70년분단과동북아 100년의미래 70 Years of the Divide and Northeast Asia's Next 100 Years Date : August 3, 2015 Venue : International Conference Room, Samsung Millenium Hall, Korea University
Contents Program ( 스케줄 ) 1 Rationale ( 취지문 ) 3 Participants ( 참석자 ) 6 Conference Papers ( 발표문 ) 42 Roundtable (10:00-12:00): Moving Beyond the Past and Toward Trilateral Cooperation in Northeast Asia Minilateralism in Northeast Asia: China-Japan-Korea, US-Japan-Korea, and US-China-Korea Cooperation 45 Sung-han Kim Professor, Korea University (Former Korean Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs) Sino-Japanese Relations and Its Impact on East Asian Security Cooperation 47 Jian Chen Former Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister and Former United Nations Under-Secretary General A Call for Multi-Layered Functionalism in Northeast Asia: Security, Confidence Building, Trade and Investment, Energy and Environment 48 Hitoshi Tanaka Chairman, The Institute for International Strategy (Former Japanese Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs) Session 1 (14:00-15:40): History, Ideas, and Experiences of East Asian Cooperation Asianism of Modern Japan: The Trap of Pan-Asianism 51 Nobuhiro Katsurajima Professor, Ritsumeikan University Kim Hak-cheol s East Asia: The Japan Puzzle 72 Won Shik Choi Professor Emeritus, Inha University
Geopolitical Thought and Its Implication for China-U.S.-Japan Relations: A Study on the Essential Variables to Determine East Asia s Next 100 Years 79 Jiangyong Liu Professor, Tsinghua University Session 2 (15:50-18:10): Historical Reconciliation and Regional Cooperation in Northeast Asia Institution Building and Northeast Asian Cooperation 99 Jianzhong Shu Professor, Nanjing University Historical Reconciliation and the Possibility of Establishing an Achieves Center for East Asia 107 Somei Kobayashi Professor, Nihon University Regional Trade Agreements in East Asia: Retrospect and Prospect 111 Innwon Park Professor, Korea University National Interest and Mass Media: Toward a Conception of East Asia Regional Broadcasting 133 Mooam Hyun Professor, Hokkaido University
Program Opening Ceremony (09:00-09:50) Opening Speech Welcoming Speech Congratulatory Speeches Keynote Speech Jong-Wha Lee Director, Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University Soo-Won Kim Executive Vice President for Research, Korea University Shunya Yoshimi Director, Center for Contemporary Korean Studies University of Tokyo Jiangyong Liu Vice Dean, Institute of Modern International Relations Tsinghua University Hyun-ju Lee Secretary General, Northeast Asian History Foundation Tae-yong Cho First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Tea Break (9:50-10:00) Roundtable (10:00-12:00) Moving Beyond the Past and Toward Trilateral Cooperation in Northeast Asia Moderator Speakers In-Taek Hyun Professor, Korea University Former Minister of Unification Sung-han Kim Professor, Korea University Former Korean Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Jian Chen Former Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Former United Nations Under-Secretary General Hitoshi Tanaka Chairman, the Institute for International Strategy Former Japanese Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Lunch (12:10-14:00) Luncheon Speech: Amb. Shigeo Iwatani Secretary-General of the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat - 1 -
Program Session I (14:00-15:40) History, Ideas, and Experiences of East Asian Cooperation Moderator Presenters Discussants Kwang Shik Choe Professor, Korea University Former Minister of Culture, Sports, and Tourism Nobuhiro Katsurajima Professor, Ritsumeikan University Won Shik Choi Professor Emeritus, Inha University Jiangyong Liu Vice Dean, Institute of Modern International Relations Tsinghua University Hyun-chul Kim Research Fellow, Northeast Asian History Foundation Hidemi Kanazu Professor, Korea University Hyoung-sik Lee Professor, Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University Tea Break (15:40-15:50) Session II (15:50-18:10) Historical Reconciliation and Regional Cooperation in Northeast Asia Moderator Presenters Discussants Shin-wha Lee Professor, Korea University Jianzhong Shu Professor, Nanjing University Somei Kobayashi Professor, Nihon University Innwon Park Professor, Korea University Mooam Hyun Professor, Hokkaido University Joo-Youn Jung Professor, Korea University Yuji Hosaka Professor, Sejong University Chunji Xuan Professor, Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University Jae Bok Cha Research Fellow, Northeast Asian History Foundation Forum Summary (18:10-18:20) - 2 -
Rationale The year 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, as well as the 50th anniversary of diplomatic normalization between South Korea and Japan. Despite the lapse of 70 years, however, a number of problems in Northeast Asia, such as national division, history war, and territorial disputes, remain unresolved and the occasional surge of nationalist sentiments brought the regional states into recurring conflicts and confrontations. As part of international efforts to create a harmonious regional community in Northeast Asia, Korea University, Tsinghua University, the University of Tokyo and the Northeast Asian History Foundation will organize the 5th East Asian Community Forum(EACF) on the theme of 70 Years of the Divide and Northeast Asia s Next 100 Years. The forum s main topics include what lessons we can draw from history to address a number of regional disputes and how to promote regional cooperation, including inter-korean reconciliation and integration. Launched in 2011, the EACF aims to develop a network of distinguished scholars of East Asia and bridge academia and policymaking circles in the region. Our goal is to analyze political, historical, social and economic issues in East Asia, exchange views on the ways to enhance the prospects for regional cooperation, and create a web of close scholarly collaboration. - 3 -
취지문 2015년은제2차세계대전종전 70주년이자한일국교정상화 50주년이되는해입니다. 70년의세월에도불구하고동북아는국토분단, 역사전쟁, 영토분쟁등아직도많은문제들이해결되지못한채때때로민족주의가대두되면서국가간충돌과대립이일어나고있습니다. 조화로운동북아지역공동체형성을위한국제적노력의일환으로고려대학교, 칭화대학, 도쿄대학과동북아역사재단은 70년의분단과동북아 100년의미래 를주제로제5회동아시아공동체포럼을개최합니다. 금번포럼에서는동북아의지역분쟁을해결하기위해역사에서얻을수있는교훈과남북한및동북아의화해와통합등한반도와동아시아의지역협력을증진시킬방안에대하여논의될예정입니다. 동아시아공동체포럼은이지역의저명한학자들간네트워크를구축하고, 학계와정책입안자들의가교역할을하기위한목적으로 2011년에시작되었습니다. 이포럼의참석자들은이지역의정치, 경제, 사회, 역사문제들을분석하고지역협력을증진시키기위한방안을협의하며공동연구를위한기반을조성할것입니다. - 4 -
Participants ( 참석자 ) - 6 -
Opening Ceremony Opening Speech Jong-Wha Lee Director Asiatic Research Institute at Korea University Welcoming Speech Soo-Won Kim Executive Vice President for Research Korea University Congratulatory Speeches Shunya Yoshimi Director Center for Contemporary Korean Studies University of Tokyo Jiangyong Liu Vice Dean Institute of Modern International Relations Tsinghua University Hyun-ju Lee Secretary General Northeast Asian History Foundation Keynote Speech Tae-yong Cho First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Moderator Su Jin Kong Professor Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University
Opening Speech Jong-Wha Lee Director Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University Jong-Wha Lee is a professor of economics and director of the Asiatic Research Institute at Korea University. He served as a senior adviser for international economic affairs to former President of South Korea. He was also previously Chief Economist and Head of the Office of Regional Economic Integration at the Asian Development Bank and an economist at the International Monetary Fund. He has taught at Harvard University and Australian National University and served as a consultant to the Harvard Institute for International Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and the World Bank. Lee has published numerous books and journal articles in English and Korean, especially on topics relating to human capital, growth, financial crises, and economic integration. His most recent book, Education Matters: Global Schooling Gains from the 19th to the 21st Century, which is coauthord with Robert J. Barro, is forthcoming from Oxford University Press. He has contributed to Project Syndicate since 2012. A citizen of the Republic of Korea, Dr. Lee obtained his Ph.D. and Master s degree in Economics from Harvard University, and his Master s and Bachelor s degrees in economics from Korea University in Seoul. - 9 -
Welcoming Speech Soo-Won Kim Executive Vice President for Research Korea University Soo-Won Kim is the Executive Vice President for Research, Korea University. Kim has been a professor at the Department of Electronic Engineering, Korea University, since 1987. He worked as the Dean of College of Engineering and the director of Graduate School of Engineering from 2004 to 2008. His main research area is integrated circuits design in high speed transceivers, data converters and power management IC. He received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in electronic engineering from Korea University in Korea, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from TEXAS A&M University in the United States. - 10 -
The 5th East Asian Community Forum (EACF) Congratulatory Speech Shunya Yoshimi Director Center for Contemporary Korean Studies University of Tokyo Shunya Yoshimi is a Professor of Sociology, Media and Cultural Studies in University of Tokyo. He is also Director of Center for Research and Development of Higher Education, Director of Center for Global Education in University of Tokyo. He wrote many books on cultural theory, urban culture, international exposition, media culture, information technology, emperor system, and the cultural Americanization in modern Japan and East Asia. He has been a leading scholar in the field of Media and Cultural Studies in contemporary Japan. Publications include Dramaturgy in City (1987), The Politics of Exposition (1992), Cultural Sociology in Media Age(1994), Voice of Capitalism (1995), Cultural Turn(2003), Expo Syndrome (2005), Pro/Anti-America(2007), Post-Postwar Japan (2009), What is University? (2011), Atoms for Dream (2012), Ways beyond America (2012), etc. - 11 -
Congratulatory Speech Jiangyong Liu Vice Dean Institute of Modern International Relations Tsinghua University Jiangyong Liu is Professor and Vice Dean of the Institute of Modern International Relations, China Tsinghua University. He obtained his B.A. in Japanese from Beijing Foreign Language University in 1979, and received his M.A. in international relations from the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) in 1987. He attended the Ph.D. courses at Japan s Waseda University in 1988. He received his Ph.D. in international relations from Tsinghua University. From 1979 to1992, he served as research fellow in CICIR. From 1992 to 1999, he was research professor and Director of Division for Northeast Asian Studies, CICIR. His research focuses on Japan and international relations in the Asia Pacific region and sustainable security. - 12 -
Congratulatory Speech Hyun-ju Lee Secretary General Northeast Asian History Foundation Hyun-ju Lee is Secretary-General of the Northeast Asian History Foundation in Seoul, South Korea. After earning a bachelor s degree in international trade from Seoul National University, he joined South Korea s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1979 and has since served as Secretary of embassies in Japan and Poland, as Consul General in Washington D.C. and Osaka, and as Minister to China. He has also served as Vice President for the Korea International Cooperation Agency, and as Ambassador for International Security Affairs. He is the author of the book Hwaetbul gwa chotbul [Torchlight and Candlelight] (Seoul: Chosun Ilbosa, 2003), which covers his experience as the head of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization s office in Kumho, North Korea. A Japanese edition of this book has been published in 2004 by Bijinesusha in Tokyo, Japan. - 13 -
Keynote Speech Tae-yong Cho First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Tae-yong Cho is First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs. He served as Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs, Ambassador to Australia, and Chief Protocol Officer. Cho obtained his B.A. in political science from Seoul National University. He joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) in 1980. He was Director-General of the North American Affairs Bureau and ambassador to Ireland. Cho also served in many South Korean foreign missions in Thailand, the United States, Iraq, and the United Nations. - 14 -
Moderator Su Jin Kong Professor Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University Su Jin Kong is Humanities Korea (HK) Research Professor at the Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University. Before joining the Institute, she worked at the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and her main mission was to coordinate trilateral economic cooperation among China, Japan and Korea including the trilateral investment agreement. She also participated in the Korean government's FTA negotiations with China, Canada and Viet Nam, etc. She earned her Ph.D. from Korea University and admitted to the New York State Bar in 2009. Her current studies are more focused on regional trade integration and legal harmonization in the Northeast Asia. - 15 -
