를 선정하였다. EU를 주요연구대상으로 설정한 이유는 EU의 군사안보전략이 NATO와 밀접하게 연동되어있고, ‘공동외교안보정책(CFSP: Common Foreign and Security Policy)’과 ‘안보방위정책(ESDP: European Security and Defense Policy)’, 그리고 ‘유럽안보전략(European Security Strategy)’ 등, EU의 안보 및 군사관련 프로그램들이 가입국들에게 적용되고 있기 때문이다.
체코와 우크라이나 등 동유럽 국가들은 EU와 NATO를 자국의 안보전략에서 통합적인 체계로 사고하였으며 체제이행기에 외교안보 및 군사전략의 변환과정에서 두 기구에의 가입을 동시병행 추진하였다. 연구 시기는 소비에트 체제 말기이자 동유럽 체제이행이 시작된 1989년에서 시작하여 우크라이나의 NATO가입이 최종적으로 좌절된 2008년까지로 한정하였다.
체코와 우크라이나의 동맹체제 전환전략(NATO와 EU가입문제)에는 지정학적 요인과 더불어 ‘지문화적 정체성(geocultural identity)’이라는 인문학적 요인, 그리고 강대국 지배라는 역사적 경험이 작용하였다. 동유럽의 대부분의 국가들은 대서양동맹체제로의 편입, 시장경제로의 이행과 유럽과의 통합이라는 측면에서 바르샤바조약기구와 코메콘을 해체하고 자연스럽게 NATO와 EU 가입이라는 안보 군사 및 정치 경제 체제 전환전략을 선택하였다.
체코의 정치엘리트들과 국민들은 지역전략과 동맹전략에 있어서 ‘유럽으로의 복귀’라는 큰 틀에서 합의를 이루었으며, 여기에는 유럽에 대한 ‘지문화적 정체성’이 중요하게 작용하였다. 우크라이나에 비해 소련/러시아의 지정학적 영향력이 상대적으로 약한 체코는 NATO와 EU가입을 선택하기가 우크라이나 보다 용이하였으므로 ‘서구적 경로’를 선택하였다. 우크라이나에는 외교안보전략과 동맹체제 전환문제에 있어서 체코에 비해 지정학적으로 러시아의 영향력이 결정적 요인으로 작용하였다. 지문화적으로도 유럽주의적 전통이 주류를 이룬 체코에 비해 우크라이나에서는 유럽적 경향과 러시아적 경향이 혼재되어 있으므로, 정치엘리트와 국민들은 ‘서구적 경로’와 ‘러시아적 경로’사이에서 갈등을 겪고 있다.
체코와 우크라이나의 지정학적이고 지문화적인, 그리고 역사적인 경험은 한반도 통합과정에 다음과 같은 시사점을 제시하고 있다. 먼저, 한반도는 지정학적으로 중국 및 러시아와 접경해 있으므로 통합과정에서 발생할 수 있는 동맹체제 변환문제에 있어서 이들 국가들로부터 전략 자율성을 확신할 수 없다는 점이다. 다음으로, 지문화적인 요인에 대한 성찰이 필요하다는 점이 지적될 필요가 있다. 동유럽의 사례에서와 같이 체제이행기 한반도 통합과정에서도 한반도의 지문화적 정체성이 중요하게 작용할 것이다.
마지막으로, 한반도 통합과정에서 선택할 수 있는 전략적 옵션에 관한 현실적 대안을 수립하는 것이다. 동유럽사례를 참고하여 지금까지 거론되고 있는 논의들을 종합하면 다음과 같은 다섯 가지 전략적 옵션을 상정할 수 있을 것이다: ①한미동맹체제의 유지 및 강화 방안; ②기존의 동맹체제―북·중·러 및 한·미·일―를 해소하고 동북아 또는 동아시아 공동안보협력체제를 수립하는 방안; ③한미동맹을 유지하면서 동북아 공동안보협력체제를 수립하는 방안; ④한미동맹을 비군사 정치동맹으로 변환하는 방안; ⑤‘비동맹 중립화’ 방안 등. 남북한 통합 과정에서 국내 정치환경과 국제 전략조건을 현실적으로 타산하여 동원가능한 우리의 전략자원을 합리적으로 배치할 때 이러한 옵션들에 대한 우리의 선택적 자율성의 공간이 열릴 것이다.

영어초록

The purpose of this research is to evaluate 'factors and process' of foreign security policy change and military strategy transformation among the East European nations in the transition period of ‘the post-Cold War’ and to take its implications for Korean reunification process. To do that, this research has selected two countries(Czech Republic and Ukraine) among them, and analysed the two nation's transition of strategy. In view of their population and national capacity, Czech Republic and Ukraine have middle powers, and in geopolitical aspects they play strategic-pivot roles in the great powers. These two nations have similarity to South and North Korea, considering relative capacities and geopolitical conditions.
































This research not only takes a realistic approach which highlights the 'Balance of Power', but also takes a constructive approach which focuses on 'the political perception and ideational factors' of political elites. EU which is a politico-economic alliance and NATO which is an European collective regime and a typical military alliance were selected as research objects.
