Roundtable: Moving Beyond the Past and Toward Trilateral Cooperation in Northeast Asia Moderator In-Taek Hyun Professor Korea University Former Minister of Unification Speakers Sung-han Kim Professor Korea University Former Korean Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Jian Chen Former Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Former United Nations Under-Secretary General Hitoshi Tanaka Chairman The Institute for International Strategy Former Japanese Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs - 16 -
Moderator In-Taek Hyun Professor Korea University Former Minister of Unification Hyun In-Taek is a professor of Political Science and International Relations at Korea University. He served in the Lee Myung-bak Administration as the Minister of Unification, Republic of Korea, from February 2009 to September 2011, where he was responsible for all matters related to national unification and inter-korean affairs, including North Korean policies, inter-korean dialogues and exchanges, and public education on national unification. Dr. Hyun also served as the Special Advisor to the President for Unification Policy in the Lee Myung-bak Administration from September 2011 to February 2013. He received his B.A. and M.A. at Korea University. He holds a Ph.D. in international relations from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). He has published numerous academic articles and books both in Korean and English. - 17 -
Speaker Sung-han Kim Professor Korea University Former Korean Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Sung-han Kim is professor of International Relations at the Graduate School of International Studies (GSIS) since August 2007 and director of Ilmin International Relations Institute, Korea University since September 2013. He has recently served as a Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 2012-2013. Before entering the government, he was a professor and associate dean at GSIS, Korea University. He was a professor from 1994 to 2007 at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security (IFANS), Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade. Prior to that, he had worked as a research fellow at the InstituteofSocialSciencesandas expert advisor to the Prime Minister's Committee for Globalization (1992-1994). In 2013-2014, Dr. Kim was the Chair of World Economic Forum s Global Agenda Council on WMD. He is now the Chair of the Korean National Committee of CSCAP (Council on Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific) after having completed his service as a Vice President of the Korean Association of International Studies; President of Korean Association of American Politics (KAAP); and Chairman of the Vision Council for the ROK-U.S. Security Policy Initiative. After the North Korean military attack to the Cheonan naval corvette in March 2010, he served as a member of the Presidential Commission for National Security Review (May August 2010) and the Presidential Commission for Defense Reform (July December 2010). He also advised the Foreign Relations Committee of the National Assembly, the Ministry of Unification, the Ministry of Defense, and the National Intelligence Service. From May 2008 to January 2012, he participated in the Presidential Advisory Council for Foreign Affairs and National Security, which consisted of ten security experts. Dr. Kim specializes in U.S. foreign policy and international security with a Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin, U.S.A. in 1992. His recent contributed articles to scholarly journals include From Blood Alliance to Strategic Alliance, The End of Humanitarian Intervention? ; North Korea: Between Survival and Glory ;and Exploring a Northeast Asian Peace and Security Mechanism. He is married and has one daughter. Email) ksunghan@korea.ac.kr - 18 -
Speaker Jian Chen Former Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Former United Nations Under-Secretary General Jian Chen served as Chinese assistant foreign minister (1996-1998), ambassador to Japan (1998-2001), and undersecretary general of the United Nations (2001-2007). Chen also served as president of the UN Association of China and dean of the School of International Relations at Renmin University (2007-2013). After earning degrees from Fudan University in Shanghai and Beijing Foreign Studies University, Chen also had a stint as special assistant to the executive director of China at the International Monetary Fund. Chen joined the Foreign ministry in 1971, served at the Chinese Mission to the United Nations twice, ambassador and deputy permanent representative (1992-1994), and Foreign Ministry spokesman (1994-1996). - 19 -
Speaker Hitoshi Tanaka Chairman The Institute for International Strategy Former Japanese Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Hitoshi Tanaka is the chairman of the Institute for International Strategy at the Japan Research Institute, Ltd. He has also been a senior fellow at the Japan Center for International Exchange and a visiting professor at the Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Tokyo after retiring from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan in 2005 as Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs. In the Foreign Ministry Mr. Tanaka held various posts which include Director-General of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau (2001 02) and the Economic Affairs Bureau (2000 01); Consul-General in San Francisco (1998 2000); and Deputy Director-General of the North American Affairs Bureau (1996 98). Mr. Tanaka holds a B.A. in law from Kyoto University and B.A./ M.A. in PPE from Oxford University. He writes various articles both in Japanese and English including East Asia Insights (http://www.jcie.or.jp/insights/). - 20 -
Luncheon Speech: Speaker Amb. Shigeo Iwatani Secretary-General of the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat Moderator Key-young Son Professor Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University - 21 -
Speaker Amb. Shigeo Iwatani Secretary-General of the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat Iwatani Shigeo is secretary general of the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat (TCS). He joined the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1973. He was involved in China related issues during his terms at the Embassy of Japan in China, in charge of cultural affairs, and worked for Abandoned Chemical Weapons Office at the Cabinet Office. His latest posts include Consul-General of Japan in Honolulu, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Kenya and Austria. - 22 -
Moderator Key-young Son Professor Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University Key-young Son is Humanities Korea (HK) Professor at the Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University. He served as lecturer at the School of East Asian Studies, the University of Sheffield in Britain. His areas of research include East Asian and global politics. His recent publications include Middle Powers and the Rise of China: Identity Norms of Dependency and Activism and the Outlook for Japan-South Korea Relations vis-à-vis the Great Powers, Japanese Journal of Political Science 15 (1): 91-112 (2014), China's Rise and Regional Integration in East Asia: Hegemony or community? (Politics in Asia) (London and New York: Routledge, 2014) (Yong Wook Lee, Co-Editor), and Harmony, the Supremacy of Human Agency and East Asia s Mega-Discourses for Governance, Chinese Journal of International Politics 5 (4): 395-423 (2012). - 23 -
Session Ⅰ: History, Ideas, and Experiences of East Asian Cooperation Moderator Kwang Shik Choe Professor Korea University Former Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism Presenters Nobuhiro Katsurajima Professor Ritsumeikan University Won Shik Choi Professor Emeritus Inha University Jiangyong Liu Vice Dean Institute of Modern International Relations Tsinghua University Discussants Hyun Chul Kim Research Fellow Northeast Asian History Foundation Hidemi Kanazu Professor Korea University Hyoung-sik Lee Professor Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University - 24 -
Moderator Kwang Shik Choe Professor Korea University Former Minister of Culture, Sports, and Tourism Kwang Shik Choe is Professor in the Department of Korean History at Korea University. Professor Choe served as Executive Director of Goguryeo Research Foundation, Director-General of the National Museum of Korea, Administrator of Cultural Heritage Administration, Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and President of the Association of Korean History. Currently he is also serving as South Korean Director of the Council of South and North Korean Historians. His publications include Samgukyusa (translated and annotated, Korea University Press, 2014), Silk Road and Korean Culture (Nanam, 2013), Hallyu Road-Harmony of Traditional and Modern Culture (Nanam, 2013), China s Distortion of the History of Goguryeo (Salim, 2004), and States and Rituals of Ancient Korea (Hangilsa, 1995). - 25 -
Presenter Nobuhiro Katsurajima Professor Ritsumeikan University Nobuhiro Katsurajima is Professor at the Ritsumeikan University. His areas of research include East Asian and Japanese Early Modern Intellectual History. Recent research, as a part of the self-other recognition research in East Asia, is performed, from an intellectual history perspective, to elucidate the process of formation of modern knowledge in East Asia. His publications include History of thought of East Asia self-other recognition (Nonhyeong Seoul 2009), History of thought of the self-other recognition (Yushisha Tokyo 2008), A Study of Bakumatsu(The late Tokugawa period) thought of people (Bunrikaku Kyoto 2005), History of thought in the nineteenth century (Perikansha Tokyo 1999). - 26 -
Presenter Won Shik Choi Professor Emeritus Inha University Won Shik Choi studied Korean literature (BA and MA) at Seoul National University. He made his literary debut with the selection of his literary criticism in the annual contest hosted by the daily Dong-A Ilbo in 1972. He served as a professor at Keimyung University and Yeungnam University from 1977 to 1982 and Inha University from 1982~2015. He received a PhD in 1986 for "A Study of the Literary Works of Lee Hae-jo" at Seoul National University. He served as a co-editor of The Quarterly Changbi from 1996-2005 and as a president of Incheon Foundation of Culture and Art from 2004 to 2007, and as a vice-president of Korean Writers Association from 2010-2012. Books Published He has authored: The Logic of National Literature, A Treatise on the History of Modern Korean Fiction, The Theory of National Literature in Korea(published in Japan), For a Productive Dialogue, In Search of Modern Korean Literature, and The Return of Literature, East Asia after Empires, Literature; and he edited East Asia, Issue and Perspective and A Perspective towards Taiwan. Honors He received the 9th Daesan Literary Prize for The Return of Literature, and the second Yim Hwa Literary Award for East Asia after Empires. - 27 -
Presenter Jiangyong Liu Vice Dean Institute of Modern International Relations Tsinghua University Jiangyong Liu is Professor and Vice Dean of the Institute of Modern International Relations, China Tsinghua University. He obtained his B.A. in Japanese from Beijing Foreign Language University in 1979, and received his M.A. in international relations from the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) in 1987. He attended the Ph.D. courses at Japan s Waseda University in 1988. He received his Ph.D. in international relations from Tsinghua University. From 1979 to1992, he served as research fellow in CICIR. From 1992 to 1999, he was research professor and Director of Division for Northeast Asian Studies, CICIR. His research focuses on Japan and international relations in the Asia Pacific region and sustainable security. - 28 -
Discussant Hyun-Chul Kim Research Fellow Northeast Asian History Foundation Hyun-Chul Kim is Senior Research Fellow at Northeast Asian History Foundation. He also serves as the Director of Office of Policy Planning at the same foundation. His areas of research are the Politics and Diplomacy between Korea and Japan, the Diplomatic History and International Relations in Northeast Asia, in particular the regional cooperation among Northeast Asia States. His recent publications include "Asianism of Modern Japan and Private Organizations' Plan of Advance into the Korean Peninsula", The Review of Korean and Asian Political Thoughts, 14 (1): 67-96 (2015), "Koreans' Peace Thoughts in the Early 20th Century", Contemporary Korea, 2014 (4): 41-50 (2014), and Selected Documents Relating to Modern Koreans' Ideas and Perceptions of International Relations (Seoul, Seoul National University Press, 2012) (Jang In-Sung, Kim Jong-hak, Co-Editor). - 29 -
Discussant Hidemi Kanazu Professor Korea University Hidemi Kanazu is Professor at the Department of Japanese Language and Literature, Korea University. She finished her Ph.D. course in the history of cultural exchange at Osaka University. Her areas of research include modern Japanese history and the history of culture and ideologies. Her recent research has been focused on the colonial period. - 30 -
Discussant Hyoung-sik Lee Professor Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University Hyoung-sik Lee is Humanities Korea (HK) Professor at the Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University. His areas of research include Japanese modern History. His recent publications include The Vision of the Japanese Governor-General's office (Yoshikawakobunkan, 2013) and The outsider of Empire and Colony : The historical development of Japanese settlers in colonial Korea (Bogosa,2013). - 31 -
Session Ⅱ: Historical Reconciliation and Regional Cooperation in Northeast Asia Moderator Shin-wha Lee Professor, Korea University Presenters Jianzhong Shu Professor, Nanjing University Somei Kobayashi Professor, Nihon University Innwon Park Professor, Korea University Mooam Hyun Professor, Hokkaido University Discussants Joo-Youn Jung Professor, Korea University Yuji Hosaka Professor, Sejong University Chunji Xuan Professor Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University Jae Bok Cha Research Fellow Northeast Asian History Foundation - 32 -
Moderator Shin-wha Lee Professor Korea University Shin-wha Lee is Professor of Department of Political Science and International Relations, Korea University (PhD, University of Maryland, College Park), a UN Secretary-General (UNSG)'s Advisory Group member of Peacebuilding Fund (PBF), and Head of Research Committee, Seoul Forum for International Affairs. Her previous professional positions include Post-Doctoral Fellow at Harvard University, a special advisor to the UNSG Kofi Annan s Rwandan Independent Inquiry, chair s advisor of East Asian Vision Group (EAVG), a Professorial Lecturer at SIPA, Columbia University, and Visiting Scholar at East Asian Studies Program, Princeton University. Her research focus is on multilateral and comprehensive approach to global security, humanitarian issues, UN peace operations, foreign policy of East Asia, and the East Asian security community. Her publication include South Korean Strategic Thought toward Asia, Normative and Educational Frameworks for the Promotion of Human Security in East-Asia, Does Helmet Color Matter? Discrepancy in Korea s International Peace Operations, The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) after Libya: Practical Implication for North Korea, Balancing Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Responsibilities, and UN Security Role and its Limits: Inequality and Inconsistency of Humanitarian Intervention in Africa. - 33 -
Presenter Jianzhong Shu Professor Nanjing University Jianzhong Shu is an associate professor at the School of International Studies, Nanjing University, and the adjunct professor at the Johns Hopkins-Nanjing Center for Chinese and American Studies. He graduated from Southwest China Normal University in the major of historical studies in 1986, and received his Ph.D. in history from NanjingUniversity in 2004. He is an ISEF scholar of KFAS for 2014-2015. His studying field include: International Institutions, American Foreign Policy. He has published three monographs, in which the main work is Multilateral Trading System and American Hegemony: A Study on GATT Institution, which was published by Nanjing University Press in 2009. His articles were published on such journals as World History, Foreign Affairs Review, Journal of Historical Science, American Studies Quarterly and World Economics and International Politics. - 34 -
Presenter Somei Kobayashi Professor Nihon University Somei Kobayashi is an assistant professor of College of Law, Nihon University. He received his B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. in Social Sciences from Hitotsubashi University ( 一橋大学 ), Tokyo, Japan. He served as a research fellow at East-West Center Washington and International Scholar at Kyunghee University. He specialized in the Global History of East Asia with a special attention to the U.S. Asian Relations and Korean Studies. Dr. Kobayashi has numerous publication in Japanese, Korean, Chinese and English. His recent works in English concerning the historical reconciliation in East Asia include Preliminary Proposals for the Improvement of ROK-Japan Relation: Beyond Asahi Shimbun-Bashing (2014), Japanese Historical Reconciliation Should Begin at Home with Okinawa (2013) and Toward the Solution of the Senkaku Islands Issue: Historical Reconciliation and Okinawa (2013). He taught at Waseda University (Tokyo), Kyunghee University (Korea) and Shandong University (China), being responsible for lectures on Korea-Japan history and historical reconciliation. - 35 -
Presenter Innwon Park Professor Korea University Innwon Park is a Professor in Division of International Studies at Korea University. He received his B.A. and M.A. in Economics from Korea University, Korea and his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. From 1993-1998, he worked as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the National University of Singapore. He has published books and journal papers on international trade issues and regional economic cooperation in East Asia including Modes of Foreign Direct Investment and Patterns of Trade: An Alternative Empirical Approach (The World Economy, 2015), Trade-creating Regime-wide Rules of Origin: A Quantitative Analysis (Applied Economics Letters, 2013). A Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP): Is It Desirable? (Journal of East Asian Economic Integration, 2013), China s Free Trade Agreements with ASEAN, Japan and Korea: A Comparative Analysis, (China & World Economy, 2012), "Best Practices of Regional Trade Agreement (Review of World Economics, 2011). - 36 -
Presenter Mooam Hyun Professor Hokkaido University Mooam Hyun is an Associate Professor in the Research Faculty of Media and Communication, Hokkaido University. His main research themes are the Korean Diaspora, media and cultural studies. He is the editor of Transnational Media and the East Asia: for the Establishing of East Asia Regional Broadcasting (published by Benseisyuppan, 2015) and author of Korean Networks: the history and spaces of the diaspora and its media (published by Hokkaido University Press, 2013). His recent publications include Border Politics on the Busan and Omura compounds during the formative period of the Japan-ROK relations, The Japanese Journal of Contemporary History, No.7:41-58 (2014), Conversion of the San Francisco system and Japan-US-Korea quasi-alliance, Hwanghae Reviews, No.83:34-64 (2014). - 37 -
Discussant Joo-Youn Jung Professor Korea University Joo-Youn Jung is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Korea University (Seoul, Korea). After receiving the Ph.D. in Political Science at Stanford University, Dr. Jung served as Postdoctoral Fellow at the Weatherhead East Asian Institute (WEAI) at Columbia University, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta (Alberta, Canada), and research fellow at Peking University. Dr. Jung s major field is comparative political economy, with expertise in China. Her research interest includes the economic role of the state, the state bureaucracy and the politics of institutional and economic reform. Her recent publications have appeared in journals such as the China Review, Pacific Focus, Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, and Korea Observer and edited volumes such as Adapt, Fragment, Transform: Corporate Restructuring and System Reform in South Korea, Going Private in China: System Restructuring in China, and Methods and Methodology in China Studies. - 38 -
Discussant Yuji Hosaka Professor Sejong University Yuji Hosaka is professor of the College of Liberal Arts at Sejong University in Seoul (Japanology). He has written various papers on the history of South Korea-Japan relations, territorial rights over Dokdo, the issue of history textbooks, worshipping at the Yasukuni Shrine, the Korean wave, Japan s rightist ideology, and other topics. He graduated from the University of Tokyo in 1979. He moved to Seoul to work on bilateral relations between South Korea and Japan in 1988. Professor Hosaka obtained his M.A. and Ph.D. at the Department of Political Science and International Relations of Korea University. He became a naturalized South Korean citizen in 2003. Professor Hosaka received the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Award in 2005. - 39 -
Discussant Chunji Xuan Professor Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University Chunji Xuan is Research Professor of Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University. She obtained her B.A. in Management from Jilin University in 2007, and received her M.A.in Economics in Jilin University in 2009. She received her Ph.D. in Economics in Korea University 2015. Her research focus on econometrics, macroeconomics and China regional analysis. - 40 -
Discussant Jae Bok Cha Research Fellow Northeast Asian History Foundation Jae Bok Cha is a Research Fellow at the Office of Policy Planning of the Northeast Asian History Foundation in Seoul, Korea. He received a Ph.D. in History in 2007 from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. From 2007 to 2008, he was a visiting professor at the Asia-Pacific Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. His research interests are focused on China s diplomacy and China s external relations in Asia, especially Sino-Japanese relations. He is a co-author of the book Looking Back at South Korea-China Relations, 1992-2012 (in Korean) and has authored journal articles published both in South Korea (in Korean) and in China (in Chinese). His most recent paper Sino-Japanese Political Relations and the Implications of Joint Historical Research was published in June 2014 in The Relations between China and its Neighbors edited by Li Yuping (in Chinese). Email: jaebok666@nahf.or.kr - 41 -
Conference Papers ( 발표문 ) - 42 -
Forum Materials Roundtable: Moving Beyond the Past and Toward Trilateral Cooperation in Northeast Asia Speakers Sung-han Kim Professor Korea University Former Korean Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Jian Chen Former Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Former United Nations Under-Secretary General Hitoshi Tanaka Chairman The Institute for International Strategy Former Japanese Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs - 44 -
Minilateralism in Northeast Asia: China-Japan-Korea, US-Japan-Korea, US-China-Korea Cooperation Sung-han Kim 1. Minilateralism deserves to be tried as a catalyst for realizing East Asian regionalism since the consolidation of regionalism is less likely due to the geographic size and the heterogeneous socio-economic nature of East Asia. 2. As long as both US-led alliances and multilateral security cooperation cannot resolve the great power politics of Northeast Asia and the North Korean question, we need to take advantage of minilateral efforts as a way of supplementing the ROK-US alliance and the diplomacy of multilateral cooperation. 3. There exist three types of minilateralism in Northeast Asia. - Regionalist minilateralism (e.g., China-Japan-Korea, US-China-Japan) - Alliance-oriented minilateralism (e.g., US-Japan-Korea, US-Japan-Australia) - Functionalist minilateralism (e.g., US-China-Korea, South Korea-North Korea-Russia) 4. Korea needs to revitalize the momentum that has been driving the institutionalization of China-Japan-Korea cooperation with a view to building an international supporting base for Korean unification. - Without genuine historical reconciliation among those three countries, Korea would have extreme difficulty to draw support and cooperation from Japan and China. - CJK have to consult with each other about the vision and action plans of the Northeast Asian economic integration since it will be the supreme benefit of Korean unification. - CJK cooperation can soft-balance the United States when US tries to impose its own strategic priorities. - 45 -
5. In light of the current environment in which it is hard to expect close Korea-Japan security cooperation, Korea can induce Japan to contribute to Korea s security interests within the context of US-Japan-Korea policy coordination. - US-Japan-Korea is the most effective mechanism to deal with North Korean threats. - Those three countries need to avoid the impression that US-Japan-Korea security cooperation is a virtual alliance against China. - US-Japan-Korea security cooperation can soft-balance China. 6. US-China-Korea strategic dialogue will certainly be a good venue where they can discuss the future of North Korea. - It can start with Track 2 and move on to Track 1.5 and Track 1 if China has reservations on official trilateral dialogue. - This will empower Korea to prevent the United States and China from bypassing Korea when the North Korean contingency breaks out. - US-China-Korea can soft-balance Japan. 7. A synergistic effect among those three trilaterals will contribute to peace and stability of Northeast Asia. 지리적으로광대하고경제 문화적으로이질적인동아시아에서유럽연합 (EU) 과같은지역공동체형성은당장불가능하므로, 일종의 촉매제 로서소다자주의 (minilateralism) 협력을시도할수있다. 동북아의소다자주의는한중일협력과같은지역주의적소다자주의, 한미일협력과같은동맹지향적소다자주의, 한미중협력과같은기능주의적소다자주의로나눌수있다. 동맹과다자안보협력모두강대국위주의지역정치흐름이나북한문제를해결할수없으므로, 소다자주의를한미동맹과다자협력외교를보완하는차원에서활발히운용하는전략적마인드가필요하다. 한일간의직접적안보협력이난망한현재구도에서는한미일안보협력체제를활용하여한국의안보에도움이되는방향으로일본을견인 ( 牽引 ) 해야할것이다. 한중일협력은이미정상회담을수차례개최할정도로제도화가구축된상황이므로모멘텀을잘살려한반도통일에대한지지기반을확보하는데활용해야한다. 한미중협력을통해북한의미래에대한협의를강화해나감으로써북한급변사태발생시한국의입장을고려하지않은채미 중양국이한국을건너뛰고 (Korea passing) 분단을고착화할가능성에도대비해나가야할것이다. - 46 -