On the background of Czech and Ukraine's alliance transformation have worked geopolitical factors, 'geocultural identity' and historical experiences of the rules of the great powers. Most of East European countries have naturally chosen a transformation strategy which implicated joining NATO and EU by dissolving the Warsaw Treaty Organization and COMECON in order to integrate themselves with the Atlantic alliance system and Western Europe.




















The purpose of this research is to evaluate 'factors and process' of foreign security policy change and military strategy transformation among the East European nations in the transition period of ‘the post-Cold War’ and to take its implications for Korean reunification process. To do that, this research has selected two countries(Czech Republic and Ukraine) among them, and analysed the two nation's transition of strategy. In view of their population and national capacity, Czech Republic and Ukraine have middle powers, and in geopolitical aspects they play strategic-pivot roles in the great powers. These two nations have similarity to South and North Korea, considering relative capacities and geopolitical conditions.




This research not only takes a realistic approach which highlights the 'Balance of Power', but also takes a constructive approach which focuses on 'the political perception and ideational factors' of political elites. EU which is a politico-economic alliance and NATO which is an European collective regime and a typical military alliance were selected as research objects.




On the background of Czech and Ukraine's alliance transformation have worked geopolitical factors, 'geocultural identity' and historical experiences of the rules of the great powers. Most of East European countries have naturally chosen a transformation strategy which implicated joining NATO and EU by dissolving the Warsaw Treaty Organization and COMECON in order to integrate themselves with the Atlantic alliance system and Western Europe.




In regional policy and alliance strategy, Czech’ political elites have decided to ‘return to Europe.’ The Czech’s ‘Euro-oriented geocultural identity’ has exerted influences on their policy-making. In comparison to Ukraine, Czech stood relatively aloof from Russia’s geopolitical influences, therefore, Czech’s elites could decide to take ‘the Western path’ more easily than those of Ukraine. For Ukraine, in view of foreign security policy and alliance transformation policy, Russia’s geopolitical influence is a main and the most critical factor of policy-making. In a geocultural aspect, unlike Czech which has a strong tradition of Europeanism, European orientation is confused with Russian orientation in Ukraine. Its cultural hybridism makes discordance with the ‘Western path’ and ‘Russian path’ in the process of making decision.




The geopolitical, geocultural, and historical experiences of Czech and Ukraine suggest not a few policy implications to Korean reunification process. First of all, it would not be easy for us to secure strategic autonomy from political influences of China and Russia if the issue of alliance transformation will be raised in the reunification process. Secondly, it is necessary to indicate that we have to hold a introspection on geopolitical identity. Like East European cases, the geocultural identity of Korea plays an important role in the process of Korean reunification. Lastly, with reference to East European cases, the five strategic options (as realistic alternatives) could be set up as below: ① Maintenance and consolidation plan of the ROK-US alliance; ② Dissolution of the existing alliance regime(ROK-US-Japan vs China-Russia-North Korea) and establishment of the common security regime in Northeast Asia or East Asia; ③ Coexistence of the ROK-US alliance within a common security regime of Northeast Asia; ④ Transformation of the ROK-US alliance to the nonmilitary political alliance; ⑤ Non-alliance neutralization. The relatively autonomous space for those options would be constituted if we could rationally mobilize our strategic resources by considering domestic political conditions and international political environments in the process of Korean reunification.








In regional policy and alliance strategy, Czech’ political elites have decided to ‘return to Europe.’ The Czech’s ‘Euro-oriented geocultural identity’ has exerted influences on their policy-making. In comparison to Ukraine, Czech stood relatively aloof from Russia’s geopolitical influences, therefore, Czech’s elites could decide to take ‘the Western path’ more easily than those of Ukraine. For Ukraine, in view of foreign security policy and alliance transformation policy, Russia’s geopolitical influence is a main and the most critical factor of policy-making. In a geocultural aspect, unlike Czech which has a strong tradition of Europeanism, European orientation is confused with Russian orientation in Ukraine. Its cultural hybridism makes discordance with the ‘Western path’ and ‘Russian path’ in the process of making decision.
































The geopolitical, geocultural, and historical experiences of Czech and Ukraine suggest not a few policy implications to Korean reunification process. First of all, it would not be easy for us to secure strategic autonomy from political influences of China and Russia if the issue of alliance transformation will be raised in the reunification process. Secondly, it is necessary to indicate that we have to hold a introspection on geopolitical identity. Like East European cases, the geocultural identity of Korea plays an important role in the process of Korean reunification. Lastly, with reference to East European cases, the five strategic options (as realistic alternatives) could be set up as below: ① Maintenance and consolidation plan of the ROK-US alliance; ② Dissolution of the existing alliance regime(ROK-US-Japan vs China-Russia-North Korea) and establishment of the common security regime in Northeast Asia or East Asia; ③ Coexistence of the ROK-US alliance within a common security regime of Northeast Asia; ④ Transformation of the ROK-US alliance to the nonmilitary political alliance; ⑤ Non-alliance neutralization. The relatively autonomous space for those options would be constituted if we could rationally mobilize our strategic resources by considering domestic political conditions and international political environments in the process of Korean reunification.

참고자료

· 없음