Sino-Japanese Relations and Its Impact on East Asian Security Jian Chen 超越过去走向共赢冷战结束超级大国争霸威胁消失以及中国崛起和美国亚太再平衡推动地区形势变化和国家关系调整 日本政坛误判形势, 在危机感 机遇感和使命感的驱使下, 掀起历史修正主义和軍事扩張主义潮流, 宣染中国威脅, 将中国視作战略对手, 中曰关系存在从合作走向对抗的危险, 危及地区和平与繁荣 中日两国人民都重视中日关系, 反对日本走历史的老路, 对此我们寄于希望 역사를넘어윈 - 윈하는미래로 냉전의종식과함께초강대국사이의패권경쟁역시막을내렸다. 중국의부상과미국의아태재균형전략은지역형세의변화와국제관계의조정을촉발하고있다. 이러한국제질서의변화에일본은오판을하고있는듯하다. 눈앞의국면에서비롯된위기감의고조는위기로부터벗어나야된다는사명감을심어주었지만, 잘못된용기는위기가곧기회라는판단을낳게만들었다. 이런배경하에일본의정치지도자들은역사수정주의와군사확장주의라는위험한선택을하게되었고중국의위협을과대포장하면서중국을전략적경쟁상대로몰아가고있다. 따라서현재의중일관계는협력으로부터대립으로치달을위험이있고심지어역내평화와번영을위협할수있다. 사실중일양국인민들은모두중일관계의중요성을인식하고있는상황이며일본이역사의전철을다시밟는것을바라지않고있다. - 47 -
A call for multilayered Functionalism Hitoshi Tanaka Korean Peninsula: Contingency Planning Since taking over as leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un has purged a startlingly high number of high-ranking officials. While this can be interpreted as Kim Jong-un simply stamping his mark and consolidating his grip on power, the recent purges appear to be more than simply disposing with dissenters. Under the circumstances, it is imperative that the United States, Japan and South Korea coordinate closely to devise detailed contingency planning for a worst case scenario including a regime collapse. Moreover, US-Japan-ROK trilateral cooperation should also aim to engage China and Russia on consultations regarding common interests. Such consultations should start to consider ways to make preparations now to steer the situation toward soft-landing style unification scenarios, and should utilize track II diplomacy to inject fresh ideas to ensure the long-term stability of the Korean Peninsula. Northeast Asia: Confidence building framework among the US, China, Korea and Japan The Abe government s intended defense policy reforms are within the purview of Japan s exclusively defense-oriented security policy framework. But without the right confidence building measures to reassure China and South Korea there is a risk of misperception and increased regional tensions. Military-to-military direct communication hotlines and crisis management procedure agreements are also urgently needed in order to reduce the risk of accidental collision and to mitigate damage in the event of a crisis. East Asia: Cooperation in Trade and Investment, Energy and Environment The TPP and RCEP must be developed to promote an inclusive economic regional order based on free markets and to establish new high-standard 21st century rules that go beyond trade, investment, and services. However, if not carefully coordinated the TPP and RCEP are in danger of dividing the region into two competing trade blocs. As such, in moving towards final TPP and RCEP agreements it is important that a pathway is created allowing for their future amalgamation. - 48 -
Over the long-term, there is going to be huge increases in energy demands particularly from emerging economies with growing middle classes such as China, India, Russia, and ASEAN countries. However, taking a zero-sum race-to-the-bottom approach to claim diminishing energy resources will only ensure that everybody loses. Instead, joint regional cooperation is needed to ensure that the energy demands of all nations are met. This should include joint exploration and development of energy sources such as oil and natural gas, joint development of new technologies for the extraction of previously inaccessible resources; and nuclear energy cooperation to ensure the most rigorous application of international standards regarding safety measures. Such cooperation should be most effectively pursued in veas. The increased energy demands of the expanding Asian middle class also means that even with rigorous cooperation regional demands will not be met purely through traditional fossil fuel energy sources. Moreover, the unabated use of fossil fuels energy will cause environmental damage detrimental to sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction, not to mention the ecology of the planet. The experience of Japan in decades past and of China more recently demonstrates the impact of worsening environmental problems as a limitation on economic growth. In order to meet growing regional energy demands in an environmentally sustainable manner, lessons from Japan s experience in overcoming high levels of air pollution in the 1960s can be applied. 북한김정은제1위원장이단행하고있는대규모숙청은단순히정권을공고히하고반대파를제거하기위한것이아니라더큰의미가있다. 이러한상황에서한미일은공조를강화해서북한의정권붕괴를포함하는최악의사태에대비한비상계획을수립할필요가있다. 한미일 3자협력은또한중국과러시아를동아시아의여러문제를해결하기위해포용하는측면도있다. 이러한협력을통해 연착륙 이가능한통일과정이될수있도록필요한준비를해야되며한반도의장기적인안정을위해새로운방안을모색할트랙투 (track II) 외교도필요하다. 아베정부의국방정책은일본의방위지향적인안보정책의틀내에있다고할수있지만, 적절한신뢰구축조치가없이는중국과한국이곡해할가능성이높으며지역의긴장으로이어질수있다. 군대간의직접통신을위한핫라인의구축이나위기대응과정에대한합의가우발적인충돌을막고충돌후의상황을완화하기위해시급하게필요하다고할수있다. 환태평양경제동반자협정 (TPP) 과역내포괄적경제동반자협정 (RCEP) 은자유시장경제에기초한지역경제질서를형성하는데필요하지만, 원활하게협조가이루어지지않는경우에는이지역을두개의경제블록으로분단시킬수있는위험이있다. 그러므로이두협정이타결되기전에이두개의협정이미래의어느시점에서조화롭게통합될수있게어떤방안을모색할필요가있다. - 49 -
Conference Materials Session Ⅰ: History, Ideas, and Experiences of East Asian Cooperation Presenters Nobuhiro Katsurajima Professor Ritsumeikan University Won Shik Choi Professor Emeritus Inha University Jiangyong Liu Vice Dean Institute of Modern International Relations Tsinghua University - 50 -
Asianism of Modern Japan: The Trap of Pan-Asianism Nobuhiro Katsurajima 近代日本のアジア主義 興亜 論の陥穽 1 桂島宣弘 日本立命館大学 ( 高麗大学校客員教員 ) 1. はじめに 2009 年に鳩山民主党政権が成立し 東アジア共同体 がスローガンの一つに掲げられた 是非はともかくとして 21 世紀に入ってからのグローバリゼーションの進展 中国の政治的 経済的台頭を受けて 中国 韓国などと協調しつつ EUにならってアジア地域経済圏を前に進めるという考え方は 当時はひとまずは好感をもって受け止められたといってよいだろう しかしながら それから僅か三年 今度は安倍自民党政権が成立し 中国 韓国との関係は急速に悪化し さらには日米関係を前提とした一国主義的かつ国家主義的政策へと日本は大きく右旋回を遂げ 2015 年現在もはや 東アジア共同体 の片鱗さえ覗えない状況となっている 柄谷行人は ヘゲモニー的権力関係を伴いつつも 宗教 価値観 書記言語などを共有する諸王朝の共存的世界を 帝国 とよび それを前近代世界の 世界史の構造 の中核に据えたが 日本はその 帝国 の 亜周辺 つまり 辺境 にあった存在であり したがって この 帝国のあり方 を歴史的に決して理解できなかったとし 次のようにのべている 16 世紀に明を征服して帝国を築こうとした豊臣秀吉も また 明治以降の 日本帝国 も 帝国のあり方を理解できなかった ゆえに 帝国主義にしかならなかったのです 戦後の日本人は それまでの帝国主義を否定しました しかし 帝国 を理解できないという点において 変わりはありません そのため 東アジアの近隣諸国との間によい関係を築くことができない 結局 内に引きこもるか ないしは 攻撃的に外に向かう つまり 内閉的孤立と攻撃的膨張の間を揺れ動くことになります 日本が今後 アジア共同体 の中に入ることはおそらく無理でしょう ( 帝国の構造 ) 2 1 本報告は 拙著 思想史の十九世紀 ( ぺりかん社 1999 年 ) 自他認識の思想史 ( 有志舎 2008 年 ) を 柄谷行人 世界史の構造 ( 岩波書店 2010 年 ) 帝国の構造 ( 青土社 2014 年 ) に啓発された視点を加え 改稿したものである 2 前掲 帝国の構造 254 頁 - 51 -
本報告の視点は この柄谷の指摘と多くは重なり合うものであり 柄谷同様の悲観的危機感を報告者は有している 先の鳩山政権の 東アジア共同体 と 現下の安倍政権の周辺諸国を敵視することで日本国憲法の平和主義を破壊しようとする攻撃的姿勢は この柄谷の指摘に従えば 帝国のあり方 すなわち 文 明圏の構造を決して理解できない日本の 揺れ動き と考えるべきであり したがって 穏健に見え る前者 が攻撃的後者よりはましだ ( と わたくしも思うにせよ ) ということではすまされない といわなければならない 恐らく この安倍が退陣した後には 再度 東アジア共同体 が日本から発信される可能性もあり それに一喜一憂することを超えて ( 柄谷同様 ) われわれはより歴史的理解から この問題にアプローチする必要があるだろう やや先走りしてしまったが 近代日本のアジア主義 3と脱亜論の関係も このように見るならば 結局は帝国主義にしか帰結するしかなかった日本近代のアジアとの関わり方 すなわち 決して 帝国のあり方 を理解できなかった日本近代の 揺れ動き と見ることができる 恐らく この微妙な問題について もっともよく理解していたのは 自身アジア主義者でもあり かつ未だにその研究の第一人者といってよい竹内好であろう すなわち 物議を醸した言ではあるが 1964 年に竹内は次のようにのべていた 朝鮮の国家を滅ぼし 中国の主権を侵す乱暴はあったが ともかく日本は 過去七十年間 アジアとともに生きてきた そこには 朝鮮や中国との関連なしには生きられないという自覚が働いていた 侵略はよくないことだが しかし侵略には 連帯感のゆがめられた表現という側面もある 無関心で他人まかせでいるよりも ある意味では健全でさえある ( 日本人のアジア観 ) 4 ここでの 侵略と連帯を具体的状況において区別できない という言は 柄谷のいう ( 前近代までの ) 帝国のあり方 を念頭に置いたものであり したがって 現実には近代日本の行動が帝国主義であったにも拘わらず 竹内は 帝国 を夢想していたと ひとまずはいってよい また 竹内は近代から戦後の全般を射程に入れながら 日本の近代化過程が中国のそれと比して西洋への 抵抗 が小さかったが故に急速であったが それは西洋への ドレイ 化の過程であって したがって 自己自身であることを放棄し その結果 日本の社会には 思想的対立をうむべき地盤がない ということは 思想がないということであって 思想は観念の借り着として通用しているだけだ とのべ 戦前戦後を貫く日本の 無思想状況 や それを捉えようとしない近代主義的歴史観 中国観に対して痛烈な批判を行っていたことも 帝国主義に帰結した近代日本に対する批判を ( 西洋化していなかったとしても ) 依然として 帝国のあり方 を示している ( ように映じた ) 中国と比較して行うものであった といってよいだろう 5 もっとも 溝口雄三は こうした竹内の言も 非ヨーロッパ 3 以下 アジア主義については 以下の文献を主として参照した 竹内好評論集第 1~ 第 3 巻 ( 筑摩書房 1966 年 ) 伊東照雄編 アジアと近代日本 ( 社会評論社 1990 年 ) 姜尚中 オリエンタリズムの彼方へ ( 岩波書店 1996 年 ) 子安宣邦 アジア はどう語られてきたか ( 藤原書店 2003 年 ) 孫歌 竹内好という問い ( 岩波書店 2005 年 ) 米谷匡史 アジア / 日本 ( 岩波書店 2006 年 ) 子安宣邦 日本人は中国をどう語ってきたか ( 青土社 2012 年 ) など 4 前掲 竹内好評論集第 3 巻 84 頁 5 竹内好 中国の近代と日本の近代 日本人の中国観 ( 前掲 竹内好評論集第 3 巻 ) - 52 -
中国と対比しての没主体的日本という主張であって したがって ヨーロッパを一つの基準にした表 現 であるとしている 6 このような溝口の批判を十分に考慮に入れるにしても 竹内の捉えた近代 日本の問題 すなわち ドレイ文化 であるが故の 他者喪失 という構図 は 現在においてもさほど変化しているわけではない どのように 東アジア共同体 が日本から 発信されても それは ( グローバル資本主義の一翼である ) 日本資本主義の利害から発せられてい るものであり また安倍政権の膨張主義的攻撃的政策とは 表裏の関係にあるものであることを われわれは直視しておかなければならないだろう ところで 柄谷は日本が アジア共同体 の一員となるための唯一の可能性として ( カント的永遠平和の理念 を継承すると見た ) 日本国憲法 9 条の平和主義を挙げている もしそれを真に実行するのであるならば たんに一国にとどまるものではない それは世界共和国への第一歩となりうるものです と 7 同様に 韓国の近現代史研究者である尹海東も9 条を含む日本国憲法は カントの永久平和論からつづいてきた ( 中略 ) 平和のための権利章典 であり 平和憲法を守る運動は ( 中略 ) 平和を根本的な価値とみなす東アジア市民社会の形成を経て 平和の東アジア共同体 を構想する東アジア連帯運動にまで上昇していかなければならない と その東アジアにおける意義を強調している 8 残念ながら この報告時点において 安倍政権は憲法 9 条を踏みにじる 憲法違反の集団的自衛権容認の法整備を進めており この唯一の可能性すら奪われようとしている これに続いて 恐らくは 近代日本の戦争責任 植民地支配責任を否定しようとする 戦後 70 年の安倍談話 が発表されることで 日本は完全に アジアの孤児 となっていくことだろう こうした路線と対峙し アジア共同体 にアンガージュマン (engagement) するためには 何が求められているのか 本報告では 近代日本のアジア主義的言説について 徳川時代の国学や儒学の自他認識を基点として再検討し 9 その陥穽を浮かび上がらせることで考えてみることとしたい 6 溝口雄三 方法としての中国 ( 東京大学出版会 1989 年 ) 同様の指摘は鶴見良行も行っている 新しいアジア学の試み ( アジア人と日本人 晶文社 1980 年 ) これらは いうまでもなく サイード (Edward W.Said) オリエンタリズム ( 今沢紀子訳 ) 平凡社 1993 年 ( 原著は 1978 年刊 ) が指摘していたことを 別の表現でのべたものに他ならない 7 前掲 帝国の構造 255 頁 8 日本の解釈改憲 平和憲法 東アジア ( 思想 1095 号 2015 年 沈煕燦訳 ) 9 徳川時代の自他認識については 前掲拙著 思想史の十九世紀 自他認識の思想史 などを参照されたい なお 韓国語版としては 以下の拙稿が徳川時代の自他認識について論じている 근세 ( 조선왕조후기 토쿠가와일본 ) 의한일자타인식의전회 ( 轉回 ) ( 日本近代学研究 第 10 輯韓国日本近代学会 ) 19 세기에있어서한일사상사의일고찰 ( 南冥学研究 第 19 輯 慶尚大学校慶南文化研究院南冥学研究所 2006 年 ) また これらの一部は のちに拙著 동아시아자타인식의사상사 ( 논형 2009 年 ) に収録されている 行論の必要上 ここで徳川時代の知識人たちの自他認識についてその概要を示しておくならば いかに帝国の 亜周辺 にあったとしても ( 清や朝鮮王朝は当然として ) 徳川日本の知識人の自他認識の核には 礼 文という 基準 = 価値 が存在していた すなわち 徳川日本知識人の自他認識の基本型は 礼 文中華主義に基づく自他認識 ( 華夷思想 ) として 理や天の彼我の普遍性の宣揚と 同時に礼 文の中華としての中国像 東夷としての日本像として示すことができる 概ね 17 世紀 ( 特に前半 ) の儒者の思想がほぼこの特質を鮮明に示しているが それが徳川時代を通じての儒者の最も基本的な思想であったことは 藤原惺窩 (1561~1619) から幕末の佐藤一斎 (1772~1859) まで ほぼこうした礼 文中華主義的言説を摘出することができることに示されている ここで重要な点は この認識は 礼楽 風俗 = 文化の華夷を貫く普遍性 ( つまりは 帝国 の価値 ) に支えられており そこには 地 や 種類 による固定的かつ不換的な華夷という意識は基本的には見られない ということである 換言するならば 礼 文中華主義的な自他認識とは 殊に 亜周辺 にあった日本の儒者にとっては 地 や 種類 によらない ( 近代的に置き換えるならば 国境や人種によらない ) 文化の連続的波状的分布に基づく自他認識として存在するものであった ところで 明清王朝交替 = 華夷変態によって 17 世紀後半から 18 世紀前半にかけて 在地性 を何らかの形で自覚した日本型華夷思想が現れることとなる ( 山鹿素行 [1622~1685] 熊沢蕃山 [1619~1691] 山崎闇斎 [1618~1682] 浅見絅斎 [1652~1711] など ) そこでは いずれも先行する思想が明末思想の影響下にあったことが批判され 明中華主義から脱却しての 在地性 の文化的優位性を主張しようとした発言が見られるようになっ - 53 -
2. アジア主義者の自他認識 1 樽井藤吉徳川日本の言説からアジア主義者の自他認識を捉えると アジア 連帯的 か 侵略的 かという認識枠や 近代的 か 反近代的 かという認識枠を離れて 一体近代の自他認識の 基準 = 価値 がどこに存在しているのか あるいはどのような性格を帯びているのか という点が浮かび上がってくる ここでは 19 世紀の主要なアジア主義者の言説について検討してみることにする 10 アジア主義の言説の最初に 樽井藤吉 (1850~1922) を配するのは 決して不当ではないだろう その評価がさまざまに分かれていることもさることながら 平田派国学者井上頼圀 (1839~ 1914) に学び 西郷隆盛 (1827~1877) の西南戦争に呼応し 自由民権運動に際しては東洋社会党を結成したことや さらに大阪事件にも連座し内田良平 (1874~1937) などの玄洋社とも交わって やがて 大東合邦論 (1893 年 ) にたどり着いたその経歴は 何よりもアジア主義といわれる思想の内容を示唆して余すところがないからだ だが ここでは樽井の思想形成を論じている余裕はない 大東合邦論 の中に どのような自他認識の性格が存在しているのか 問題とされるべき点はそこである 大東合邦論 は 周知のように日本と朝鮮が対等の形で合邦して 大東 という合邦国を組織し 更に清と 合縦 して 異種人之侮 を防ぎ 白人之餌食 になる前に 同種人一致団結之勢力 を養うことを説いたものである これまで 問題の書 としてアジア 連帯 的か 侵略 的か論じられてきた書であるが 11 結論を先取りするならば この書が 問題の書 として扱われてきたのは 何よりもこの書の 東洋 - 西洋 論 同種 - 異種 論の核に存在している 同種 の性格に起因していると思われる なるほど この書には樽井の親アジア観 親中国朝鮮観がのべられている 例えば 東方 は次のように位置づけられる 東方ハ太陽ノ出ズル所 発育和親ヲ主ル 其ノ神ハ青龍 其ノ徳ハ慈仁 四仲ニ分カタバ則 チ朝ト為シ 四時ニ配スレバ春ト為ス 五行此ニ始マリ 七宿此ニ位ス ( 中略 ) 亜細亜ハ欧阿 ノ東ニ在リ 日本朝鮮ハ其最東ニ在リ 故ニ木徳仁愛ノ性ヲ受ケ 清明新鮮ノ気ニ煦 ( ク ) マ レ 其性情風俗 西北粛殺ノ風ニ染ムル者ト同ジカラザルハ 蓋シ自然ノ理也 ( 大東合邦論 ) 12 ( 東方は大陽の出るところなので 発育 和親を司り 青龍 慈仁に象徴されるところであ てくる だが 例えば 蕃山の九夷の中での日本の優位性の主張 素行の 本朝の人物殆ど中華に幾し 其の風俗淳朴にして尚ほ聖人の化あり ( 山鹿語類 巻 33) とする言説に見られるように 中華 ( 夏 ) を軸とする視点は未だ失われていない点は留意しておく必要がある 18 世紀中葉以降になると 谷秦山 (1663-1718) などの垂加派を中心に 清 = 夷狄論を前面に押し出しての日本中華主義の主張も登場するに至るが そこでも文化の彼我の優劣 ( かつては 明帝国 に存在していた普遍性の所在 ) が争われているのであって この限りで礼 文中華主義の構造は自他認識の枠組みとして なお基本的な規制力を発揮しているといえる 要するに 明清王朝交替によって 日本のみならず朝鮮王朝においても 明中華主義として表象されてきた礼 文中華主義的華夷思想に動揺が見られるようになるのは事実であったとしても その明に存在していた文化の彼我を通じての普遍性と その故の優劣の比較という思惟は基本的に保たれているのであって それは国学や後期水戸学など 19 世紀以降に登場する自他認識とは本質的に相違するものと考えられるのである そして 国学や後期水戸学に萌した自他認識こそ やがて近代的な自他認識として すなわち西洋国民国家に対抗的に形成された 国境 人種 観念に基づく 国民国家 ( 国体 ) の独善的特質を表象しながら構成される排他的自他認識として結実するのであるが それは 18 世紀前半までの明清王朝交替に触発された日本型華夷思想 日本中華主義の延長線に捉えられるものではなく むしろそれと解体的に向き合いながら構成されていったのである 以上が 拙著などでわたくしが示してきた論点であった 10 この視点については 坂野潤治の一連の論考から示唆を受けた 東洋盟主論 と 脱亜入欧論 ( 佐藤誠三郎他編 近代日本の対外態度 東京大学出版会 1974 年 ) 明治 思想の実像 ( 創文社 1977 年 ) 明治初期の 対外観 ( 国際政治 国際政治学会 第 71 号 1982 年 ) 近代日本の国家構想 ( 岩波書店 1996 年 ) なお 本報告では取り上げないが もう一方の極に存在する 脱亜論 にも同様の視点からアプローチすることが可能である 11 前掲竹内 アジア主義の展望 旗田巍 日本人の朝鮮観 ( 勁草書房 1969 年 ) 参照 12 覆刻大東合邦論 ( 長陵書林 1975 年 初版本の復刻 )1 頁 原漢文 大東合邦論 の引用は全て同書による 樽井藤吉については 伊東昭雄 大東合邦論 について ( 横浜市立大学論叢 第 24 巻 2 3 号 1973 年 ) などを参照した - 54 -
る 時間でいえば朝 季節でいえば春 自然の営みの始原に位置している ( 中略 ) その中でも日本 朝鮮は最も東に位置しているので 木 = 仁愛の性を受け 清明新鮮の気に育まれ その性情 風俗が西北の草木が枯れていくところと異なっていることは 自然の理であるといわなければならない 引用者意訳 以下同 ) ここにみられるのは 仁愛 の 東方 という認識であり 全体の基調をなしているのは その 仁 愛 を共有する日本と朝鮮 中国という構図である ここから 樽井に何がしかの 帝国 的な自他認識が前提されていたとみることもできる あるいは日韓両国について 其土ハ唇歯 其勢ハ両輪 情ハ兄弟ト同ジク 義ハ朋友ニ均シ ( 地理的には最も近く 歴史的には両輪のように歩み 気持ちは兄弟と同じで 互いに朋友の義で結ばれている ) とのべられ 日中両国についても 今我ガ二国ノ東亜ニ在ルハ 是レ世界ノ斉楚ナリ 相合スレバ猶以テ白人ニ敵スルニ足ル ( 日本と中国は 春秋時代の五覇の一つであった斉国 楚国のようなもので 互いに協力するならば白人も敵ではない ) として いずれも 自主自立ノ国相依リ相輔ケ あうべき 同種国 と位置づけられているところには 西洋帝国主義に対するアジアの対等な 連帯 が読み取れなくもない しかしながら 注意すべきは そうしたアジアの 同種 に対する認識は 樽井にとって恐らく 自然ノ理 として直覚的にのべられているだけであって それ以上は検討されていないことである 凡ソ社会ノ一種族ヨリ成レルモノハ 親愛ノ情厚シ 親愛ノ情厚ケレバ 則チ倫理自ラ存ス 倫理存スレバ 則チ和順ノ習性ヲ成ス ( 一種族から成る者同士は 親愛の情が厚く 親愛の情が厚ければ倫理も自ずから存在し 倫理が存在するならば和順の習慣が生まれる ) という 一種族蕃殖ノ社会 としての 東亜諸国 論や 東亜諸国ハ家族制度タリ ( 中略 ) 故ニ上下相保ツノ心最モ切ナリ ( 東アジア諸国で重要なものは家族制度である したがって 上に立つ者も下にある者も お互いを思いやる気持ちに厚い ) とする構図も こうした認識枠の中で捉えられるだろう つまり 樽井の 東方同種 論は 親愛 倫理 和順 というきわめて感覚的で情緒的な したがって静態的な一体性の域を一歩も脱していないということなのだ 13 こうした感覚的 情緒的な 東方 論と対照的に この書全体を貫いて冷静に捉えられているのは 異種 たる西洋のアジアに対する帝国主義的侵略の現実である 彼ノ白人 我ガ黄人ヲ殄滅セント欲スルノ跡歴々トシテ徴スベキ者有リ 我ガ黄人ニシテ勝タズンバ白人ノ餌食ニナラン ( 白人たちがわれわれ黄色人を殲滅しようとしている明白な証拠がある 黄色人が勝利しなければ白人の餌食となってしまうであろう ) という現実認識こそが 恐らく本書の根底に横たわる認識である しかも こうした西洋に対して 樽井の視点は意外なほどに批判的ではない 鈴木正の言を借りるならば 意外と西洋的 であり 正しい意味で近代的 な性格をこの書は帯びているのだ 14 なるほど 西洋は 異種 ではある しかしながら 其国ヲ興スノ策ハ 合邦ノ制ニ如クハナシ 西人夙ニ此制ヲ以テ 其国ヲ興シ其民ヲ保ツ 我ガ東人マタヨロシク此制ヲ取リテ 以テ我ガ国ヲ興スベキ也 ( 国家を盛んにするためには 合邦の制度が最もよい制度である 西洋人はこの制度に国家を盛んにしたのであるから われわれ東洋人もこの制度を採用するべきである ) とのべられているように 合邦 の制度自体が 西人 の制度であり 郵便 電信 鉄道 汽船 其他百般事物 に加えて今や 興国安民ノ大計 ( 国家興隆の戦略 ) である 合邦 を採用して 亜細亜黄人国ノ一大連邦 13 ここで 感覚的 情緒的 であることを特筆しているのは いうまでもなく それが近代ナショナリズムの重要な特性の一つであることに注意を喚起したいからである この点については アンダーソン (Benedict Anderson) 定本想像の共同体 ( 白石隆他訳 ) 書籍工房早山 2007 年 ( 原著は 1983 年刊 ) を参照されたい 14 鈴木正 解説 東洋社会党の創設者樽井藤吉 ( 田中惣五郎 東洋社会党考 新泉社 1970 年 ) - 55 -
( アジア= 黄色人の一大連邦国家 ) を樹立することが 樽井の眼目なのである このようにみると 堯舜周公ノ道ハ 今日欧米ニ行ハレテ東亜ニ行ハレズ 欧州昔日ノ野蛮ハ 化シテ今日ノ富強開明ト為リ 東亜ノ諸国ハ萎靡振ハズ ( 聖人の政治は 現在では西洋で行われていて 東洋では行われ ていない 西洋はかつては野蛮であったが 今では文明化し富強開明となり 東洋は萎縮して衰えている ) とのべて 堯舜周公ノ道( 聖人の政治 ) を西洋にみた樽井の眼は よく知られる横井小楠 (1809~1869) の同様の主張と対極に位置するものであることは明らかだろう つまり 樽井は西洋の帝国主義的現実をも含めてその 富強開明 に 堯舜周公ノ道 をみたのであり それと 競争 するための戦略的見地から 合邦 を説いているわけである 要するに 大東合邦論 で展開されている論理は 自然ノ理 として存在しているはずの 同種 たる 東方 の 団結 に訴えて ( 汎アジア ナショナリズム!) 異種 の西洋の侵略に抵抗しようという戦略的論理であり 西洋の侵略自体が批判されていないことからみると 東方 の 一大連邦 も西欧同様の 富強開明 へと進むべきだとする 近代的 論理なのである だが この主張が どこまで 近代的 かどうかを論じることは どの程度アジア 連帯 的か 侵略 的かを論じることと同様に あまり生産的ではないだろう 問題は 恐らく樽井の自他認識の核である 同種 論が 自然ノ理 として限りなく感覚的なものに終始しており 他方で展開されている 異種 による帝国主義的 今日之世界ノ大勢 論を何ら対象化し得ないものになっていることである それも 樽井が 同種 たる 東方 にみた 仁愛 や 道義 の性格と密接に関連していると思われる ちなみに 道義 は 予が能裡に予を制するの君主あらず 予が奉ずる所の君主は道義のみ ( わたくしが信奉しているものは 人 = 君主ではなく道義だけである ) 予は特に務めて予が精神の如く文明を企図し道義に富有なる精神の人と交結して我此党を大にせんとす ( 中略 ) 血を文明の資本とし骨を道義の甲冑たらしむるなり ( わたくしは 道義の精神に立った者とこの政党を盛んにしていくことを願う 文明を血肉とし 道義を骨とすることが大切である ) とあるように 東洋社会党党則草案 (1882 年 ) 以来 樽井が強調してきたものであるが こうした 道義 を西洋に対置させる主張は 無論樽井独自のものではなく 陸羯南の 獣力 = 西洋文明 道理 = 東洋文明 という主張など およそ親アジア的言説の核となっていた主張であった だが 日露戦争後の羯南が 支那 朝鮮は寧ろ露人に同じき人種にして 日本人とは全く相反する ( 中国 朝鮮はロシアと同じ人種で 日本人はこれと全く相反するものである ) とのべ( 清漢人と露人 1905 年 ) 脱亜 論へと転身していったのも 実はその 道理 が 支那人は事実上決して儒教の信者にはあらざるなり ( 中略 ) 日本人は殆ど先天的に儒教信者にして 支那人固有の気質とは全く正反対の気質を有する人民 ( 中国人は実は儒教の信奉者ではない 日本人こそ先天的な儒教の信奉者なのである ) ( 支那人は儒教の信者に非ず 1905 年 ) とのべられているような 自己言及 と表裏のものとしてあったからなのだ 15 東洋- 西洋 論の有するこうした陥穽を鋭く見抜いていた兆民は したがって 三酔人経倫問答 (1887 年 ) の中で共和主義者 平和主義者といってよい 紳士君 と 現実主義者 膨張主義者の 豪傑君 を対比しつつ その両論を相対化した 南海先生 をして 万国講和の論は未だ実行す可らずと雖も 諸国交際の間 道徳の旨義は漸く其区域を広めて 腕力の旨義は漸く其封境を狭むること 是れ自然の勢い ( 万国平和の実現は未だ遠い将来のこととなるであろう だが 諸国が互いに道義をもって交流することが広がり 戦争等の暴力に訴えることが少なくなっていくことが自然の勢いである ) とのべさせ 16 万国 にわたる 道徳の旨義 ( これこそ 帝国のあり方 15 陸羯南全集 第 8 巻 ( みすず書房 1972 年 ) 同第 9 巻 (1975 年 ) - 56 -
だ ) への信頼を語っているのである それが 容易に 紳士君 と 豪傑君 へと分裂するものであったことは 兆民自身がよく理解していたはずであったとしても 少なくともここには 自他認識の 基準 としての 道徳の旨義 という観点が表明されている そして それに照らして 第十九世紀如何に未開なるも万国公法如何に無力な るも 我儕三千余 万 の大男児が相ひ抱持して一体を成し 仁に仗り義を執り 彼れ或は無礼を我に加ふるに於ては我儕三千余 万 の大男児が皆悉く一死以て自ら潔ふするに決心し (19 世紀の世界がどのように文明的に進歩していなくても また万国公法がいかに無力であったとしても 日本の3000 万人の国民が団結し 仁と義の精神に立ち 西洋がいかに無礼であったとしても 悉く仁と義の精神の前に死んでもよいという覚悟をもつべきである ) ( 外交論 1883 年 ) という帝国主義批判や 小国ノ自ラ恃ミテ其ノ独立ヲ保ツ所以ノ者ハ他策無シ 信義ヲ堅守シテ動カズ道義ノ在ル所ハ大国ト雖モ之ヲ畏レズ ( 小国が独立を保つためには 信義を堅く守って妥協しないことが大切である 道義があるところには 大国でも容易に手を出せないのである ) ( 論外交 1882 年 ) とする 信義 に立つ 小国主義 の主張がなされていくのである これと比較すると樽井の 道義 は 東方 の感覚的 情緒的紐帯として叫ばれたものであって 同種 - 異種 論全体を 外部 から規定づけていくものになっていない つまり 自己言及 としての 東方同種 と 富強開明 の帝国主義的文明の 西洋異種 の二元論が 大東合邦論 の 東洋 - 西洋 論の構造なのである 大東合邦論 が 問題の書 であったことの意味は こうした 自己言及 の構造 道義 の性格と関連していたといわなければならない 3. アジア主義者の自他認識 2 岡倉天心それでは 岡倉天心の場合はどうか 天心は アジアは 依然として巡礼及び行脚僧の 遙かに深遠なる旅の教養を味わってゐる 何故ならば 村の女房達にパンを乞ひ 或ひは夕暮ともなれば とある樹の下に坐して 土地の百姓と共に語らひ 又は煙草をくゆらす印度の修行僧こそ 真の旅人である ( アジアは 未だ悠久の宗教的世界のただ中にある そこには真の豊かさがあるのである ) とのべ( 東洋の理想 1903 年 17) 感覚的 情緒的地平からではあれ 特殊な発達の異様な標本 である西洋文明を相対化しつつ ヨーロッパの栄光はアジアの屈辱 ( 東洋の覚醒 未刊 1902 年頃 ) である現状を批判し 帝国主義的な日本についても 日本が満州の戦場に於て大掛りな殺戮を行ひ始めてから 彼 ( 西洋 ) は日本を文明国と呼んでゐる ( 茶の書 ) と痛烈に批判していた この限りでは その反西洋主義は かなり徹底したものであったとみてよい そして 調和 寛容 自然 の価値に立つ 統一体 としてのアジアの しかし多様な文化を育んできた各民族が その再生の種子をみずからの内部に求め ることが訴えられ アジアは山岳や河川に事欠かない したがってゲリラ戦は外国軍の優勢という呪文を破り かくして市民と兵士の目をさまして母国の救出に参加せしむることができる と ゲリラ戦 による 母国の救出 さえ説かれていた ( 東洋の覚醒 ) この点では 樽井とは明らかに異なって そのアジアの 美 は 一つの 基準 となっている感を抱かせる ここから 何人の眼をもあざむかない 美 のアジア的普遍性を人々に気づかせようとした 天心 18 渾身の力をこめて アジア諸民族解放の思想原理を探究した 天心 19が描きだされ 16 中江兆民全集 第 8 巻 ( 岩波書店 1984 年 ) 以下 引用順に同第 11 巻 ( 同 ) 同第 14 巻 (1985 年 ) 17 前掲 岡倉天心全集上巻 以下 東洋の理想 日本の覚醒 は同書 ( 渡辺正知他訳 ) 茶の書 は同書 ( 岡倉一雄他訳 ) 東洋の覚醒 は 東洋文庫東洋の理想他 ( 桶谷秀昭訳 )( 平凡社 1983 年 ) なお 岡倉天心については 前掲子安 アジア はどう語られてきたか などを参照した - 57 -
ることになるのであろう だが 天心の問題も やはりその感覚的 情緒的なアジア論の中に存在しているようだ すなわち 古代支那及び印度の芸術と習慣とが その誕生の祖国に失はれてしまった後 それらを我々が久しく保存せる事実 ( 日本の覚醒 1904 年 ) とあるように 天心は そのアジア論が一つの 自己言及 であることを 素直に語っているのである ここで想起されるのは アジアは一つ というあまりに有名な発言の 後 ( 無論 それが有名になったのは天心の企図を離れての 大東亜共栄圏 時代のことだ ) 次のよ うな言説が存在していたことだ 日本民族の裡 (= 裏 内側 引用者註 ) に流れる印度 ( イント ) 及び韃靼 ( タ ッタン=タタール 引用者註 ) の血それ自身が 日本民族に 二つの源泉より来るものを吸収して アジア意識の総てを反映する能力を付与したのであった 萬世一系の天皇を戴くといふユニークな祝福 嘗て外国に征服されたる事なしといふ誇らかなる自倚 (= 自負 引用者註 ) 古代観念と本能とを 拡げることは出来なかったけれども 護って来た島国的孤立 これらが日本を アジア思想と文化との信託の倉庫となしたのである ( 中略 ) 秘蔵せる標本の中に アジア文化の歴史的富を順次に研究し得るのは 独り日本に於てのみである ( 中略 ) 斯く日本は アジア文明の博物館であり 而も博物館以上である 蓋し 日本民族の持つ不思議なる能力が 彼等をして 古きものを失はずに新しきものを迎へる 生々とせる不二主義の精神を以て 過去の理想の総ての段階の上に留意せしむるからである ( 東洋の理想 ) ここで 日本を アジア思想と文化との信託の倉庫となした とのべるとき 天心のアジアは日本から投影されたアジア像として 自己言及 としてあったことが率直にのべられている しかも ここには 本居宣長 (1730~1801) 以来の国学者と同様の古代日本への憧憬と その一貫性という思想も垣間みえるだろう 無論 国学者と異なって 天心は中国やインド文化の価値を否定せず 我々の更新の種を蒔いたのはアジアであった アジアを 我々の震感の真の源泉として尊敬せねばならぬ ( 日本の覚醒 ) とのべてはいるが こうした天心であればこそ 明治維新を概ね肯定的に受け止め さらに朝鮮や日清戦争 日露戦争についても次のようにのべられていったのであろう 我々の真の生存を脅かす出来事が アジアに於て起りつゝあった 東洋国民は一として 外部の攻撃から自らを防ぐにあらざれば その独立の維持を臨むことが出来ないであらう ( 中略 ) 何処かの敵対国がこの半島を占領せる暁は日本へ軍隊を送るのは容易に出来ることであらう 何となれば朝鮮は いつも尖ってゐる懐剣の如く 日本の真の胸に向って横たはってゐるからである ( 中略 ) これらの事情の下に我々は 余儀なく我が古代の領土たる朝鮮を 合法的 国民的防禦の我が線内に入るものと見做すに至る 我々が支那と開戦するの余儀なきに至れるのは 一八九四年にこの半島の独立が支那によって脅かされた時であった 我々が一九〇四年にロシアと戦へるのも この同じ独立のためであった ( 同上 ) ここでは 日清戦争 日露戦争を アジアそのものである日本が 我が母国のためのみならず 18 橋川文三 順逆の思想 ( 勁草書房 1973 年 ) 19 河原宏 近代日本のアジア認識 ( 第三文明社 1977 年 ) - 58 -
又 近時の革新の理想のために 古典的教養の貴き遺産のために 更にアジア全体のために 輝かしき再生を見た平和と調和との夢のために戦った ( 同上 ) とのべられている 天心のこれらの著書は 西洋に対するプロパガンダ的性格を強く有したものであることを考慮するにしても この論理には 自己 をアジアと一体と主張することで 主観的意図はともかくとして 逆に自らを 外部 から価値づけるアジアを喪失していく論理が看取できるといわなければならない そして 天心の 東洋- 西洋 論は 東洋 - 西洋 論がこうしたものとして すなわち 一つの 自己言及 としてアジアや 東洋 日本 が語られるものであったことを 素直に語っているのである 4. おわりに最後に 同じアジア主義者に分類される宮崎滔天 (1871~1922) が 既述してきたアジア主義者とは異なった地平にいたと考えられることをのべることで 現在のわれわれがそこから何を教訓とできるのかを考え この拙い報告を終えることとしたい 宮崎滔天は ( 後に辛亥革命に結実する ) 中国革命にこそ西洋帝国主義とは異なった可能性を見いだした 青年時代の思想遍歴を経て ついに中国革命に自らの使命を見いだした滔天は その決意を二兄弥蔵 (1867~1896) の言に託して 三十三年之夢 (1902 年頃 ) の中で次のように語っている 三代の治や 実に政治の極則にして われらの思想に近きものなり ( 中略 ) 現朝政柄を執る三百年 民を愚にするを以って治世の要義となす 故に人疲れ国危く 遂にみずから弊毒の禍を受けて 支ゆる能わざらんとす これ豈に命を革め極を立つべきの好機にあらずや 言論畢竟世に効なし 願わくばともに一生を賭して支那内地に進入し 思想を百世紀にし 心を支那人にして英雄を収攬して以って継天立極の基を定めん ( 三十三年之夢 20 ) ( 中国の聖人の政治は わたくしの理想である ところが 清は三百年の間に 民を愚かにすることをもって政治の要とした したがって ついに国家は危ういことになっている 今こそ革命の時である 言論だけでは革命は実現されない 中国に渡り 普遍的思想に照らし 心を中国人と同じものとして この革命に参加したいものである ) 滔天の中に 三代の治は政治の極則 といわれる儒学的言説が存在しており そこから 四海兄弟 とする視点が生まれたことは 既述してきたアジア主義者の枠内の認識にも見える だが ここで注目したいのは 心を支那人にして とのべられているような 自己言及 である ここには 日本にアジアを見た天心の 自己言及 とは全く逆向きの構造が存在していると思われる つまり 滔天は徹底的に 自己言及 を解体することから 帝国 としての中国そして世界と向き合おうとしたのである 余は人類同胞の義を信ぜり ゆえに弱肉強食の現状を忌めり 余は世界一家の説を奉ぜり ゆえに現今の国家的競争を憎めり 忌むものは除かざるべからず 憎むものは破らざるべからず しからざれば夢想におわる ここにおいて余は腕力の必要を認めたり 然り 余は遂に世界革命者を以ってみずから任ずるにいたれり ( わたくしは人類全体に通用する義を信じている したがって 弱肉強食の現状を憎んでいる わたくしは 世界は一家であるという説を奉じている したがって 現在の国家的競争を憎んでいる 憎むものは除くべきである そうでなければ夢想に終 20 島田虔次他校注 三十三年之夢 ( 岩波文庫 1993 年 ) 支那革命と列国 と 忘友録 は 宮崎滔天全集第 2 巻 ( 平凡社 1971 年 ) 宮崎滔天については 上村希美雄 宮崎兄弟伝日本編上下 ( 葦書房 1984 年 ) などを参照した - 59 -
わってしまう だから わたくしは実力行使も辞さない世界革命主義者であると自認している ) ( 三十三年之夢 自序) という主張 世界革命者 としての自認は こうしたことにおいて初めて可能となった言であろう したがって 滔天の中国革命との関わりは アジア主義者がしばしば有していた反西洋主義では 断じてない 次にみるように 世界革命 への道程 根拠地として 中国革命は存在しているのである 支那革命に欧米諸国が干渉せんとするか 革命軍が既に一二省を陥れて 之を固守せず 弱 勢の干渉軍は之を苦め 優勢の干渉軍には退きて内地に進み 曠日彌久の策を取りて敵を待たん か 欧米の天地 に社会革命乱の勃発するは是時である 国家帝国主義と 社会革命 世界主義との決戦は是よ り起るの である 然り 余輩は爾く確信する 然らば日本国は如何 心配に及ばぬ 彼は今空前の大戦の後で 政府も国民も共に疲れて居る 他国の内乱に出兵して 国庫を空乏にし 民怨を買ふの愚は断じて為ない 斯の如く観じ来れば 支那は実に世界の運命を独力で左右するの力を把持して居ると云はねばならぬ 即ち革命成就すれば 宇内に号令して道を万邦に敷くことを得 列国の干渉来れば 世界革命の動機を惹起する 鳴呼 支那国の前途は多望なる哉だ 支那に生れた人は幸福なる哉だ 余輩は実に欣羨に堪へない ( 支那革命と列国 ) ( 中国革命に欧米諸国は干渉するのであろうか だが その場合には むしろ欧米の地に社会革命が勃発するであろう 帝国主義と世界主義の決戦は まさにここから始まるのである 日本が干渉することはあるのであろうか その心配はない 日本は日露戦争の後で 政府も国民も疲弊している このように見るならば 中国は世界の運命を左右する力を保持しているといわなければならない ああ 中国の前途は有望だ 中国に生まれた人は幸せだ わたくしは誠に羨望の念に堪えない ) しかしながら 滔天のこうした 世界主義 的な主張も 今やアジア侵略国として立ち現れつつあった 日本人 であった滔天自身の内に ( 国民国家的 ) 日本人- 中国人 という問題を提起せずにはおかなかったのも事実であった 既に 滔天が中国革命に身を投じる決意を固めたときに 一兄民蔵 (1865~1928) が語ったとされる 三十三年之夢 の中の批判にそれは象徴的に示されている 弁髪をつくり胡服をつけ 且つ氏名生国を偽りて道を説くは これ正義の目的を達せんがために権道を用ゆるものにして わが断じて取らざるところなり いやしくも正義公道を天下に布かんと欲せば その方法手段もまた公明正大ならざるべからず もし権道によらざれば志望世に行われずとせんか これを行わざるもまた可なり ( 三十三年之夢 ) ( 清の服装を身につけ 氏名 出生国を偽って 道義を説くことは 正義のために方便を用いるもので わたくしが採るところではない 正義公道を実現しようとするのであるならば その方法手段も公明正大であるべきである ) そして この問いは恐らく滔天の中に 終生反復する問いであったはずである 就中私をして最 - 60 -
も悔恨の情に堪へざらしむるものは ( 中略 ) 自らその道を改めて 支那人として支那革命に従事することをなさず 日本人としてその事に携はつた一事である 若し私がその道を改めず 支那人として革命事業に携はつたならば 少しはその事業の上に 有効な働きが出来たかも知れぬと思ふ というのは 第一次大戦を終え 既に日本が世界の 一等国 になっていた時期の滔天の回顧であるが ( 亡友録 1919 年 ) 中国革命への 日本人 の関わりのありようを滔天が根底的に問い続けていたことが ここにはあまりに鮮明に示されている したがって 滔天は 日本 - 中国 を感覚的 情緒的に括弧でくくる中国革命論者ではなかった まさに 心を支那人に せんと思えば思うほど ( 文明 としての中国に内在せんとすればするほど ) 日本人としてその事に携はつた という自覚が不断に滔天をとらえていったのだ そして そのことへの悔悟と中国人への 欣羨 が 恐らく時に滔天を 侠 という情緒的な世界に誘い 日本 - 中国 を感覚的 情緒的に括弧でくくる中国革命論者 ( 大陸浪人 ) 東洋- 西洋 論者と重なる像を描かせてきたと思われる こうした滔天 心を支那人に する志向と分かちがたく結びつきつつ しかし 日本人としてその事に携はつた 悔悟を抱き続けた滔天において 初めて中国 (= 帝国 ) が語られたことは 十分に注目すべきことであると思われる なるほど 大正以降に 中国での 日本人 の数は飛躍的に増大し 北京恋い患者 東洋 - 西洋 論者にとって 理想的な蜜月時代 が現出したのかもしれない 21 だが 文明 帝国 としての中国を認識した 日本人 は 故国離脱者 たる中江丑吉(1889~1942) 22 を除くと ほとんど皆無であったことは この滔天と樽井 天心との比較からも十分に推察されるはずである 以上 論じ残された問題はあまりに多いといわなければならない しかしながら アジア 連帯的 に映じてきたアジア主義の言説が 自己言及 を 東洋 - 西洋 論の認識枠の中で行うものに過ぎなかったことについて明らかにしてきたつもりである 思うに 儒学的思想や 天 理 の分解は それ自身 近代化 の所産であり いうなれば歴史的必然であったといえる だが 西洋が 万国公法 という帝国主義的論理を振りかざして強制的にこれらの秩序を一掃していった後に われわれは 日本は どのような価値観 自他認識を新たに構築してきたのであろうか かつて 山田昭次は アジア問題とは日本の国家を否定するか否かの問題である とのべたが 23 近代日本の自他認識のありようや 今も繰り返される 自己言及 としての アジア連携 アジア共同体 論という事態を直視すると この言はなお多くの示唆に富んでいるように思われる 東アジアで共有されうる価値をどのように構築し発信していくのか 帝国 がかつて有していた普遍的価値に立ち返っての思惟が 今なお真剣に問われている 21 竹内実 日本人にとっての中国像 ( 春秋社 1966 年 ) 22 ジョシュア A フォーゲル (Fogel, Joshua A) 中江丑吉と中国 ( 阪谷芳直訳 )( 岩波書店 1992 年 ) 23 山田昭次 征韓論 自由民権論 文明開化論 ( 朝鮮史研究会論文集 第 7 号 1970 年 ) - 61 -
근대일본의아시아주의 - 흥아 론의함정 24 가쓰라지마노부히로 ( 桂島宣弘 ) 일본리츠메이칸대학 1. 들어가며 2009년하토야마 ( 鳩山 ) 민주당정권이성립하고내세운슬로건의하나는 동아시아공동체 였다. 그시비는차치하고, 21세기에들어세계화 (globalization) 의진전, 중국의정치적 경제적대두, 그리고 EU를모방해중국 한국과협력하면서아시아지역경제권을향하여전진한다는사고방식은, 당시에는일단긍정적으로받아들여졌다. 그러나그로부터불과 3년, 이번에는아베 ( 安倍 ) 자민당정권이들어서면서중국 한국과의관계는급속히악화되었고, 심지어미일관계를전제로한일국주의적이고국가주의적인정책으로일본은크게오른쪽으로선회를거듭하여, 2015년현재는더이상 동아시아공동체 의편린조차찾을수없는상황이되었다. 가라타니고진 ( 柄谷谷行 ) 은헤게모니적권력관계를수반하면서도, 종교 가치관 서기언어 ( 書記言語 ) 등을공유하는여러왕조의공존적세계를 < 제국 > 으로부르면서, 그것을전근대적세계의 세계사의구조 의핵심으로간주했는데, 일본은 < 제국 > 의 아주변 ( 亞周邊 ), 즉 변경 에있던존재이며, 따라서 제국의존재양태 를역사적으로결코이해할수없었다며다음과같이말하였다. 16세기명나라를정복하고제국을구축하려한도요토미히데요시 ( 豊臣秀吉 ) 도, 또메이지이후의 일본제국 도제국의존재양태를이해할수없었습니다. 그래서제국주의밖에되지못했던것입니다. 전후의일본인은그때까지의제국주의를부정했습니다. 그러나 제국 을이해할수없다는점에서는변함이없습니다. 그렇기때문에동아시아이웃국가들과좋은관계를맺을수없습니다. 결국내부에틀어박히든가, 혹은공격적으로외부를향합니다. 요컨대내폐적 ( 內閉的 ) 고립과공격적팽창사이에서흔들리게됩니다. 일본이앞으로 아시아공동체 로들어가는것은아마도무리겠지요 ( 제국의구조 ) 25. 본발표의관점은가라타니의지적과중첩되는부분이많은데, 가라타니같은비관적위기감을발표자역시가지고있다. 이전하토야마정권의 동아시아공동체 와현재의아베정권이주변국가를적대시하여일본국헌법의평화주의를파괴하려고하는공격적인자세는, 가라타니의지적에따르면, 제국의존재양태, 즉문명권의구조를결코이해하지못하는일본의 흔들림 이라고생각해야하며, 따라서온건하게보이는전자가공격적후자보다는낫다 ( 나역시그렇게생각은하지만 ) 는것만으로는넘어갈수없을것이다. 아마도아베가퇴진하고나면일본에서다시금 동아시아공동체 가발신될가능성도있을것이다. 우리는그에일희일비하지않고, ( 가라타니같이 ) 더더욱역사적이해를통해이문제에접근할필요가있을것이다. 다소결론을앞질러갔지만, 근대일본의아시아주의 26 와탈아론의관계도, 이렇게보면결국은제국주의 24 본보고는졸저 思想史の十九世紀 ( ぺりかん社, 1999 년 ) 自他認識の思想史 ( 有志舎, 2008 년 ) 을, 柄谷行人 世界史の構造 ( 岩波書店, 2010 년 ) 帝国の構造 ( 青土社, 2014 년 ) 에계발 ( 啓發 ) 된시점을더하여고쳐쓴것이다. 25 위의책 帝国の構造 254 쪽. 26 이하, 아시아주의에대해서는주로다음의연구를참조하였다. 竹内好評論集第 1~ 第 3 巻 ( 筑摩書房, 1966 년 ), 伊東照雄編 アジアと近代日本 ( 社会評論社, 1990 년 ), 姜尚中 オリエンタリズムの彼方へ ( 岩波書店, 1996 년 ), 子安宣邦 アジア はどう語られてきたか ( 藤原書店, 2003 년 ), 孫歌 竹内好という問い ( 岩波書店, 2005 년 ), 米谷匡史 アジア / 日本 ( 岩波書店, 2006 년 ), 子安宣邦 日本人は中国をどう語ってきたか ( 青土社, 2012 년 ) 등. - 62 -
로밖에귀결될수밖에없었던근대일본의아시아와의관계방식, 즉결코 제국의존재양태 를이해할수없었던근대일본의 흔들림 으로볼수있다. 아마도이미묘한문제에대해서가장잘알고있던이는, 그자신아시아주의자이기도하며또여전히그분야연구의일인자라고해도좋을다케우치요시미 ( 竹內好 ) 일것이다. 물의를일으킨언사였지만 1964년다케우치는다음과같이이야기했다. 조선을멸망시키고, 중국의주권을침해했던난폭함은있었지만, 어쨌든일본은지난 70년간아시아와함께살아왔다. 거기에는조선이나중국과연관하지않고는살아갈수없다는자각이작동하고있었다. 침략은좋지않지만, 침략에는연대감의왜곡된표현이라는측면도있다. 무관심하여남이하는대로내맡기는것보다는, 어떤의미에서는건전함까지있다 ( 일본인의아시아관 ) 27. 여기서 침략과연대를구체적상황에서구별할수없다 는말은가라타니가말하는 ( 전근대까지의 ) 제 국의존재양태 를염두에둔것이며, 따라서현실적으로는근대일본의행동이제국주의였음에도불구하 고, 다케우치는 < 제국 > 을몽상하고있었다고, 일단은말할수있을것이다. 또다케우치는근대부터전후 까지를사정 ( 射程 ) 에두면서일본의근대화과정이중국과비교하여서양에대한 저항 이적었기때문에, 급속하게이루어졌지만그것은서양의 노예 화과정이었으며, 따라서 자기자신임을포기하였고 그결 과 일본사회에서사상적대립을낳을만한지반이없다. 그의미는다시말해서사상이없다는것이며, 사상은관념이란이름의옷을빌려입고통용되고있을뿐이다 라고서술하였다. 다케우치가전전과전후 를관통하는일본의 사상이없는상황 과그것을파악하려고하지않는근대주의적역사관, 중국관에대 하여신랄한비판을했던것도, ( 서양화하지않았다고해도 ) 여전히 제국의양태 를보여주는 ( 것처럼비 치는 ) 중국과비교하여제국주의로귀결된근대일본에대한비판을하는것이었다 28. 무엇보다, 미조구치 유조 ( 溝口雄三 ) 는이러한다케우치의말역시 비유럽 중국과대비시킨몰주체적일본을주장하는것이며, 따라서 유럽을하나의기준으로한표현 이라고하였다 29. 이러한미조구치의비판을충분히고려한다해 도, 다케우치가파악한근대일본의문제, 즉 노예문화 이기때문에 타자상실 이라는구도는현재에도 그다지변화지않았다. 어떤형태로 동아시아공동체 가일본에서발신되어도, 그것이 ( 글로벌자본주의의 한날개인 ) 일본자본주의의이해 ( 利害 ) 에서나온것이며, 또한아베정권의팽창주의적이고공격적인정책 과표리관계에있음을우리는직시해야할것이다. 그런데가라타니는일본이 아시아공동체 의일원이되기위한유일한가능성으로서 ( 칸트적인영원한 평화의이념 을계승한다고본 ) 일본국헌법 9 조의평화주의를들고있다. 만약이를진정으로실행한다 면단순히한나라에만머무는것이아닙니다. 그것은세계공화국으로의첫걸음이될수있는것입니 다 30 라고하였다. 마찬가지로, 한국의근현대사연구자윤해동도 9 조를포함한일본국헌법은 칸트의영 구평화론에서이어져온 ( 중략 ) 평화를위한권리장전 이며, 평화헌법을지키는운동은 ( 중략 ) 평화를 근본가치로간주하는동아시아시민사회의형성을거쳐, 평화의동아시아공동체 를구상하는동아시아 연대운동으로까지끌어올려가야한다 고, 동아시아에서의그의의를강조하고있다 31. 불행히도지금발 표하는시점은아베정권이헌법 9 조를짓밟는, 헌법위반인집단적자위권용인의법정비를추진하고 있어서, 이유일한가능성조차빼앗기게될것같다. 이에이어, 아마도근대일본의전쟁책임 식민지 27 앞의책 竹内好評論集第 3 巻 84 쪽. 28 竹内好 中国の近代と日本の近代 日本人の中国観 ( 앞의책 竹内好評論集第 3 巻 ). 29 溝口雄三 方法としての中国 ( 東京大学出版会,1989 년 ). 이런지적은쓰루미요시유키 ( 鶴見良行 ) 도하고있다. 新しいアジア学の試み ( アジア人と日本人 晶文社,1980 년 ). 이러한지적은말할것도없이사이드 (Edward W.Said) オリエンタリズム ( 今沢紀子訳 ) 平凡社, 1993 년 ( 원서 1978 년간행 ) 이지적했던것을, 다른표현을쓴것에지나지않는다. 30 앞의책 帝国の構造 255 쪽. 31 日本の解釈改憲 平和憲法 東アジア ( 思想 1095 号, 2015 년, 沈煕燦訳 ) - 63 -
지배책임을부정하려고하는 전후 70년의아베담화 가발표됨으로써, 일본은완전히 아시아의고아 가될것이다. 이러한노선과대치하여 아시아공동체 에앙가주망 (engagement) 하기위해서요구되는것은무엇인가? 이발표는근대일본의아시아주의적언설에대하여, 도쿠가와시대의국학과유학의자타인식을기점으로재검토하고 32 그함정을부상시키는방법으로고찰하겠다. 2. 아시아주의자의자타인식 1 다루이도키치 ( 樽井藤吉 ) 도쿠가와일본의언설에서아 시아주의자의자타인식을파악하려고하면, 아시아 연대적 혹은 침략적 이라는인식틀이나, 근대적 혹은 반근대적 이라는인식의틀을벗어나서, 도대체근대의자타인식의 기준 = 가치 가어디에있는지, 혹은어떤성격을띠고있는지가부상한다. 여기에서는 19세기의주요한아시아주의자의언설에대해검토하겠다 33. 아시아주의언설의첫째로, 다루이도키치 (1850~1922) 를상정하는것은결코부당하지않을것이다. 그에대한평가가다양하게갈리는것도그렇지만, 히라타파 ( 平田派 ) 국학자이노우에요리쿠니 ( 井上頼圀, 1839~1914) 를사사하고, 사이고다카모리 ( 西郷隆盛, 1827~ 1877) 의서남전쟁 ( 西南戰爭 ) 에호응하였으며, 자유민권운동당시에동양사회당을결성한것이나, 더욱이오사카사건에도연루되어우치다료헤이 ( 内田 32 도쿠가와시대의자타인식에대해서는앞의책 思想史の十九世紀 自他認識の思想史 을참고. 한국어문헌으로는다음의졸고참고. 근세 ( 조선왕조후기 도쿠가와일본 ) 의한일자타인식의전회 ( 轉回 ) ( 일본근대학연구 제 10 집한국일본근대학회 ), 19 세기에있어서한일사상사의일고찰 ( 남명학연구 第 19 輯, 경상대학교경남문화연구원남명학연구소, 2006 년 ). 이일부는나중에졸저 동아시아자타인식의사상사 ( 논형, 2009) 에수록되었다. 논의의필요상간략히도쿠가와시대지식인들의자타인식에대해설명하겠다. 아무리제국의 아주변 ' 이었다고해도,( 청나라나조선왕조는당연하지만 ) 도쿠가와일본지식인의자타인식의핵심에는예 문이라는 기준 = 가치 가있었다. 즉, 도쿠가와일본지식인의자타인식의기본틀은, 예 문중화주의에기초한자타인식 ( 화이사상 ) 으로서, 리와하늘이라는피아 ( 彼我 ) 의보편성의선양과, 동시에예 문의중화로서의중국상, 동이로서의일본상이라고할수있다. 대체로 17 세기 ( 특히전반 ) 의유학자의사상이대부분이러한특성을선명하게보여주지만, 그것이도쿠가와시대를통해유학자의가장기본적인사상이었음은, 후지와라세이카 ( 藤原惺窩, 1561~1619) 부터막부말기의사토잇사이 ( 佐藤一齋, 1772 ~1859) 까지, 대부분이러한예 문중화주의적언설을적출할수있는데에서드러난다. 여기서중요한점은, 이러한인식이예악 풍속 = 문화의화이를관통하는보편성 ( 즉 < 제국 > 의가치 ) 에지탱되며, 거기에는 땅 ( 地 ) 과 종류 에의한고정적이고불환적인화이라는의식은기본적으로는볼수없다는점이다. 바꿔말하면, 예 문중화의적자타인식은특히 아주변 에있었던일본의유학자에게는 땅 과 종류 에의하지않는 ( 근대적으로바꿔말하면국경과인종에의하지않는 ) 문화의연속적 파상적분포에기초하는자타인식으로서존재하는것이었다. 그런데명청왕조교체 = 화이변태에의해, 17 세기후반부터 18 세기전반에걸쳐 재지성 ( 在地性 ) 을어떠한형태로든자각한일본형화이사상이나타나게된다 ( 야마가소코 ( 山鹿素行,1622~1685), 구마자와반잔 ( 熊沢蕃山, 1619~1691), 야마자키안사이 ( 山崎闇斎,1618~1682), 아사미게이사이 ( 浅見絅斎, 1652 ~1711) 등 ). 일본형화이사상에서는선행하는사상이명나라말기사상의영향아래에있었던것이비판되었으며, 명중화주의에서탈각한 재지성 의문화적우위성을주장하고자하는발언이나타나게되었다. 하지만예를들어, 반잔이아홉오랑캐중에서일본의우위를주장한것이나, 소코가 본조의인물대부분중화에가깝다. 그풍속이순박하며또성인이조화가있다 ( 山鹿語類 巻 33) 는언설에서보이듯이, 중화 ( 夏 ) 를축으로하는관점을여전히잃어버리지않은점에는유의할필요가있다. 18 세기중엽이후가되면다니진잔 ( 谷秦山, 1663~1718) 등수가파 ( 垂加波 ) 를중심으로, 청 = 이적론을전면에내세운일본중화주의의주장도등장하게되지만, 거기서도문화에있어피아의우열 ( 예전에는 < 명제국 > 에존재했던보편성의소재 ) 을경쟁하였으며, 그러는한예문중화주의의구조는자타인식의틀로서, 또한기본적인규제력을발휘하고있다고할수있다. 즉, 명청왕조교체로일본뿐아니라조선왕조에서도명중화주의로표상되어온예 문중화주의적화이사상에동요가보이는것이사실이었다고하더라도, 명에존재하고있던문화에서피아를관통하는보편성과, 그런렇기때문에우열을비교하는사유는기본적으로유지되는것이었다. 그것은국학과후기미토학등 19 세기이후에등장하는자타인식과는본질적으로다르다고생각한다. 그리고국학과후기미토학에서싹튼자타인식이야말로, 얼마가지않아근대적자타인식으로서, 즉서양국민국가에대항적으로형성된 국경 인종 관념에기초하는, 국민국가 ( 국체 ) 의독선적인특질을표상하면서구성된배타적자타인식으로결실을맺는데, 그것은 18 세기전반까지의명청왕조교체에촉발된일본형화이사상 일본중화주의의연장선에서파악할수있는것이아니라, 오히려그것과해체적으로마주하면서구성되어갔던것이다. 이상이졸저등에서주장한발표자의주된논점이다. 33 이시점에대해서는반노준지 ( 坂野潤治 ) 의일련의논고에서시사점을얻었다. 東洋盟主論 と 脱亜入欧論 ( 佐藤誠三郎他編 近代日本の対外態度, 東京大学出版会, 1974 년 ), 明治 思想の実像 ( 創文社,1977 년 ), 明治初期の 対外観 ( 国際政治 国際政治学会, 第 71 号, 1982 년 ), 近代日本の国家構想 ( 岩波書店, 1996 년 ). 또본발표에서언급하지는않지만, 다른대극점에있는 탈아론 에도같은시점으로접근할수있을것이다. - 64 -
良平, 1874~1937) 등의현양사 ( 玄洋社 ) 와도교유하였으며, 이윽고 대동합방론( 大東合邦論 ) (1893년) 에도달한다루이도키치의경력은, 무엇보다도아시아주의라고불리는사상의내용을충분히시사하기때문이다. 하지만여기서다루이의사상형성을논할만한여유는없다. 문제시해야할점은다름아닌 대동합방론 에어떠한자타인식의성격이드러나는가이다. 대동합방론 에서다루이는주지하는바와같이일본과조선이대등한형태로합방하여 대동 이라는 합방국 을조직하고, 게다가청과 합종 ( 合縱 ) 하여 다른인종의모욕 ( 異種人之侮 ) 을방지하고, 백인의먹이 ( 餌食 ) 가되기전에 동종인이일치단결한세력 ( 同種人一致團結之勢力 ) 을키울것을주장하였다. 이책은그동안 문제서 로서아시아 연대 적인지, 침략 적인지가논의되어왔지만 34, 결론을미리말하자면, 이책이 문제서 로취급되어온것은, 무엇보다도이책의 동양-서양 론 동종-이종 론의핵심에존재하는 동종 의성격에기인한다. 역시나이책에는다루이의친아시아관 친중국 / 조선관이언급되어있다. 예를들어, 동방 은다음과같이자리매김된다. 동방은태양이뜨는곳이므로발육 화친을주관하고, 청룡 자인 ( 慈仁 ) 으로상징되는곳이다. 시간으로말하면아침이며, 계절로말하면봄으로, 자연의영위에서시작과근원에위치한다. ( 중략 ) 그중에서도일본 조선은가장동쪽에위치하고있기때문에목 ( 木 )= 인애의성 ( 性 ) 을받아, 청명하고신선한기 ( 氣 ) 로길러져, 그성정 풍속이서북의초목이시들어가는곳과다름은, 자연의이치라고해야한다 ( 대동합방론 인용자의역, 이하동일 ) 35. 여기에는 인애 의 동방 이라는인식이보이며, 전체의기조를이루는것은 인애 를공유하는일본과조선그리고중국이라는구도이다. 이로보면다루이에게약간은 < 제국 > 적인자타인식이전제되어있었다고할수있을것이다. 또한일양국에대해 지리적으로가장가깝고역사적으로두바퀴와같이걸어왔고, 마음은형제와같아서, 서로붕우의의로맺어져있다 고언급하였으며, 중일양국에대해서도 일본과중국은춘추시대의오패의하나인제나라 초나라와마찬가지로, 서로협력한다면백인도적수가못된다 고하여, 모두 자주자립의나라로서로기대고서로도와 야하는 동종국 으로자리매김하는데에는, 서양제국주의에 대한아시아의대등한 연대 를읽어낼수도있다. 그러나주의해야할것은그러한아시아 동종 에대한인식은다루이에게 자연의이치 로서직각적 ( 直覺的 ) 으로기술되어있을뿐, 그이상은검토되지않았다는점이다. 한종족으로구성된자들끼리는, 친애의정이두텁다. 친애의정이두터우면윤리도저절로존재한다. 윤리가존재하면화순 ( 和順 ) 의습관이생긴다 는 일종족번식의사회 로서의 동아제국 ( 東亞諸國 ) 론이나, 동아시아여러국가에서중요한것은가족제도이다. 따라서위에선자나아래에있는자들도서로를배려하는마음이두텁다 는구도역시, 이러한인식틀속에서파악될것이다. 요컨대다루이의 동방동종 론은 친애 윤리 화순 이라는, 매우감각적이고정서적인그래서정태적인일체성의영역을한걸음도벗어나지못하는것이다 36. 이렇게감각적이고정서적인 동방 론과대조적으로, 이책을관통하면서냉정하게파악되고있는것은 이종 ( 異種 ) 인서양의아시아에대한제국주의적침략의현실이다. 백인들이우리황색인을섬멸하려는것은명백한증거가있다. 황색인이승리하지않으면백인의먹이가되고말것이다 는현실인식이야말로, 이책의근저에깔린인식이다. 게다가이러한서양에대해다루이의시점은의외라고할정도로비판적이 34 앞의글竹内 アジア主義の展望, 旗田巍 日本人の朝鮮観 ( 勁草書房, 1969년 ) 참조. 35 覆刻大東合邦論 ( 長陵書林,1975년, 초판본의복각 ) 1쪽. 원문은한문. 大東合邦論 의인용은모두이책에의함. 다루이도키치에대해서는伊東昭雄 大東合邦論 について ( 横浜市立大学論叢 第 24 巻 2 3 号,1973년) 등을참조함. 36 여기서 감각적 정서적 이라는것을특필한것은, 말할것도없이그것이근대내셔널리즘의중요한특성의하나라는사실에주의를환기시키기위함이다. 이에대해서는 Benedict Anderson 定本想像の共同体 ( 白石隆他訳 ) 書籍工房早山, 2007년 ( 원저는 1983년간행 ) 을참조바람. - 65 -
지않다. 스즈키다다시 ( 鈴木正 ) 의말을빌리자면이책은 의외로서양적 이며 올바른의미에서근대적 인성격을띠고있는것이다 37. 그렇다. 서양은 이종 이기는하다. 그러나 국가를성하게하기위해서는합방제도가가장좋다. 서양인은이제도로국가를성하게한것이니, 우리동양인도이제도를채택해야한다 고서술된대로 합방 제도자체가 서인 ( 西人 ) 의제도이며, 우편, 전신, 철도, 증기선, 기타모든사물 에더하여이제 국가융성의전략 인 합방 을채용하여 아시아황색인의일대연방국가 를수립하는것이다루이의안목이다. 이렇게보면, 성인 ( 聖人 ) 의정치는현재는서양에서이루어지고있으며, 동양에서는행해지지않고있다. 서양은예전에는야만적이었지만지금은문명화하고부강하여개명되었는데, 동양은위축되어쇠퇴하고있다 며, 성인의정치 를서양에서찾은다루이의시선은, 잘알려진사상가요코이쇼난 ( 橫井小楠, 1809~1869) 의유사한주장과정반대에위치하는것임은분명할것이다. 요컨대, 서양의제국주의적현실을포함하여그 부강개명 에서 요순주공 ( 堯舜周公 ) 의도 를본것이며, 그와 경쟁 하기위한전략적견지에서 합방 을주장하는것이다. 요컨대 대동합방론 에서전개되는논리는 자연의이치 로서존재해야할 동종 인 동방 의 단결 에호소하여 ( 범아시아내셔널리즘!), 이종 인서양의침략에저항하려는전략적논리이며, 서양의침략자체를비판하지않은것을보면, 동방 의 일대연방 도서구와유사한 부강개명 으로나아가야한다는 근대적 논리인것이다. 하지만이주장이어디까지 근대적 인지를논하는것은, 어느정도나아시아 연대 적인지 침략 적인지를논하는것만큼이나그다지생산적이지않다. 문제는아마도다루이의자타인식의핵심인 동종 론이 자연의도리 이며시종일관한없이감각적이며, 다른한편으로전개되는 이종 에의한제국주의적 오늘날세계의대세 론을아무런대상화도할수없다는것이다. 이역시다루이가 동종 인 동방 에서본 인애 나 도의 의성격과밀접하게관련된다고생각한다. 덧붙여 도의 는, 내가신봉하고있는것은사람은군주가아니라도의일뿐이다, 내가도의의정신에입각한사람들과이정당을성하게해나가기를바란다. 문명을혈육으로삼고도의를뼈로삼는것이중요하다 고하였듯이, 동양사회당당칙초안 (1882년) 이래다루이가강조해왔다. 그러나이러한 도의 를서양에대치시키는주장은물론그만의독자적인것이아니며, 구가가쓰난 ( 陸羯南 ) 의 짐승의힘 ( 獸力 )= 서양문명, 도리 = 동양문명 이라는주장등, 대부분의친아시아적언설의핵심이된주장이다. 그러나러일전쟁후가쓰난이 지나 ( 중국 ) 조선은러시아와같은인종으로일본인은전혀상반된다 고말하며 ( 중국인과러시아인 ( 淸漢人と露人 ) 1905년 ), 탈아 론자로변신해간것도, 실은그 도리 가, 중국인은사실상결코유교의신자가아니다. 일본인이야말로선천적인유교의신봉자이다 ( 지나인은유교의신봉자가아니다 ( 支那人は儒教の信者に非ず ) 1905년 ) 라고말했듯이, 자기언급 과표리를이루었기때문이다 38. 동양 서양 론이가지는이러한함정을예리하게간파하고있었던조민 ( 兆民 ) 은, 그래서 삼취인경륜문답( 三醉人經倫問答 ) (1887년) 에서공화주의자 평화주의자라고해도좋을 신사군 ( 紳士君 ) 과, 현실주의자 팽창주의자인 호걸군 ( 豪傑君 ) 을대비시키면서, 그양론을상대화한 난카이 ( 南海 ) 선생 으로하여금, 만국평화의실현은아직먼미래의일이될것이다. 하지만여러국가가서로도의를가지고교류하는일이확대되고, 전쟁과같은폭력에의호소가적어지는것이자연스런추세이다 라고말하게하여 39, 만국 에걸쳐 도덕의지의 ( 旨義 ) ( 이야말로 제국의존재양태 다 ) 에대한신뢰를이야기한것이다. 그것이쉽게 신사군 과 호걸군 으로분열한것은, 조민자신역시잘알고있었다하더라도, 여기에는적어도자타인식의 기준 으로서의 도덕의지의 라는관점이표명되어있다. 그리고그에비추어 19세기의세계가아무리문명적으로진보하고있지않더라도, 또한만국공법이아무리무력하더라도일본 3000만의국민이단결하여인과의의정신에입각해서, 서양이아무리무례했더라도, 모조리인과의의정신앞에서죽어도좋다는각오를가져 37 鈴木正 解説 東洋社会党の創設者樽井藤吉 ( 田中惣五郎 東洋社会党考 新泉社, 1970 년 ). 38 陸羯南全集 第 8 巻 ( みすず書房, 1972 년 ), 同第 9 巻 (1975 년 ). 39 中江兆民全集 第 8 巻 ( 岩波書店, 1984 년 ). 이하인용순으로同第 11 巻 ( 同 ), 同第 14 巻 (1985 년 ). - 66 -
야한다 ( 외교론 1883 년 ) 는제국주의비판과, 소국이독립을유지하기위해서는신의를굳게지키고타협하지않는것이중요하다. 도의가있는곳에는대국이라도쉽게손을뻗칠수없기때문이다 ( 論外交 1882년 ) 라는 신의 에입각한 소국주의 를주장했다. 이와비교하면다루이의 도의 는 동방 의감각적 정서적유대로서주장된것이며, 동종 이종 론전체를 외부 에서규정해가는것은아니었다. 즉, 대동합방론 의 동양 서양 론의구조는 자기언급 으로서 동방동종 과 부강개명 의제국주의적문명의 서양이종 이란이원론이다. 대동합방론 이 문제서 이었다는의미는, 이러한 자기언급 의구조, 도의 의성격과관련되었다고봐야한다. 3. 아시아주의자의자타인식 2 오카쿠라덴신 ( 岡倉天心 ) 그러면, 오카쿠라덴신의경우는어떨까. 덴신은 아시아는여전히순례와행각승의, 아득히심오한여행의교양을맛보고있다. 왜냐하면마을의아낙들에게빵을구걸하고, 혹은저녁이라도되면, 어느나무아래앉아, 토지의백성과함께이야기하거나혹은담배연기를피우는인도의수도승이야말로, 진정한여행자이다 ( 인용자의역 : 아시아는아직유구한종교적세계한가운데에있다. 거기에는진정한풍요로움이있기때문이다 ) 고말하면서 ( 동양의이상 1903년 40 ), 감각적 정서적지평이긴하지만, 특수한발달의이상한표본 인서양문명을상대화하면서 유럽의영광은아시아의굴욕 ( 동양의각성 미간, 1902년경 ) 인현상을비판하고, 제국주의적인일본에대해서도 일본이만주의전장에서대대적인살육을하기시작하면서부터, 저들 ( 서양 ) 은일본을문명국이라고부르고있다 ( 차의책 ) 고통렬하게비판했다. 이런점에한정하면그의반서양주의는상당히철저했다고볼수있다. 그리고, 조화 관용 자연 의가치에입각한 통일체 로서의아시아, 그러나다양한문화를키워온각민족이 그재생의씨앗을자신의내부에요구 할것을호소하고, 아시아는산악과하천에부족함이없다. 따라서게릴라전은외국군이우세하다는주문 ( 呪文 ) 을깨부수고, 이렇게해서시민과병사의눈을뜨게하여모국의구출에참여하게할수있다 며 게릴라전 에의한 모국의구출 까지주장하였다 ( 동양의각성 ). 이지점에서다루이와는분명히다르며, 그아시아의 아름다움 이하나의 기준 이되고있다는느낌이든다. 여기에서 누구의눈도속이지않는 아름다움 의아시아적보편성을사람들이깨닫도록한 덴신 41, 혼신의힘을다해아시아민족해방의사상원리를탐구한 덴신 42 이그려지게될것이다. 하지만, 덴신의문제역시그감각적이고정서적인아시아론속에존재하는것같다. 즉 고대지나와인도의예술과습관이, 그탄생의조국에서잃어버린후, 그것을우리가오랫동안보존한사실 ( 일본의각성 1904년 ) 이라고하듯이, 덴신은그아시아론이하나의 자기언급 임을솔직하게이야기하고있는것이다. 여기에서상기되는것은 아시아는하나 라는너무도유명한발언의배경에 ( 물론그것이유명해진것은덴신의바람에서멀어진 대동아공영권 시대이다 ) 다음과같은언설이존재했던점이다. 일본민족내부에흐르는인도와타타르 ( 韃靼 ) 의피가일본민족에게부여한능력은, 이두개의원 천에서나오는것을흡수하여아시아의식모두를반영하는능력이었다. 만세일계의천황을받드는 유니크한축복, 일찍이외국에정복당한적이없다는득의양양한자부심, 고대관념과본능을 넓히 지는못했지만 - 지켜는온섬나라의고립성, 이런것들이일본을, 아시아사상과문화의신탁 ( 信託 ) 의창고로만든것이다. ( 중략 ) 비장 ( 秘藏 ) 의표본가운데아시아문화의역사적부를차례차례연 40 앞의책 岡倉天心全集上巻. 이하 東洋の理想 日本の覚醒 은같은책 ( 渡辺正知他訳 ). 茶の書 는同書 ( 岡倉一雄他訳 ). 東洋の覚醒 은 東洋文庫東洋の理想他 ( 桶谷秀昭訳 )( 平凡社, 1983 년 ). 또오카쿠라덴신에대해서는앞의책子安 アジア はどう語られてきたか 등을참조함. 41 橋川文三 順逆の思想 ( 勁草書房, 1973 년 ). 42 河原宏 近代日本のアジア認識 ( 第三文明社, 1977 년 ). - 67 -
구할수있는것은오로지일본뿐이다. ( 중략 ) 이렇게일본은아시아문명의박물관이다. 아니, 박물관이상이다. 다만, 일본민족이갖는불가사의한능력이그들로하여금오래된것을잃지않고새로운것을맞이하는, 생생하게하는불이주의 ( 不二主義 ) 의정신으로써과거의이상 ( 理想 ) 의모든단계에서유의하게만들기때문이다. ( 동양의이상 ). 일본을아시아사상과문화의신탁 ( 信託 ) 의창고를이룬것 이라는언급에는, 덴신의아시아가일본이투영한아시아상으로서, 자기언급 으로서솔직히서술되어있다. 게다가, 여기에는모토오리노리나가 ( 本居宣長, 1730~1801) 이래국학자와같은고대일본에대한동경과, 일관성이라는사상도엿볼수있을것이다. 물론국학들과다르게, 덴신은중국과인도문화의가치를부정하지않고 우리가갱신의씨앗을뿌린것 은아시아였다 아시아를우리진감 ( 震感 ) 의진정한원천으로서존경하지않으면안된다 ( 일본의각성 ) 고말은하지만. 바로이러한덴신이었기때문에, 메이지 유신을대체로긍정적으로받아들이고, 게다가조선과청일전쟁 러일전쟁에대해서도다음과같이말했던것이다. 우리의진정한생존을위협하는사건이아시아에서거듭발생하고있었다. 동양국민은하나로서, 외부의공격으로부터스스로를지키지못하면독립의유지를바랄수없을것이다. ( 중략 ) 어느적대국이이반도를점령하는날에는쉽게일본에군대를보낼수있다. 왜냐하면조선은항상뾰족한비수와마찬가지여서, 일본의가슴을향해서가로놓여있기때문이다. ( 중략 ) 이러한사정하에서우리는부득이하게우리고대의영토인조선을, 우리의합법적 국민적방어의선안에들어있는것으로간주하기에이르렀다. 우리가지나와부득불전쟁을시작하게된것은 1894년에반도의독립이지나에게위협받은때였다. 우리가 1904년에러시아와싸운것도, 마찬가지로이의독립을위해서였다 ( 위와같음 ). 여기에서는청일전쟁 러일전쟁을아시아그자체인일본이 우리모국을위해서뿐아니라, 근년의혁신의이상을위해, 고전적교양의귀중한유산을위해, 또한아시아전체를위해, 빛나는재생을본평화와화합의꿈을위해싸웠다 ( 위와같음 ) 고서술되어있다. 덴신의이저서들이서양에대한프로파간다의성격을강하게띠고있었음을고려한다고해도, 이논리에는 자기 를아시아와일체라고주장함으로써, 주관적의도는여하튼간에, 거꾸로자신을 외부 에서가치매기는아시아를상실해가는논리를분명히볼수있다. 또한덴신의 동양-서양 론이하나의 자기언급 으로서아시아와 동양 서양 을말하는것이었음을솔직하게이야기하는것이다. 4. 나오며마지막으로, 같은아시아주의자로분류되는미야자키도텐 ( 宮崎滔天, 1871~1922) 이, 앞에서언급한아시아주의자와는다른지평에있었음을살펴보는것으로현재우리가삼을수있는교훈을생각하면서발표를마칠까한다. 미야자키도텐은 ( 나중에신해혁명으로결실을맺는 ) 중국혁명이야말로서양제국주의와는다른가능성이있다고보았다. 청년시절의사상편력을거쳐마침내중국혁명에서자신의사명을찾아낸도텐은, 그결의를둘째형미야자키야조 ( 宮崎弥藏, 1867~1896) 의말에기탁하여 三十三年之夢 (1902년경) 에서다음과같이말했다. 삼대 ( 三代 ) 의다스림은실로정치의지극한법칙으로, 우리의사상에가까운것이다.( 중략 ) 지금의 - 68 -
왕조가정치를한지 3백년, 백성을어리석게만드는것을치세의요지로삼았다. 따라서사람은피로하고나라는위태로워져서, 결국스스로폐해와독을입게되어지탱하기어려워졌다. 이어찌천명을바꿔지극함을세울 ( 立極 ) 좋은기회가아닐쏘냐. 언론은필경세상에서효과가없으니, 바라는바함께일생을걸고지나내지로진입하여, 사상을백세기로하고, 마음을지나인으로하여영웅을잡아두어하늘을잇고지극함을세우는기초를다지기를. ( 三十三年之夢 43 ). ( 인용자의역 : 중국성인의정치는나의이상이다. 그런데청나라삼백년동안백성을어리석게만듦으로써정치의요체로하였다. 그래서결국국가가위태롭게되었다. 지금이야말로혁명의시기이다. 언론만으로는혁명은실현되지않는다. 중국으로건너가서보편적사상에비추어, 마음을중국인과같게하여이혁명에참여하고싶다 ). 도텐의말속에는 삼대 ( 三代 ) 의다스림은실로정치의지극한법칙 이라는유학적언설이존재하며, 거기서 사해형제 ( 四海兄弟 ) 라는관점이나온것은앞에서언급한아시아주의자라는틀안의인식에도보인다. 하지만주목하고싶은것은 마음을지나인으로하여 라고서술된 자기언급 이다. 여기에는일본에서아시아를본덴신의 자기언급 과는전혀반대방향의구조가존재한다고생각한다. 요컨대도텐은철저하게 자기언급 을해체함으로써, < 제국 > 으로서의중국그리고세계와마주하려한것이다. 나는인류동포의의 ( 義 ) 를믿으며, 따라서약육강식의현상을꺼린다. 나는세계일가 ( 世界一家 ) 라는설을신봉하며, 따라서지금의국가적경쟁을미워한다. 꺼리는것은없애야만하며, 싫은것은부숴야한다. 그렇지않으면몽상으로끝난다. 여기서나는완력의필요성을인정한다. 그리하여나는마침내세계혁명자로서스스로임할것이다 ( 인용자의역 : 나는인류전체에통용되는의를믿고있다. 따라서약육강식의현상을미워한다. 나는세계는한가족이라는설을받들고있다. 따라서현재의국가적경쟁을싫어한다. 싫은것은없애야한다. 그렇지않으면몽상으로끝나버린다. 그래서나는실력행사도불사하는세계혁명주의자임을자처하고있다 )( 三十三年之夢 自序) 라는주장, 세계혁명자 로서의자인은, 이렇게해서비로소가능했다. 따라서도텐과중국혁명과의관련은, 아시아주의자가종종가지고있던반서양주의는결코아니다. 다음에서보듯이중국혁명은 세계혁명 에대한과정 근거지로서존재하였다. 지나혁명에서방국가가간섭하려하겠는가? 혁명군이이미하나둘성 ( 省 ) 을함락시켜, 이를고수하지못하고약세 ( 弱勢 ) 의간섭군 ( 干涉軍 ) 이라면이를괴롭히고, 우세의간섭군에게는물러나내지로가서, 허송세월하는방책으로적을기다릴것같은가? 지금은서구천지에사회혁명이발발하는때이다. 국가제국주의와사회혁명, 세계주의의결전은지금부터일어날것이다. 그렇다, 우리들은이렇게확신한다. 그렇다면일본국은어떠한가. 걱정할것없다. 그들은지금공전의대전후라, 정부도국민도모두피로해있다. 다른나라의내란에출병하여국고를비우고, 민중의원성을살어리석은일은결코저지르지않을것이다. 이렇게보면지나는실로세계의운명을혼자힘으로좌우하는힘을쥐고있다고해야한다. 즉혁명이성취되면온세계를호령하여만방에길을놓을수있으며, 열국이간섭해오면세계혁명의동기를야기한다. 아아, 지나국의앞길은소망이많다. 지나에서태어난사람은행복하다. 우리는실로선망을참을수없다.( 지나혁명과열국 ). ( 인용자의역 : 중국혁명에서구국가가간섭할까? 하지만, 그런경우는오히려서구에서사회혁명이발발할것이다. 제국주의와세계주의의결전은바로여기에서시작한다. 일본이간섭할일이있을까? 그럴염려는없다. 일본은러일전쟁후라, 정부도국민도피폐해있다. 이렇게본다면중국은 43 島田虔次他校注 三十三年之夢 ( 岩波文庫, 1993 년 ). 支那革命と列国 과 忘友録 은 宮崎滔天全集第 2 巻 ( 平凡社, 1971 년 ). 宮崎滔天에대해서는上村希美雄 宮崎兄弟伝日本編上下 ( 葦書房, 1984) 등을참조함. - 69 -
세계의운명을좌우하는힘을보유하고있다고해야한다. 아, 중국의앞길은유망하다. 중국에태 어난사람은행복하다. 나는진심으로선망하는마음을참을수없다 ). 그러나도텐의이러한 세계주의 적인주장도, 바야흐로아시아침략국으로서모습을드러내고있는 일본인 이었던도텐자신내부에서, ( 국민국가적 ) 일본인-중국인 이라는문제를제기하지않을수없게되된것도사실이었다. 그것은이미도텐이중국혁명에몸을던질결의를굳혔을때큰형미야자키다미조 ( 宮崎民藏, 1865~1928) 이행한비판에상징적으로드러난다. 변발을하고호복 ( 胡服을입고, 또성명과태어난나라를속이면서도를말하는것은정의라는목적을달성하기위한수단으로서, 나로서는결코취하지않을것이다. 적어도정의공도 ( 正義公道 ) 를천하에펼치고자한다면그수단과방법역시공명정대해야한다. 만약에그런수단을쓰지않고는바라는바가세상에서행해지지않는다면, 이를행하지않는것도가하다 ( 三十三年之夢 ). ( 인용자의역 : 청나라복장을하고, 성명 출생국을속이고도의를말하는것은, 정의를위한방편을사용하는것으로, 내가취하는바는아니다. 정의공도를실현하고자한다면, 그방법수단도공명정대해야한다 ). 그리고이물음은아마도도텐스스로평생반복하였을것이다. 도텐이 그중에서도내가가장회한을참을수없는것은 ( 중략 ) 스스로길을바꾸어, 지나인으로서지나혁명에종사하지않고, 일본인으로서관여했던일이다. 만약내가그길을바꾸지않고지나인으로서혁명사업에관여했다면, 그사업에조금은유효한작용이가능했을지도모른다 ( 亡友錄 1919년 ) 고회고한것은, 제1차세계대전이끝나고이미일본이세계의 일등국 이된시기였다. 여기에는중국혁명에 일본인 이관련되는양태를철저하게자문했던도텐의모습이선명하게드러난다. 따라서도텐은 일본-중국 을감각적 정서적으로괄호로묶을중국혁명주의자가아니었다. 바로 마음을지나인으로 하려고하면할수록 (< 문명 > 으로중국에내재하려하면할수록 ), 일본인으로서그사업에관여했다 는자각이부단히도텐을사로잡았다. 그리고그에대한회개와중국인에대한 선망 " 이아마도때때로도텐을 협 ( 俠 ) 이라는정서적세계로이끌고 일본-중국 을감각적 정서적으로괄호로묶을중국혁명주의자 ( 대륙낭인 ), 동양-서양 논자와중첩되는상 ( 象 ) 을그리게했던것이다. 이러한도텐, 마음을지나인으로 하려는지향과분리되기어렵게연결되었으나 일본인으로서그사업에관여했다 는후회를품어온도텐에게, 비로소중국 (=< 제국 >) 이언급된것은충분히주목할만한일이라고생각한다. 과연, 다이쇼이후중국에서 일본인 은기하급수로증가하였고, 북경을사랑하는환자 동양 -서양 론자에게는 이상적인밀월시대 가출현했는지도모르겠다 44. 하지만 고국이탈자 였던나카에우시키치 ( 中江丑吉, 1889~1942) 45 를제외하면, < 문명 > < 제국 > 으로서중국을인식한 일본인 은거의없었다는사실은도텐과다루이 덴신을비교해보아도충분히추측된다. 논의해야할문제가아직많이남아있지만, 지금까지아시아 연대적 으로비쳐온아시아주의의언설이, 동양-서양 론의인식틀안에서 자기언급 을했던것에불과했음을밝혔다. 생각건대유학적사상이나 하늘 ( 天 ) 리 ( 理 ) 의분해는, 그자체 근대화 의소산이며, 역사적필연이었다고말할수있다. 그러나서양이 만국공법 이라는제국주의적논리를내세워강제로이러한질서를모조리없애버린뒤에, 우리는, 일본은, 어떤가치관 자타인식을새롭게구축해왔을까. 일찍이야마다쇼지 ( 山田昭次 ) 는 아시아문제란 44 竹内実 日本人にとっての中国像 ( 春秋社, 1966 년 ) 45 ジョシュア A フォーゲル (Fogel, Joshua A) 中江丑吉と中国 ( 阪谷芳直訳 )( 岩波書店, 1992 년 ). - 70 -
일본으로상징되는제국주의국가를부정하는가, 아닌가의문제 라고했지만 46, 근대일본의자타인식의양태와지금도반복되는 자기언급 으로서의 아시아연대 아시아공동체 론이라는사태를직시하면, 이말이시사하는바는크다. 동아시아에서공유될수있는가치를어떻게구축하고발신해나갈지, 일찍이 < 제국 > 이가지고있었던보편적가치로되돌아간사유 ( 思惟 ) 를, 지금도진지하게물어야한다. 김선희 ( 인하대 ) 역 46 山田昭次 征韓論 自由民権論 文明開化論 ( 朝鮮史研究会論文集 第 7 号, 1970 년 ). - 71 -
Kim Hak-cheol s East Asia: The Japan Puzzle Won Shik Choi 김학철의동아시아 : 일본퍼즐 최원식 ( 崔元植 ) 1. 김학철이라는문제 최근나는식민지조선 ( 朝鮮 ) 의원산 ( 元山 ) 에서태어나 21세기벽두연길 ( 延吉 ) 에서세상을여읜중국 ( 中國 ) 의혁명작가김학철 ( 金學鐵, 1916~2001) 을재론 ( 再論 ) 한 민주적사회주의자의길 ( 창작과비평 2015 년여름호 ) 을발표했다. 연변 ( 延邊 ) 인민출판사에서 2010년부터간행되기시작한전집발간에즈음하여, 시종일관한글로창작생활을영위한그의문학을오늘의관점에서다시보고자한것인데, 뜻밖에도나는그곳에서동아시아와해후하였다. 1 동아시아를단한번도언급하지않았으나누구보다그를체현한김학철은최초의동아시아인이라칭해도지나치지않다. 잠깐김학철의파란만장한이력을소개하자. 1935년서울에서상해 ( 上海 ) 로망명, 의열단 ( 義烈團 ) 2 단원으로반일테러활동에종사하다, 황포군관학교 ( 黃埔軍官學校 ) 에서수학후 1938년무한 ( 武漢 ) 에서조선의용대 ( 朝鮮義勇隊 ) 에투신, 이어 1940년중국공산당 ( 中國共産黨 ) 에입당, 이듬해팔로군 ( 八路軍 ) 지역으로집단탈출하여태항산 ( 太行山 ) 에서항일전쟁수행중그해 12월 12일호가장 ( 胡家庄 ) 전투에서부상으로피로 ( 被虜 ), 북경 ( 北京 )-부산( 釜山 )-시모노세끼( 下關 ) 을거쳐 1942년나가사끼 ( 長崎 ) 형무소에수감, 1945년에야왼쪽다리를절단하고해방을맞아서울로귀환, 조선독립동맹 3 서울시위원회에서활동하면서소설가로데뷔했으나, 1946년월북, 노동신문사기자등을역임하며평양 ( 平壤 ) 문단에도작품을발표, 1950년 6.25 전쟁이발발하자재차중국으로건너가 1952년이래연변에정착, 1954년첫장편 해란강아말하라 를발표하는등오랜만에안정을찾았다. 그러나 1957년반우파투쟁으로강제노동에처분되면서그의운명은다시격동한다. 1966년에발발한문화대혁명도비켜가지않았다. 가택수색중풍자소설 20세기의신화 (1965) 원고가발각되어 10년간의혹독한영어생활 (1967~77) 을겪었다. 1980년복권, 1986년중국작가협회에가입하고대표작 격정시대 를 1 김학철문학은중국과한반도남북에걸터앉은셈이다. 더구나일본조차아울렀으니그의진짜소속은도래할동아시아일지도모른다. 최원식, 민주적사회주의자의길 : 김학철전집 발간에부쳐, 창작과비평, 2015 년여름호, 389 면. 2 1919 년길림성 ( 吉林省 ) 에서조직된조선의무정부주의항일무력단체. 3 1942 년 7 월결성된항일단체로조선의용군이라는군사조직을보유한바, 해방후북한으로귀국, 북한정권의핵심으로활약하 다가 50 년대후반숙청됨. 통칭 연안파 ( 延安派 ). - 72 -
발표, 1989년에야중국공산당당적을회복했다. 4 이로써중국에서김학철의복권은거의완성된다. 5 한편 1986년 항전별곡 을시작으로 1988년 격정시대 와 해란강아말하라 가서울에서출판되면서한국 ( 韓國 ) 에새로이알려진김학철은이듬해첫서울나들이에오른다. 43년만의귀경 ( 歸京 ) 이다. 1996 년중국이아니라한국에서처음출판된 20세기의신화 는복귀의절정이다. 6 한국에이어일본 ( 日本 ) 도참여한다. 아니사실은김학철의한국귀환을인도한매개가일본인연구자들이었다. 엄격한반공정책아래중국과격절된한국과달리일찍이중국과수교한일본 (1972) 은지식인교류에자유로웠으니, 특히오오무라마스오 ( 大村益夫 ) 부부의헌신은각별했다. 1989년과 1993년두차례부부동반으로 적국 일본을방문함으로써, 7 김학철은그가일찍이무대로삼은한중일세나라에서모두복권된다. 김학철에게동아시아는무의식이었다. 그러나몸은이미동아시아다. 반우파투쟁과문화대혁명에처분된몸으로탈냉전시대를미리맞이한그는그틈에서자기안의동아시아를퍼즐처럼맞춰나감으로써시나브로동아시아로이월했다. 탈냉전시대를즈음하여번성 (?) 하던동아시아론은목하 ( 目下 ) 다시기로에섰다. 8 한반도문제의외재화 9 와동반한 동아시아문제의외재화 10 로동아시아가깊은교착에빠져든이시점에김학철을동아시아라는열쇠말로다시금독해하는작업이설령그무용 ( 無用 ) 에이를지라도우리에게다른기쁨, 다른영감 ( 靈感 ) 을선사할지도모를일이다. 아니꼭그러리라고믿는마음이이상하게도굴뚝같다. 2. 기억의진화 김학철의삶은 1957년을경계로양분된다. 반우파투쟁의와중에철석같이신봉해마지않은공산당에대한신뢰에결정적금이갔기때문이다. 공교롭게도북한 ( 北韓 ) 에선그즈음독립동맹계열의연안파숙청이시작되었으니, 스딸린 (Iosif Stalin, 1878~1953) 에서비롯하여마오쩌둥 ( 毛澤東, 1893~1976) 과김일성 ( 金日成, 1912~94) 으로연락된일인숭배공산주의에대한환멸이강하게똬리틀게되었던것이다. 이괴리에서 사회주의식서낭당 이라는기발한조어 ( 造語 ) 를발명했지만, 11 그럼에도전향은아니다. 투쟁기공산당의전사공동체민주주의에대한충성은오히려더욱굳세졌다고해도좋을것이다. 조지오웰 (George Orwell, 1903~50) 의용어를빌리건대, 민주적사회주의 에가깝다. 12 민주주의를유보한사회주의가아니라민주주의와굳건히결합한사회주의를하늘의별로간직한공산당전사가바로김학철일터다. 그의동아시아도 1957년이고비다. 그는시종일관사회주의국제주의를실천한혁명가였지만, 1957년이전은공식적이었다. 이시기를대표하는소설 해란강아말하라 에 간도인민의투쟁의역사는즉중국공산당의투쟁의역사 로적시되듯, 중국공산당의영도성 ( 領導性 ) 에대한한점의회의도없었다. 13 중국과조선의농민 / 프롤레타리아가연대하여중국인 / 조선인지주 / 부르주와를투쟁하는구도에서일본은전자를탄 4 이상은金虎雄 金海洋편저, 김학철평전 ( 실천문학사 2007) 에수록된 연보 (564~70 면 ) 에서간추린것. 5 거의 라고지칭한것은아직도 20세기의신화 가중국에서출판되지못했기때문이다. 6 그자세한경과는최원식, 앞의글, 367~71 면참조할사. 7 연보, 앞의책, 570면. 8 尹汝一은 2000년대중반이후를 동아시아담론의쇠퇴기 라고파악한바있다. 윤여일, 동아시아담론의형성과이행, 白永瑞 金明仁엮음, 민족문학론에서동아시아론까지 : 최원식정년기념논총, 창비 2015, 240면. 9 이용어는천안함 ( 天安艦 ) 사건 (2010) 과연평도 ( 延坪島 ) 포격사건 (2010) 이후, 6.15선언 (2000) 으로대표되는한반도문제의 내재화 움직임대신에미중의영향력은더욱커지고남북관계의구심력은더욱약화된현상을가리킨다. 이용민 테일러워시번엮음, 미국의아시아회귀전략, 창비 2014, 5~6면. 10 한반도와동아시아는음양 ( 陰陽 ) 처럼서로물고있다. 한반도문제의 외재화 와동반, 내재화로꺾었던동아시아문제또한 2012년격화된센까꾸 ( 尖閣 ) 열도또는댜오위다오 ( 釣魚島 ) 분쟁으로다시외재화로유턴하였다. 최원식, 동풍, 서풍, 그리고투먼, 두만강포럼, 연변대 2014.10.11. 11 최원식, 민주적사회주의자의길, 378면. 12 George Orwell, Why I Write, Penguin Books 1984, 8면. 13 최원식, 민주적사회주의자의길, 373 면. - 73 -
압하고후자를지지하는제국주의, 악의축 으로하강하고, 중국공산당은모든투쟁의총화일항일의표상으로상승되기마련이었다. 그런데공산당조차혁명이후어떻게권력에착종되어이상으로부터추락할수있는지를적나라하게겪은뒤, 그의사회주의국제주의는비공식성속에서성숙한다. 그지표의핵이일본이다. 단일화한일본의상 ( 像 ) 바깥으로다른일본인들의모습이언뜻언뜻드러나기시작한바, 복권을기념하는대표작 격정시대 (1986) 에는잊을수없는장면이등장한다. 원산총파업 (1929) 때항구에정박중인일본화물선쯔루가마루 ( 敦賀丸 ) 일본선원들이투쟁하는조선노동자들에대해지원의함성을외치는대목이다. 14 어린주인공을일시혼란에빠트리는이인상적인삽화가거의 60여년만에음미되거니와, 그의자서전에는이이야기가더욱솔직하게반추 ( 反芻 ) 된다. 하지만일본사람들이어떻게우리편을?... 하나의충격이아닐수없다. 15 기억의퍼즐들을더따라가보자. 두번째일본인은경성제대 ( 京城帝大 ) 교수미야께시까노스께 ( 三宅鹿之助 ) 다. 1934년조선공산당의지도자이재유 ( 李載裕, 1903~44) 가경찰서를탈출하여잠적한사건이장안에큰화제를불러일으켰는데, 놀랍게도미야께의사택에은신하였던것이다. 일본선원들과미야께교수의모습이 칡덩굴 머루덩굴마냥내머릿속에서얼기설기뒤얽혀도무지풀어지지를않았다 16 고고백할정도니, 어린민족주의자가받은충격의깊이가짐작될터다. 그는마침내중국에서사회주의에개안하는데, 그결정적안내자도일본인이었다. 1937년카와까미하지메 ( 河上肇, 1879~1946) 의 가난이야기( 貧乏物語 ) (1916) 를읽고 계급사회라는개념이차차뚜렷해지기시작했 으니, 그로부터 3년뒤인 1940년 8월 29일-망국 30돌-에중국공산당에입당 17 한다. 그리고드디어 1938년무창 ( 武昌 ) 에서그는 적국 을지원하는일본인을직접만난다. 중국으로망명하여대일선전활동에종사한일본작가카지와따루 ( 鹿地亘 ) 부부가그들인데, 사치코 ( 幸子 ) 부인은 황성 ( 荒城 ) 의달 을불렀는가하면또가지씨자신은 상만군영추기청( 霜滿軍營秋氣淸 ) 을읊으며칼춤을추 18 었던것이다. 이때는이미민족주의로부터이륙한즈음인지라일본어를매개로한자연스러운교류가이루어졌거니와, 황성의달 (( 荒城の月 ) (1901) 이흥미롭다. 19 시인도이반스이 ( 土井晩翠 ) 가작사하고, 타끼렌따로오 ( 瀧廉太郞 ) 가작곡한이노래는감상 ( 感傷 ) 속에서도염전 ( 厭戰 ) 을북돋우니, 2절을보자. 가을, 진영의서리색깔 / 울며가는기러기의숫자보여주고 / 꽂힌칼에쭉비추이니 / 옛날의 어디에 ( 秋陣營の霜の色 / 鳴き行く雁の數見せて / 植うる劍に照りそいし / 昔の光いまいずこ ) 20 빛은지금 시인의솜씨인지라가사가단순치않다. 제목그대로폐허로변한옛성에뜬달이주어다. 가을달아래서리까지내려옛군진 ( 軍陣 ) 이일시에환하게드러난바, 위로는하늘을나는기러기숫자조차헤아릴수있고, 아래로는땅위에꽃힌칼에달빛이씻겨내리는모양도뚜렷하다. 문득시인은묻는다. 옛날의빛은지금어디있는고. 그 빛 은무엇을가리킬까? 아내의노래에칼춤으로어울리는남편의시에열쇠가있다. 서리가군영에가득하니가을기운이맑다. 이는 에찌고 ( 越後 ) 의군신 ( 軍神 ) 으로일컬어지던우에스기켄신 ( 上杉謙信, 1530~78) 이 1577년난공불락의나나오성 ( 七尾城 ) 을거두기직전 9월 13일밤에지었다고전하는 주산야( 十三夜 ) 라는시의첫행이다. 14 같은글, 387면. 15 김학철, 최후의분대장 : 김학철자서전, 문학과지성사 1995, 42면. 16 같은책, 92면. 17 같은책, 138면. 18 같은책, 188면. 19 김학철에의하면태항산에서조선의용대가일본군에대한야간심리전을수행할때이노래를확성기로틀어주었다고한다. 오오무라마스오, 조선의혼을찾아서, 심원섭 정선태옮김, 소명출판 2007, 113면. 20 떠도는번역이원문과동떨어져어색해도직역을택했다. - 74 -
霜滿軍營秋氣淸數行過雁月三更 越山倂得能州景遮莫家鄕憶遠征 서리가군영에가득하니가을기운이맑고몇대오의지나는기러기, 달은삼경이로다월산 ( 우에스기의영지에찌고-역자 ) 에능주 ( 나나오성이있는노또能登지방-역자 ) 의경치까지아울렀으매고향은냅두고원정을생각는다 21 승리를앞둔무장의기개를노래한이시를보건대, 황성의달 과연계된다. 특히앞에보인 2절은 주산야 의 다시쓰기 에가깝다. 그런데바로후자의마지막행에서전자와날카롭게갈라진다. 아마도그 옛날의빛 은그전장터에불꽃튀던칼빛들일수도있고그로써얻은승리의영광일수도있을터인데, 하여튼그어느쪽이든다부질없다는무상감 ( 無常感 ) 이주제다. 무사의노래를반전 ( 反戰 ) 으로뒤집은도이반스이의감각이조숙하다. 청일전쟁 ( 淸日戰爭, 1894~95) 이후일본이수행한기나긴전쟁의행렬, 이웃나라들은물론일본자신마저파멸시킨태평양전쟁의패배로마감되는그행진을기억컨대 황성의달 은예언적이다. 항전별곡 (1983) 에이름만나오던 22 일본여성권혁 ( 權赫 ), 조선의용대유일의일본인으로본명테라모또아사꼬 ( 寺本朝子 ) 가 최후의분대장 에는인상적으로점묘 ( 點描 ) 된다. 남편이조선사람이라조선말을썩잘한이여성은남편과이혼한뒤의용대에투신, 나중에우리친구이달 ( 李達 ) 과재혼 했으나, 해방후북에서남편이폐결핵으로사망, 다시일점혈육없는과거 ( 寡居 ) 로돌아간바, 평양시절우리집에를오기만하면걸음발을막타기시작한우리아들을두리쳐업고추썩추썩추썩거려주기를좋아했다. 23 김학철은조선의독립을위해헌신한일본여성이북에 홀로남아서극히어렵게만년을보내고있을일 을아프게회상하는데, 24 기억의일본창고가만년에이를수록더욱따듯해지는것이다. 이자서전이후에도김학철의일본퍼즐은이어진바, 산문 려포현상 (1997) 에는고바야시다끼지 ( 小林多喜二, 1903~33) 와루쉰 ( 魯迅, 1881~1936) 의감동적인교류가소개된다. 일본프로문학의양심고바야시가 1929년상해에서번역출판된그의대표작 해공선( 蟹工船 ) 머리말에 중국로동계급의영용한투쟁은혈연적으로이어진일본무산계급을더없이고무해주고있다 고지지한데에대해, 김학철은고문치사소식에루쉰이상해에서띄운침통한조전 ( 弔電 ) 으로마주세운다. 일본인민과중국인민은형제지간입니다.(...) 우리는다같이손잡고고바야시동지의피자국을밟고견결히앞으로나아가야합니다. 25 이퍼즐의대미를장식하는것은아마도산문 맹견주의 (2000) 일듯싶다. 우리외종숙모는일본녀자다. 이름은가미야찌요 ( 神矢千代 ). 1950년 6월말인지 7월초에, 39세한창나이에아깝게도물에빠져죽었다. 그남편과 1남2녀까지-한가족이몽당익사를한것이다. 26 일본인우편국장의따님이그집에신문배달하는조선인고학생과맺어져집안의반대를무릅쓰고결혼에성공했으면끝이좋아야할터인데, 그렇기는커녕 6.25의마귀에걸려한강 ( 漢江 ) 에가족과함께수장당한이이야기는참혹하다. 더구나 찌요상 ( 씨 ) 은성품이워낙어졌던까닭에시집온뒤일가문중의따뜻한사랑을받았다. 왜녀 라고얕잡아이르는사람은하나도없었다 27 는것이아닌가. 작가의마음속가장내측에웅크렸을이삽화가술술나올정도로작가에게일본은이제더이상단일표상이아니다. 21 이시는姜泰雄교수가제공했으며林熒澤선배의도움을받아우리말로번역했다. 두분께감사한다. 22 최원식, 민주적사회주의자의길, 383면. 23 김학철, 최후의분대장, 259면. 24 같은책, 260면. 25 김학철, 전집 3: 사또님말씀이야늘옳습지, 연변인민출판사 2010, 202면. 26 같은책, 421 면. 27 같은책, 423 면. - 75 -
3. 환대의액자 적국 일본이라는표상을해체하는김학철의 내적대화 28 가일군기억의진화는놀랍거니와, 그원천 으로되는작품이 원쑤와벗 (1985) 이다. 29 일본에다시가기전인데도일본퍼즐은이미작동한바, 그계 기는바로오오무라마스오부부의연변방문이었다. 와세다 ( 早稻田 ) 대학교수로서김학철의일역자 ( 日譯 者 ) 이기도한오오무라와재일동포출신부인아끼꼬 ( 秋子 ) 가김학철의일본창고를열열쇠였으니, 나 와 오오무라부부의첫대면이소설의발단이다. 세사람의따듯한대화로그들사이를가로지르는표상의경 계는시나브로사라지는데, 3 인의구도자체가횡단적이다. 나 김학철은중국에살고있지만원래한반도 출신이고, 오오무라는일본인이지만정체성정치로부터자유로운데다가처마저재일동포다. 아끼꼬는아 마도일본국적이겠지만태생적으로일본과한국 / 조선사이에걸쳐있는그야말로경계인이다. 더구나이 대면은 나 의집이아니라부부의연변숙소에서이루어진듯싶다. 말하자면연변의손님오오무라부부 가주인이되고연변의주인 나 가부부의손님이되는호환 ( 互換 ) 이탈경계성을한층도왔던것이다. 그 리하여그들의언어도가로지른다. 우리는처음에조선말로이야기를나누었다. 그러던것이차차조선말, 일본말섞어작으로변하다가나중에는아주일본말을유일한사교언어로쓰게되었다. 30 이드문자리에서 나 의기억창고가새로이열리는것은어쩌면당연한일인지도모른다. 나 는과연 호가장전투 (1941) 이후만난세일본인의이야기를들려줌으로써처음으로포로생활의봉인을따는것이 다. 겉이야기속에속이야기 3 편을품은액자소설인데, 전자가 3 인의대화라면후자는두일본인을청자 ( 聽者 ) 로삼아 1 인칭화자 나 가들려주는이야기판이다. 첫번째주인공은 1942 년석가장 ( 石家莊 ) 일본총영사관유치장에서만난일본인쿠라시게히사오 ( 倉茂久 男 ) 다. 동경 ( 東京 ) 에서택시운전수를하다가 작년에이곳석탄회사에취직 (131 면 ) 이되어중국으로온그 는감독노릇을모질게못한죄로철창에유치된바라, 나 는그의보호자를자처한다. 더구나 아이는죽 고안해는집을나가버렸다는 (132 면 ) 딱한신세를듣고더욱그를동정하던것인데, 쿠라시게또한사상 범 나 를우러러특별한우정이발생한다. 그러나서너달후다행히무죄석방된쿠라시게가고급생과자 한상자를선물로남기고떠난것으로그짧은우정도끝나려니여기게마련이었다. 그런데 나 가해방 후귀국한뒤가족과만났을때반전 ( 反轉 ) 이일어난다. 쿠라시게가귀국길에일부러소학교교원으로있 는 나 의누이동생을찾아간것이다. 헌병대끄나풀로오해한누이가그에게 우리오빠는나쁜사람 이 라고강변하자그는항변한다. 오빠는좋은사람이야. 훌륭한사람이야. (134 면 ) 그험한시절에도조선인 사상범과우정을나눈쿠라시게의진솔한모습이일본인의표상바깥으로빛난다. 두번째주인공은나가사끼감옥병원원장히로따요쯔꾸마 ( 廣田四熊 ) 다. 이미지적했듯이김학철은부 상당한몸으로중국에서일본까지긴여정을거쳐이감 ( 移監 ) 되었다. 제대로치료받지못한부상부위가 여정따라점차악화되었음에도불구하고전임원장은 너는비국민 (136 면 ) 이라고야유하며절단수술을 거부한고약한자였다. 그대신새로부임한원장이히로따다. 의사의본분따라수술을베풀어 나 를살 린그는안타깝게도복막염이도져 3 주도못돼세상을떴으니, 자신도중환자였던것이다. 병석에서 내 누이동생의감사편지를받고는 따님을시켜서답장을써 (139 면 ) 보낼정도로예의가단정한분이었다. 28 고독 (loneliness) 과 ' 홀로있음 (solitude)' 은다르다. 후자는타자와의관계로부터자신만의공간으로퇴거하는것으로서사고라는내적대화를시작하기위한조건이기도하다. 사이토준이치 ( 齊藤純一 ), 민주적공공성 : 하버마스와아렌트를넘어서, 윤대석 류수연 윤미란옮김, 이음 2009, 39 면. 29 이작품은 전집 4: 태항산록 ( 연변인민출판사 2011) 에수록된바, 목차에는 소설 로소개 (1 면 ) 된데반해부록의연보에는 산문 으로분류되어있다.(460 면 ) 이단편에등장하는인물들이모두실명 ( 實名 ) 인점에서산문으로볼수도없지않지만, 실사 ( 實事 ) 에서취재했다손쳐도그를바탕으로한층높은정치적대화로들어올리려는 행위 가작동하고있다는점에서나는전자를지지한다. 30 전집 4: 태항산록, 129 면. 이하이소설의인용은본문에이책의면수만표시함. - 76 -
세번째주인공은수인 ( 囚人 ) 간호원스기우라준스께 ( 杉浦俊介 ) 다. 괴롭히는상관을단검으로찔러군법회의에서 7년형을받아복역하는스기우라전해군소위는 나 의절단수술때보조한바, 곧너나들이친구로되었다. 소학교교원을여동생으로둔공통점때문에더욱가까워진두장교의우정이미쁘기짝이없다. 적의장교임에도불구하고둘은왜그토록친밀할까? 김학철이스기우라에게영어를개인교수하는데서단적으로드러나듯스기우라는 패전의냄새를어럼풋하게나마맡고있었던것이다. (141면) 드디어스기우라는김학철에게묻는다. 네보긴... 일본이... 질것같나? 꼭진다. 시간문제다. (...) (...) 그럼... 우린어떻게되니? 어떻게될것있니? 더잘살게되지! (142면) 그리하여이대화석달만에일본이항복하고두친구의운명도갈린다. 나 는어제의비국민에서독립 투사로당당히출옥하는데스기우라는석방이지연된다. 두친구의이별장면은뭉클하다. 스기우라는간수부장이지켜보는앞에서알콜병과탈지면봉지를내량쪽호주머니에하나씩넣어주었다.(...) 그리고눈물이글썽하여작별인사를하였다. 몸조심... 잘가라. 그의실심한얼굴을보자 (...) 나는너무언짢아서그와함께감옥에떨어져있을가하는미친생각까지났다.(...) 너두곧풀려나게될거니까... 안심하구... 견지해. 이게내가스기우라에게마지막으로한말이였다.(145~46면) 승전의기쁨보다는함께석방되지못한스기우라에대한미안함에안쓰러운 나 는감옥을나오면서구두한짝에화풀이하는것으로이야기를마감한바, 나는그필요없게된한짝을콩크리트바닥에동댕이치고나머지한짝만발에꿰고나왔다. (146면) 김학철은스기우라라는일본군장교를 비결정의위상에둠 31 으로써예기치않은진실을길어올렸다. 패전의날, 스기우라가한발언은백미다. 넨장할, 난이제다시는군복을안입겠다. 그지긋지긋한놈의군복! (143면) 이는마지막제로센전투기조종사로서, 아베 ( 安倍晉三 ) 내각의질주를비판하며반전평화를호소하는하라다카나메 ( 原田要 ) 의발언 32 과호응하는데, 그의소설에서일본군장교의입을빌어서일망정반전이이처럼선명히발화된것은주목할일이다. 혁명전사김학철내부에서뭔가미묘한변화가발생한듯싶은데, 원자탄이야기가얼핏나오는것도예사롭지않다. 나가사끼시내에있는형무소의지소 ( 支所 ) 는그후원자탄을맞고완전히파멸되었다. (140면) 그와스기우라가복역한감옥은본소 ( 本所 ) 로서나가사끼동쪽이사하야 ( 諫早 ) 에소재한덕에불벼락으로부터보호된바, 이가공할폭격에대해서도사실만제시될뿐그감회는봉인되었다. 앞에서언급한 황성의달 에얽힌다른삽화-오오무라교수가일본물건중에혹원하는것을말씀해달라고하니그는이가곡의오르골을지목했다-도흥미롭다. 그 센티멘탈리 31 사이토준이치, 앞의책, 63 면. 32 누구는전쟁중 덴노헤이카반자이 ( 천황폐하만세 ) 를외치며죽었다하는데난그런전우는단한명도보질못했어요. 모두가마지막순간 오카상 ( 어머니 ) 을외치더군요.(...) 일본은전쟁에패하고평화를얻었어요. 엄청난교훈이죠. (...) 난전쟁을증오합니다. 중앙일보, 2015.5.4. - 77 -
즘에도공명되는바가있으셨던것이아닌가도생각된다 33 는오오무라교수의짐작에일리가없지않다고여겨진다. 이미지적했듯이이노래의감상 ( 感傷 ) 이란바로염전임을감안할때일본퍼즐이풀려나가면서김학철의반전도함께진화되었는지도모른다. 사실그의대표작 격정시대 의숨은혼은염전이다. 예컨대주인공선장이는전장터에서만난어린생명의안위를염려하며무심코내뱉는다, 전쟁전쟁... 망할놈의전쟁!... 34 마지막장면또한혁명소설의전형적마무리는아니다. 네주검중에서도마점산오델로의주검은차마눈뜨고볼수없을정도로참혹하였다.(...) 태항산에서의이와같은전투는나날이언제까지계속될는지는아무도몰랐다. 35 이소설끝부분에등장하는염전의은밀한징후들은 후기 에서한층명확해진다. 일본이무조건항복을하니까어느한전사는 승리란... 인제알구보니... 참혹의별칭같은거였구나 하고외치기까지하였었지. 36 패배다음으로비참한것이승리 라는말처럼김학철은진정한혁명가가그러하듯고매한반전평화사상에도착했다. 이소설의기본구도인오오무라부부와의대화자체가작가자신의사상적숙성과정이었으니, 자기안의일본퍼즐들을하나하나의식으로떠올림으로써 적은우리를형성하는문제 37 로이월된터다. 민주적사회주의로몸이먼저움직이면서일본도자신을기루는사상적자원으로올라선바, 원쑤와벗 은그빛나는원천이다. 그리하여첫대면을발단으로삼은이단편은세편의속이야기들을거쳐다시겉이야기로돌아와 내 가그숙소를떠나는데서마무리되는데, 그해학이정말로따듯하다. 주인이가는이의신발한짝을찾지못해쩔쩔매는것을보다가, 내가웃으면서 본래한짝뿐입니다. 하고일깨우니오오무라선생은비로소깨도가되어서 오참그렇지! 하고내외가같이거뜬한웃음을웃는것이었다.(146면) 이웃음속에서김학철의일본퍼즐이완성된다. 반 ( 半 ) 식민지중국과건국이후의중국, 식민지조선과해방뒤의남북을골고루겪은그가건너뛰곤하던나가사끼체험을처음으로그러나완결적으로다룬이단편은그의동아시아를거의완성한다. 왜 거의 인가? 북한이통금이기때문이다. 오랜투쟁의대상이었던일본마저푼김학철은 통일의전제조건은김일성이죽는것 38 이라고명토박을만큼끝내북한에대해서는완강했다. 이제북한퍼즐은우리에게이월되었다. 동아시아포럼에거는희망이크다. 33 오오무라마스오, 앞의책, 113면. 34 김학철, 격정시대3, 풀빛 1988, 296면. 35 같은책, 304면. 36 같은책, 305면. 37 마루카와데쓰시 ( 丸川哲史 ), 리저널리즘, 백지운 윤여일옮김, 그린비 53면에서칼슈미트 (Carl Schmitt) 의말을재인용. 38 김학철인터뷰, 한겨레21 1994.4.14, 90면. - 78 -
Geopolitical Thought and Its Implication for China-U.S.-Japan Relations: A Study on the Essential Variables to Determine East Asia s Next 100 Years Jiangyong Liu 地缘政治思想对中美日关系的影响 决定未来百年东亚局势的重大因素探讨 刘江永 清华大学当代国际关系研究院教授 副院长 内容提要 : 美国 日本的对华战略, 在很大程度上受到西方传统地缘政治学说和权力均衡理论的影响 奥巴马政府重返亚洲的 再平衡 战略以及对南海 东海矛盾的介入, 安倍内阁提出所谓的 自由与繁荣之弧 与美国修订防卫合作指针 修改国内相关法律等, 在很大程度上也是为其对华政策及地缘战略服务的 中国倡导共建 一带一路, 遇到来自美国和日本的质疑, 其背后仍旧是西方传统的地缘战略因素在起作用 共建 一带一路 本身既是对传统的西方地缘政治学说的否定, 也是 海陆和合论 这一地缘政治经济学新概念的具体实践 重塑具有建设性的中美日关系, 或许需要从影响决策者利益认知的地缘政治学角度探寻出路 迄今, 在全球国际战略争夺中, 地缘政治思想一直发挥着无形的巨大作用 决定一个国家对外战略的, 与其说是国家利益, 不如说是决策者对国家利益的认知 排序, 以及形势判断, 其中包括对地缘战略利益的认知所形成的地缘政治思想 据 中国大百科全书 ( 政治学 ) 解释, 地缘政治学是政治地理学的一种理论, 它根据各种地理要素和政治格局的地域形式, 分析 预测世界或地区范围的战略形势和有关国家的政治行为 地缘政治学把地缘因素视为影响甚至决定国家政治行为的一个基本因素, 这种观点为国际关系理论所吸收, 对国家的政治决定有相当的影响 39 二战后 70 年来, 无论是美苏对抗的冷战时期, 还是苏联解体 冷战结束至今的北约东扩及近年来乌克兰危机的爆发, 都贯穿着传统的地缘战略争夺 俄罗斯总统普京 2015 年 4 月 26 日在电视节目中坦诚 : 我在克格勃 (KGB) 工作了 20 年, 曾以为只要共产党一党统治崩溃了, 一切都会发 39 中国大百科全书 ( 政治学 ), 北京 : 中国大百科全书出版社,1992 年出, 第 57 页 - 79 -
生根本性变化 但是, 什么都未改变 为什么? 因为地缘政治学与意识形态没有任何关系 他强调 : 其他国家必须理解, 俄罗斯这样的国家有本国的地缘政治利益 40 地缘政治 地缘经济利益是客观存在, 但如何认知和管理这些利益, 不同时期和不同国家则会有不同的地缘政治学说 虽然西方传统地缘政治学说中的不同学派强调的重点不同, 但其目的都在于如何赢得战争 夺取和巩固世界霸权 实质上, 这是一种从地理学派生出来的战争理论和霸权政治, 带来的必然是你死我活 你输我赢的 零和 博弈 当前, 美日两国在军事方面积极介入东海和南海 ; 在经济和金融方面消极对待中国倡导共建 一带一路 和亚洲投资开发银行 (AIIB) 这种现象背后伴随有传统的地缘政治思想的深刻影响 一 西方传统的地缘政治理论及影响 在欧洲, 人们对地理因素如何影响政治所产生的兴趣, 可以追溯到古希腊哲学家亚里士多德 ( 公元前 384~322) 和法国启蒙思想家孟德斯鸠 (1689~1755) 而现代西方地缘政治学说则是传统的现实主义权力政治理论框架内的产物 西方现实主义理论的渊源可以追溯到公元前 400 多年修昔底德的历史著作 伯罗奔尼撒战争史 其中称 : 雅典人权力的增长引起了斯巴达人的畏惧, 这使战争变得不可避免 他从来不用道德的标准评价国家的行为, 而高度重视权力, 认为 强者可仰仗权力为所欲为, 弱者则只能逆来顺受 41 强国必霸的逻辑被称为 修昔底德陷阱 20 世纪西方现实主义国际关系理论的创始人 美国芝加哥大学美国对外政策研究中心主任汉斯 摩根索 (Hans,J.Morgenthau,1904~1980), 提出以权力界定利益 ; 国际政治像一切政治一样, 是追逐权力的斗争 在摩根索看来, 所谓权力 是指人支配他人的意志和行动的控制力 42 西方地缘政治学说, 正是如何从地缘角度获取权力 控制世界的国际政治理论 不过, 摩根索及其后继人的著作却认为 : 地缘政治是一种伪科学 它把地理因素抬高到绝对地位, 认为地理决定国家的权力, 因而也决定着国家的命运 43 尽管如此, 在不同的历史时期, 西方地缘政治学的各种理论对一些国家政治决策仍产生了不容忽视的影响 ( 一 ) 马汉的 海权论 不具备普遍意义美国的海军军官 历史学家阿尔弗雷德 塞耶 马汉 (Alfred, Thayer Mahan,1840~1914),1 890 年在 海权对历史的影响 1667~1783 一书中, 系统提出 海权论 概念 马汉曾任美国海军学院院长 海军少将,1902 年任美国历史协会主席 他作为海权 (sea power) 理论的创始人曾受到美国总统西奥多 罗斯福的青睐, 其海权思想在美国影响至今 马汉指出, 海权的历史就是对国家间竞争和互相敌意, 以及频繁地在战争过程中达到顶峰的暴力的一种叙述 对立的双方都试图攫取更大的商业利益, 这种利益冲突所产生的愤怒情绪必然会导致一场血战 而无论是什么原因挑起的战火, 是否掌握海上霸权都成为一个决定胜负的关键 所以说, 海权的历史在很大程度上就是一部军事史 44 马汉强调, 在茫茫的海洋上, 真正的强者只有一个, 不会有第二个 如果还有第二个, 那他们就谁都不是强者 因为一山不容二虎, 强者自然是唯 40 駒木明義 : ロシア国益理解を プーチン氏 地政学的問題 強調 朝日新聞 2015 年 4 月 28 日 41 转引自詹姆斯 多尔蒂 小罗伯特 普法尔茨格拉夫 : 争论中的国际关系理论 ( 第五版中译本 ), 阎学通 陈寒溪等译, 北京 : 世界知识出版社,2003 年, 第 74 页 笔者对译文重新润色 42 汉斯 摩根索 国家间政治权力斗争与和平, 肯尼斯汤普森 戴维克林顿修订, 徐昕 郝望 李保平译, 王缉思校, 北京 : 北京大学出版社,2006 年, 第 55~56 页 43 汉斯 摩根索 : 国家间政治权力斗争与和平, 第 196 页 44 [ 美 ] 马汉 : 海权论 ( 海权对历史的影响 1667 1783,The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-17 83), 一兵译, 北京 : 同心出版社,2012 年, 第 1 页 - 80 -
一性的 海洋霸权国必须是工业制造强国, 从事海洋事业的人口最多, 并会为争夺大海而不惜拼死一战 45 海权论 对人们重视海洋和海军建设起到重要的启蒙作用, 但由于其目的是为控制海洋霸权服务的, 因而其产生的负面影响不容忽视 1894 年日本发动甲午战争时的海军司令伊东祐亨, 在担任日本海军大学校长时, 十分推崇马汉的 海权论, 并亲自讲授, 使之扎根于日本海军 但是, 在第二次世界大战中, 令美国没有想到的是, 把马汉的 海权论 一书翻译为日文, 作为军事必修课的日本帝国海军, 却在偷袭珍珠港事件中对美国 以其人之道还至其人之身 这证明, 海洋国家之间也会爆发战争 日本军国主义为夺取在中国大陆的霸权而先发制人, 发动了太平洋战争 又如, 俄罗斯在历史上就有夺取出海口向海洋扩张的倾向 战后 70 年来, 拥有世界超级海权的只有美国 马汉的 海权论 美国的实力地位和面向两洋的特殊地缘战略位置, 使其有一种非我莫属的海上领导意识 在欧洲, 美国通过北约东扩大大压缩了俄罗斯的地缘战略空间, 限制了俄在黑海 地中海的行动自由 2010 年, 中国超过日本成为仅次于美国的世界第二经济大国, 加之中国建设海洋强国目标的提出, 美国开始把中国作为未来的最大挑战者 于是,2010 年 2 月, 时任美国国务卿希拉里 克林顿提出 重返亚洲 ;2011 年 9 月, 奥巴马总统宣称, 美国将把更多的军事力量部署在亚洲, 推行所谓 亚太再平衡 战略 从此, 美国高调介入东海 南海事务, 利用中国与日本 越南 菲律宾等国的岛礁及领海争议, 强化美军在东亚的军事基地, 加强同日本 澳大利亚 印度等国的军事合作, 计划在 2020 年之前把最先进的武器装备和 60% 的海上军力部署在亚太地区, 力图主宰未来的东海 南海局势, 并加强对马六甲海峡与印度洋的控制 中国推进共建 一带一路 构想, 似乎无意中又触动了美国的地缘战略神经 因此, 中国要使美国明了, 尽管中国的海洋权益意识在逐步增强, 积极推进共建 21 世纪 海上丝绸之路, 但绝不意味着中国将遵循美国传统的 海权论 去建立中国的海上霸权 包括海军在内的中美军事合作, 有利于双方减少安全成本 提高安全实效的可持续安全 毕竟时代不同了, 殖民主义时代通过一国建立强大海军控制良港 主宰海上通道的做法已过时 而且, 美国的 海权论 本身并不具备普适性 因为如果每个大国都按照 海权论 行事, 必将引起无穷尽的海上争霸战, 将永无宁日 摩根索认识到, 一些国家发展为 特别品牌的军国主义, 是由于受到马汉等人影响而过分强调海军数量和质量对于国家权力的重要性 46 中国倡导共建 21 世纪 海上丝绸之路, 不需要 也不可能通过中国建立包揽天下的大海军, 取代美国确保海上安全 美国海上军事力量对中国来说具有两面性 : 一方面在一定条件下将构成威胁 ; 另一方面在打击海盗等维护海洋共同安全利益方面, 存在中美合作的可能性 ( 二 ) 麦金德的 陆权论 不能照搬英国地理学家 牛津大学牛津地理学院首任院长哈尔富特 麦金德 (Mackinder Sir Halford John,1861~1947)1904 年提出所谓 陆权论 麦金德认为: 谁统治东欧, 谁就能主宰心脏地带 ; 谁统治心脏地带, 谁就能主宰世界岛 ; 谁能统治世界岛, 谁就能主宰全世界 47 同一时期的德国地理学者弗里德利希 拉采尔 (Ratzel Friedrich,1844~1904) 提出 国家有机体论, 称侵占别国领土是国家 内部生长力的反映, 强大国家为了生存必须要有足够的空间 48 纳粹德国的地缘政治理论家卡尔 豪斯霍夫 (karl haushofer, 1869~1946 ), 利用麦金德的 陆权 45 [ 美 ] 马汉 : 制海权 (Mastery of The Sea), 李剑 王永成编译, 北京 : 海潮出版社,2014 年, 第 44 45 页 46 汉斯 摩根索 : 国家间政治权力斗争与和平, 第 199 页 47 麦金德 : 历史的地理枢纽, 林尔蔚 陈江译, 北京 : 商务印书馆,1985 年, 第 13 页 48 普雷斯顿 詹姆斯 : 地理学思想史, 李旭旦译, 北京 : 商务印书馆,1982 年, 第 210 页 - 81 -
论 及拉采尔的 国家有机体论, 于 1937 年提出所谓 生存空间论, 鼓吹德国生存空间太小, 必须向 欧洲大陆和太平洋的 巨大空间 扩张 这被当作德国的国家欲望服务的意识形态工具 49 1943 年, 麦金德在第二次世界大战中修改了自己的观点 他指出 : 心脏地带的重要性已经不 及边缘地带, 而英国 俄罗斯以及美国之前形成的陆权 海权合作将控制欧洲沿海地带, 并进一步掌 握全球关键的权力关系 50 就目前形势而论, 我们可以足够准确地说, 苏联的领土就相当于心脏地 带 他还提出了 : 边缘地带的重要性是压倒一切的, 英国 俄罗斯 美国非常有必要联合起来防止 德国势力在这一地区崛起 51 这一 海陆战争合作论, 反映了当时美英苏反法西斯联盟的政策 二战后, 麦金德的 陆权论 则被美国与苏联争霸欧洲所利用 美国的政策制定者未必提到麦金德, 但他们的主要目标之一是防止一个敌对的国家控制欧亚大陆 20 世纪 70 年代, 美国总统尼克松的 对外政策表现得尤其突出 例如, 加强同中国的联系, 从而避免欧亚大陆出现两个最大的陆上强国 和解 欧洲成为美苏争霸的战略重点 防止任何敌对的国家或国家集团控制欧亚大陆, 一直被美国 视为最重要的地缘安全利益 然而, 美国面临的悖论是 : 美国主宰欧亚大陆的企图反而可能给自己 制造潜在敌手 冷战后, 美国继续采用麦金德式的地缘战略观念, 在东欧 中亚等地扩展势力范围, 必然会与俄罗斯发生地缘战略利益冲突 中国高度重视构建中美新兴大国关系, 巩固和发展同俄罗斯的战略协作伙伴关系 中国对外战 略是结伴而不结盟, 不针对第三国 不与任何一方争夺欧亚大陆的霸权 麦金德的 陆权论 不仅无 助于中国倡导共建 丝绸之路经济带, 反而会带来一些国家的疑惑, 不利于 一带一路 愿景的实现 ( 三 ) 斯皮克曼的 边缘地带论 不可沿用 现实主义国际政治学者 美国耶鲁大学国际关系与国际研究学院创始人尼古拉斯 斯皮克曼 ( Ni chlas John spykman,1893~1943), 继麦金德之后提出了 边缘地带论 他指出 : 陆上强权与 海上强权之间不是天然的敌对双方 这是因为, 当时美英海上强权正与陆上强权苏联结成反法西斯 联盟, 海陆对抗论 不符合历史事实与当时美国对外战略需要 斯皮克曼 边缘地带论 的核心观点 是 : 谁支配着边缘地带, 谁就控制欧亚大陆 ; 谁支配着欧亚大陆, 谁就掌握世界的命运 52 他指 出, 美国两次卷入世界大战, 都是因为其欧亚大陆边缘地带将有可能被一个单一强权所统治, 从而 对我们的安全构成了威胁 53 他当时强调, 如果不征服日本, 那么战争结束后它将有可能全权控制 亚洲边缘地带 斯皮克曼认为, 美国 无论在战争时期还是和平时期, 它的主要政治目标都是避免旧大陆的各 权力中心被一个与它有利益冲突的联盟统一起来 54 ; 为了自身的利益, 美国不能允许欧洲和远东出 现一个就具有压倒性优势的强权 55 值得注意的是, 斯皮克曼所说的 欧亚大陆边缘地带, 与 一带 一路 所及地理范围基本一致 斯皮克曼的 边缘地带论, 最初对于美英苏中联合战胜德意日法西斯具有一定积极意义 但其 遗著于二战即将结束的 1944 年出版, 则为战后美国与苏联争夺欧亚大陆边缘地带的遏制战略提供了 重要的地缘政治理论依据 根据 边缘地带 地缘战略逻辑, 二战后美国一直把控制欧亚大陆边缘地 带作为重要的安全战略目标 从冷战时期的遏制战略到现在对东北亚到大中东的战略弧形地带的控 49 汉斯 摩根索 : 国家间政治权力斗争与和平, 北京 : 北京大学出版社, 第 197 页 50 麦金德 : 环形的世界与赢得和平, 外交季刊 1943 年 7 月, 转引自斯皮克曼 : 边缘地带理论, 刘爽喆译, 北京 : 石油工业出版社,2014 年版, 第 62 页 51 麦金德 : 环形的世界与赢得和平, 外交季刊,1943 年 7 月, 第 21 卷, 转引自刘雪莲 许琳 : 中国东北亚地缘战略研究, 吉林 : 吉林人民出版社,2006 年版, 第 21 页 ( 出版年只要一个 并请确认是否与注释 4 相同?) 52 斯皮克曼 : 和平地理学, 刘愈之译, 北京 : 商务印书馆,1965 年, 第 78 页 53 斯皮克曼 : 和平地理学, 第 78 页 54 斯皮克曼 : 边缘地带理论, 刘爽喆译, 北京 : 石油工业出版社,2014 年, 第 65 页 55 斯皮克曼 : 边缘地带理论, 第 76 页 - 82 -
制, 都与这一地缘战略思维有关 欧亚大陆边缘地带战略地位十分重要, 历来是各大力量争夺的对象 这里遍布石油资源 海上要冲 地区热点, 民族宗教冲突频发, 经常处于动荡之中 21 世纪以来, 这一弧形地带再度成为世界各大力量竞相角逐的舞台 2001 年 9 月, 布什政府公布了 9 11 事件之后的第一个 四年防务评估报告 该报告指出 : 从日本海到澳大利亚直至孟加拉湾是一条 东亚沿海弧形地带, 中东 西南亚是 关键地区, 防止这一地区落入敌国之手是美国重要的国家利益 2002 年美国国防报告又强调, 从东北亚到中东是一条 不稳定的弧形地带, 该地区恐怖组织网落密布 ; 北朝鲜 伊朗 伊拉克开发大规模杀伤性武器 ; 今后有可能出现拥有丰富资源基础的军事竞争对手 美国借反恐在欧亚大陆边缘地带发动阿富汗战争 伊拉克战争, 直插欧亚大陆腹地 ; 驻军南亚, 挤进中亚和外高加索 ; 借反恐重返菲律宾等东南亚国家 ; 加强对马六甲海峡的联合巡逻与控制 这种观点一直影响着美国的全球战略和日本的对华战略, 奥巴马政府也不例外 二传统地缘政治思想对日本国家战略的影响 日本历来十分重视地缘政治利益, 并把它与日本国家安全战略密切结合 然而, 有利于和平发 展 合作共赢的地缘战略思想, 目前在日本并未形成主流 相反, 西方和日本传统的地缘政治思想 相互作用, 似乎仍在左右着日本的高层战略决策 ( 一 ) 日本传统地缘政治思想必然导致对外扩张并可能改头换面重新抬头 日本传统的地缘政治思想曾经是日本侵略亚洲邻国的主要思想源流之一 例如, 早在明治维新 前, 继承了丰臣秀吉对外侵略扩张思想的佐藤信渊 (1769~1850), 便曾在 1823 年 宇内混同密策 一文中提出 : 皇国欲开拓他邦, 必先吞并支那国 ; 支那划归吾版图, 余等西域 暹罗 印度等国 则将逐慕吾之德, 惧吾之威, 不得不叩首匍匐, 跪地称臣 ; 以此神州之武威, 征服蠢儿夷蛮, 混同 世界, 统一万国, 何难之有哉? 56 其战略路线图是占领朝鲜 再占领中国的 满洲, 然后从中国东 北突破山海关, 占领全中国 其后, 无论是日本历史上固有的地缘政治思想, 还是吸收的西方传统地缘政治学说, 对日本决 策产生的影响总体上都是消极的 从甲午战争之前福泽谕吉提出的 脱亚论 山县有朋设定的 利益 线, 再到 1927 年田中义一内阁提出的 大陆政策 1940 年时任日本外相松岗洋右鼓吹 满蒙是日本 的生命线, 建立 大东亚共荣圈 等, 概莫能外 日本学者认为, 日本的地缘政治学研究, 始于 1933 年阿部市五郎撰写的 地政治学入门 该书也受到拉采尔的 国家有机体论 影响 57 战后 70 年来, 日本自由派的国际政治学者一直在认真地研究区域经济合作和经济一体化进程 近年来, 他们结合欧盟的形成和发展, 从国际政治经济学的角度提出建立 东亚共同体 的主张 然 而, 日本受到美欧传统地缘政治思想的影响根深蒂固 这些进步学者的主张目前未能形成主流 日 本首相鸠山由纪夫主张在中日韩合作基础上建立 东亚共同体 的短暂尝试, 也在日本国内传统地缘 政治思想和美国的巨大压力下而遭受重挫 正如日本学者羽场久美子所指出的 : 敲打鸠山政权的 东 亚共同体 及露骨地敲打鸠山本人, 就是警告只要脱离美国的亚洲外交战略, 日本无论谁执政都呆不 长 58 代之而来的是 安倍 麻生路线 安倍内阁从地缘战略出发 脱亚入美, 选择了参与美国主 导的跨太平洋伙伴关系协议 (TPP) 谈判, 而抛弃了鸠山内阁提出的 东亚共同体 构想 更加危险的 56 佐藤信渊 宇内混同秘策 日本の思想大系 45 佐藤信渊, 岩波書房 1982 年 426 頁 57 蒲野起央 地政学と国際戦略 東京 三和書籍,2006 年,108 頁 58 山本吉宣 羽場久美子 押村高 国際政治から考える東アジア共同体 東京 :minerva 書房,2012 年 5 頁 - 83 -
是, 安倍内阁 2014 年决定以灵活解释宪法的方式解禁 集体自卫权 ;2015 年又在国会审议修改相关法案 安倍内阁关于行使 集体自卫权 的对象, 包括 与日本关系密切的国家, 并企图通过修改宪法, 再度以所谓 保卫日本国民的生命和自由 作为在海外使用武力的口实 其实, 早在 1890 年日本首相山县有朋在施政演说中就曾宣称 : 要维护一国独立, 仅仅守卫主权线是不够的, 非保护利益线不可 ; 何为利益线? 与我主权线之安危有密切关系之区域也 59 朝鲜半岛 中国台湾等, 都被视为日本的 利益线 由此可见,2014 年安倍内阁的所作所为, 与当年的山县有朋内阁确有相似之处 发展下去, 日本有再度以 自卫 为借口使军事行动 正当化 的可能性 ( 二 ) 日本推崇 陆权论 必然结盟纳粹德国侵略中国并发动太平洋战争 陆权论 创始人麦金德认为, 海洋国家与陆地国家的地缘战略利益不同, 人类历史主要是陆上势力与海上势力的斗争史 这些发端于欧美的地缘争霸理论, 一经传播到日本, 便会在产生十分危险的地缘战略思想, 成为 20 世纪日本对外侵略扩张的地缘战略理论 不过, 与麦金德相比, 在历史上对日本影响最大的是纳粹德国的地缘政治研究所所长豪斯霍夫 他与当年日本统治集团关系密切, 为促成德日结盟并发动第二次世界大战提供了地缘政治理论 豪斯霍夫是 日本通, 在第一次世界大战前的 1908 年至 1910 年曾任德国驻日武官 这一时期, 时任日本外相小村寿太郎认为, 作为日俄战争的结果, 日本的地位为之一变, 成为拥有欧亚大陆土地的大陆国家 60 豪斯霍夫认为, 这意味着日本宣布了向大陆拓展 生存空间 的国家战略 1913 年, 豪斯霍夫发表了博士论文 大日本,1919 年发表论文 日本帝国的地理发展,1921 年发表 日本于日本人 等, 鼓励日本继续扩大所谓 生存空间 他提出, 日本是个具有地缘政治本能的典型国家 ; 日本人意识到时刻存在着威胁日本民族生存的因素 ; 日本人具有强烈的空间意识或帝国成长的地缘政治认识 他提出日本统治下的 泛亚洲地区, 与后来日本的 大东亚共荣圈 基本一致 61 他主张德国统治欧亚大陆心脏地带, 德日结盟, 支持日本实施南进政策, 挑战英美对海洋的主宰地位, 最终确立德日共同主宰的世界新秩序 这些主张无疑对 1941 年日本发动太平洋洋战争产生了重大影响 二战期间, 豪斯霍夫曾与日本高层政客 军人 学者联系密切, 回国后保持了与历任日本驻纳粹德国大使及武官的频繁接触 豪斯霍夫的论著大多涉及日本, 并被翻译为日文版, 在日本风靡一时 1924 年豪斯霍夫的 太平洋地缘政治学 一书出版后, 日本驻德国大使大岛浩曾亲自促成日文版的翻译出版 62 豪斯霍夫还通过与近卫文麿首相 松冈洋右外相的智囊等密切交往, 对日本战略决策施加了重要影响 松冈洋右推进与纳粹德国结盟, 提出建立 大东亚共荣圈 等, 实际上都采纳了豪斯霍夫的地缘战略主张 日本早在 1904 年通过与英国结盟取得日俄战争胜利后, 曾企图针对英国建立日德军事联盟 191 1 年春, 时任日本首相桂太郎曾与到访的孙中山密谈称 : 日本战胜俄国后 在太平洋上, 日英两国, 完全立于敌对地位 此后日本惟一之生路, 惟有极力遮断英俄联盟, 而且尽力联德, 以日德同盟继日英同盟之后, 以对英作战, 继对俄作战之后, 必须打到英国的霸权 63 这一战略设想因桂太郎去世而未能如期实现, 但在第二次世界大战中则得到充分体现 59 大山梓編 山縣有朋意見書, 東京 : 原書房,1966 年版 203 頁 ( 还原日文 ) 60 信夫淳平 : 小村寿太郎, 东京 : 新潮社,1942 年, 转引自蒲野起央 : 地政学と国際戦略国际战略, 東京 : 三和書籍,2006 年,95 頁 张艳云 : 豪斯霍费尔对日本传统地缘政治学的影响, 载 德国研究 2010 年第 3 期, 第 49-50 页 61 蒲野起央 : 地政学と国際戦略国际战略, 東京 : 三和書籍,2006 年,99-100 頁 62 张艳云 : 豪斯霍费尔对日本传统地缘政治学的影响, 载 德国研究 2010 年第 3 期, 第 52 页 63 戴季陶著 : 日本论 ( 原著 1928 年出版 ), 北京, 九州出版社,2005 年版, 第 101~103 页 - 84 -
( 三 ) 日本沿袭 海权论 必然结盟海洋国家钳制中国马汉提出, 为防止俄罗斯向海上扩张威胁西方的海上贸易通道, 海洋国家美国和英国可以结盟, 从欧亚两翼及欧亚大陆边缘地带对俄形成遏制 二战后初期, 日本首相吉田茂提出 轻武装 优先发展经济 坚持日美同盟 的所谓 吉田茂主义 截至 20 世纪 80 年代初, 这条吉田路线一直是日本政府的主流政策 吉田茂主义 地缘政治思想是, 加入海洋国家诸岛的布雷顿森林体制, 享受自由贸易, 夯实经济发展的基础 64 战后日本保守主义政治主流派的基本理念, 就是要彻底摆脱二战期间纳粹德国地缘政治思想的影响, 与海洋超级大国美国结盟 与此同时, 在美国冷战政策影响下, 对大陆国家苏联 中国等进行遏制 20 世纪 80 年代日本成为经济大国后, 吉田茂主义 遭到否定 日本一些人大谈日本作为 海洋国家 ( 海权国家 ), 必然与中国 俄罗斯等大陆国家发生对抗 他们错误地总结历史教训, 认为海洋国家依靠海上贸易通道, 有共同的利益, 受到大陆国家的威胁, 日本的成功在于同海洋国家结盟, 而失败在于和陆地国家结盟 例如, 与英国 美国结盟时, 日本或取得日俄战争胜利, 或赢得冷战, 而同德国结盟或向大陆扩张, 则归于失败 其结论是, 日本今后只能跟着美国走 甚至连日本前首相中曾根康弘也认为, 可以依照各国对伊拉克战争的不同态度, 把现在国际政治结构分为海洋国家和大陆国家两个对立的系统, 这种对立是由历史和传统的国家战略的差异造成的, 特别是由于战略视野的不同而产生的 65 这种观点等于从地缘战略的角度, 把世界格局划分为海陆两极 从中得出日本作为海洋国家与美国 英国结为联盟, 并与中国 俄罗斯 法国 德国等欧亚大陆国家对垒的必然性 这种 海陆对抗论 也是日本当局结盟美国 澳大利亚等海洋国家共同对抗中国的所谓地缘战略 依据 如果日本一直囿于 海陆对抗论, 在亚洲区域合作中将很难发挥积极作用 其实, 无论与谁结盟, 日本失败的根本原因在于对外侵略扩张, 即便在对外战争中能勉强获得一时的胜利, 但终将以彻底失败而告终, 而战后的成功则是由于走和平发展之路 然而, 如何理解和处理海洋国家同大陆国家的关系, 对日本来说迄今仍是一个尚未处理好的战略问题 日本有人主张建立 海洋联邦 遏制中国 他首先对中国海陆兼备的地理特点加以歪曲, 宣扬中国分为 大陆中国 和 海洋中国, 甚至称台湾正在成为 一个独立的台湾, 但只有在网络里的相互依存中才能独立 21 世纪, 日本的目标应该是, 在促使 海洋亚洲 和西太平洋小国组成的松散的海洋联邦, 从而在牵制大陆中国的同时, 成为太平洋统一体的领导者 66 也就是通过建立东亚海上联盟, 支持 台独, 分化 弱化中国, 以建立日本在亚洲的霸权 日本还有人提出, 日本作为海洋国家, 应在结盟美国的基础上, 推行包括中东 中亚在内的所谓 大亚洲 战略, 在更大范围调动国际力量牵制中国 他主张日本 最好的战略应该是 :(1) 继续维持亚洲大陆内部的 实力均衡 ;(2) 绝不能深入大陆腹地 ;(3) 维持海上交通线, 靠自由贸易保持繁荣 而要实施这些措施, 最为奏效的手段就是寻求拥有共同战略利益的海洋国家同盟和军事同盟 67 日本应 建立包括中东和中亚的 大亚洲 概念, 在这个概念内考虑维持 实力均衡, 构筑崭新的对华外交才是当前最为妥当和紧迫的任务 这种地缘战略说很可能对国家战略造成误导 如果把海洋国家日本和大陆国家中国视为势不两立的竞争对手, 随着中国影响范围的扩大, 日本必然会在 64 蒲野起央 : 地政学と国際戦略国际战略, 東京 : 三和書籍,2006 年,117 頁 ( 还原日文 ) 65 中曾根康弘 樱井良子 : 海洋国家 日本的大战略, Voice 2003 年 6 月号 转引自北京国际问题研究会 亚洲区域合作路线图, 北京 : 时事出版社,2006 年版, 第 256 页 66 川胜平太郎 : 以 海洋联邦 对抗不断膨胀的中国, 追求 2005 年 7 月 29 日 转引自北京国际问题研究会 亚洲区域合作路线图, 北京 : 时事出版社,2006 年版, 第 254 页 67 宫家邦彦 : 海洋国家应有的大陆战略 改变日中建交以来的对华外交, 中央公论 月刊 1 月号 转引自北京国际问题研究会 亚洲区域合作路线图, 北京 : 时事出版社,2006 年版, 第 255 页 ( 还原日文 ) - 85 -
亚洲乃至世界扩大制约中国的战略 这将是一条严重破坏中日关系的反华地缘战略歧途 2007 年 12 月, 以樱井良子为理事长的 国家基本问题研究所 一成立, 就派团出访印度, 与印度的 世界问题评议会 (ICWA) 共同主办了研讨会 2011 年组织了跨党派国会议员代表团访印 201 2 年又举行了 日本与印度结合在一起的民主主义对中国 战略联手 建议研讨会 68 樱井良子强调, 欧亚大陆 所有摩擦的原因都是由于中国力量的增大和其价值观的异质性 她称, 日本与印度生活在 历史性价值观斗争的时代, 日印拥有自由 民主 人权 法制等共同价值观, 并有可能形成 共有的历史观, 具有开展 价值观外交 的巨大潜力 69 这完全是执行安倍 麻生的 指令 在会议期间, 日本前驻印度大使平林博表示, 中国与巴基斯坦合作, 建立瓜达尔港, 并与缅甸 孟加拉 斯里兰卡合作建港口, 进入印度洋, 是印度非常担心的 ; 在钓鱼岛和东海则令日本担心 ; 在南海对东南亚国家采取 军事威吓行动 所以, 从东海经南海到印度洋, 再到苏伊士运河和波斯湾, 确保海上通道, 对日本 印度及东南亚国家来说, 具有生死攸关的重要性 因此, 平林博主张从全球地缘战略角度促进日印合作 印度前驻日本大使阿尔逊 阿斯拉尼表示, 期待日本在亚洲 阻止中国的霸权主义倾向 ; 修改宪法第九条, 拥有国防军 ; 加强日美同盟 ; 在国际舞台和地区问题上占据无愧日本的地位 ; 与对中国有同样担忧的印度 澳大利亚 印度尼西亚 越南等国建立相互信赖的友好关系 70 这些主张与安倍晋三的相关政策几乎完全一致, 但未必能如愿以偿地得以全面实现 ( 四 ) 日本接受 边缘地带论 必然构建针对中国的 自由与繁荣之弧 西方传统地缘政治思想对战后出生的日本政治家影响较大 2010 年 6 月, 时任日本民主党政府 防卫大臣政务官长岛昭久在演讲中称 : 美国的地缘政治学者斯皮克曼所著 世界政治中的美国战略 是座右铭 如果欧亚大陆出现有巨大影响力的国家, 支撑我们繁荣的海上通道, 即我们的海上安全 就会受到威胁 在 70 年前斯皮克曼便告诫美国国务院里的亲华派 : 加强现代化军事力量的中国将在 亚洲的地中海 ( 南中国海 ) 对西方各国构成威胁 ; 拥有空中作战能力的中国, 与其大陆国家的相重 合, 将控制亚洲的地中海 ; 美国外交只能是与欧亚大陆边缘地带的国家共同遏制欧亚大陆中心地 带的势力向为扩大 71 这些判断都会直接或间接影响日本的对外战略及对华政策走向 实际上, 小泉纯一郎内阁 2001 年便曾借口配合美国的反恐战争, 在战后首次把陆上自卫队派驻 海外, 并开始加强同澳大利亚 印度及部分东盟国家的军事交往与合作 2006 年安倍晋三执政前便 提出建立 日美澳印四国联盟 战略构想 同年末, 安倍内阁外相麻生太郎提出, 日本要从东北亚 东南亚 南亚 中东 中东欧到波罗的海各国, 形成以普遍价值为基础的 自由与繁荣之弧 72 围绕 欧亚大陆边缘地带, 日本要与拥有共同价值观及战略利益的盟国 美国 拥有共同价值观的澳大 利亚 印度 八国集团 欧盟 北约的密切合作 73 其实质是安倍 麻生针对中国谋划的地缘制衡 战略 很明显, 在当前的 一带一路 及亚投行问题上, 安倍内阁是把认定的地缘战略利益 意识形态 因素置于经贸 金融合作利益之上 据此, 就不难理解安倍内阁副首相 财务大臣麻生太郎拒绝加 入亚投行的真正原因了 不仅如此, 安倍首相还宣布, 未来五年, 日本将向亚洲开发银行投入 1100 68 樱井良子编 日本とインドいま結ばれる民主主義国家 東京 文芸春秋刊 2012 年,10 頁 69 樱井良子编 日本とインドいま結ばれる民主主義国家 東京 文芸春秋刊 2012 年,21 頁 70 樱井良子编 日本とインドいま結ばれる民主主義国家 東京 文芸春秋刊 2012 年 49 50 55 56 頁 71 中島昭久 インド洋は日本にとっての生命線 樱井良子编 日本とインドいま結ばれる民主主義国家 東京 文芸春秋刊 2012 年 272 273 頁 ( 还原日文 ) 72 麻生太郎外務大臣 2006 年 11 月 30 日政策スピーチ 自由と繁栄の弧 をつくる - 拡がる日本外交の地平 http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/enzetsu/18/easo_1130.html 73 平成 19 年 (2007 年 ) 版日本外交青書 安倍晋三 美しい国へ ( 迈向美丽的国家 ) 東京 文芸春秋社 2006 年 160 页 - 86 -
亿美元, 与中国发起成立的亚投行较量 今后, 日本很可能如影随形地在 一带一路 沿线国家, 同 中国在基础设施建设等项目合作方面展开竞争, 甚至排除是一种恶性竞争 其实, 自由与繁荣之 弧 与 一带一路 完全是背道而驰 目前, 安倍对中国似乎正采取当面假握手 背后真踢脚的做法 2015 年 4 月 27 日, 安倍首相访 美期间, 日美两国再度发表了新修订的 日美防卫合作指针, 首次提出美军支援日本保卫和夺回岛 礁的联合作战, 以及日美两国针对日本以外国家受到武力攻击时共同参与海上作战等 日美军事合 作将不设所谓 周边事态 的地域限制, 而是覆盖全球, 即从东海扩展到南海 印度洋及中东地区 这将导致未来日本直接参与 暴力多边主义, 在国际上配合美军, 协助所谓 关系密切国, 联合作 战 把从朝鲜半岛经东海 南海 马六甲海峡到印度洋及地中海的广阔区域, 即麻生提出的 自由与 繁荣之弧, 纳入日美军事控制之下 新 日美防卫合作指针 还针对中国在钓鱼岛等所谓 灰色领域, 实现日美两国从平时到战时 无缝衔接 的军事合作 日本安全保障问题专家认为, 这是日美同盟对干扰日本海上保安厅巡视活 动的发出的警告, 是一个划时代的修订 74 奥巴马总统 2015 年 4 月 28 日重申了在日本行政管辖下 的领土适用于 美日安全条约 第五条, 其中包括尖阁诸岛 ( 中国称钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿 ) 这是对 中国领土主权的再度严重干涉, 中国政府立即通过外交部发言人表明中方坚决反对的严正立场 日本政府这次修订防卫合作指针的目的之一是, 在钓鱼岛问题上把美国卷入其中 在日本的强 烈要求下, 这次 日美防卫合作指针 规定使用武力的具体事态明确包括 离岛防卫, 以日本为主, 以美国支援自卫队为辅进行作战分工 其中包括 使用打击力量, 也包括 离岛被非法占领 时的平 时 灰色领域 的警戒监视 联合训练及驱离行动 75 安倍访美后, 日本国会就要根据新的 日美防卫合作指针, 在国会通过修订 日本自卫队法 周边事态法 武力攻击时态法 联合国和平合作法 船舶检查法, 并新设立所谓 国际和平 支援法, 旨在为战争中的美国及多国部队提供后方支援, 行使所谓 集体自卫权 其实质是以 支 援和平 为名, 使日本直接参与 暴力多边主义 行动的 支援战争法 安倍的下一个最大政治目标, 就是在 2016 年 7 月日本参议院选举中获得压倒性胜利, 然后在任内实现修改 日本国宪法 这预示着 二战后 70 年日本这只东亚的 和平鸽, 似乎正在变成一只破壳而出的 雏鹰 日本右翼反华地政学者 筑波大学名誉教授中川八洋 (1945~) 还公然鼓吹 : 斯皮克曼的地缘 政治学是 21 世纪日本外交的不朽指南, 麦金德地缘政治学是 21 世纪日本国防生死攸关的海图 他认 为, 日本只是在两个陆地大国威胁下发抖的 近海小岛国家 日本海与东支那海是大规模军事力 量一瞬间就可横扫日本的 高速道路 从开始登陆时阻止北方和西方侵略的白蛮 ( 俄罗斯人 ) 和黄蛮 ( 支那人 ) 的可能性连万分之一都没有 因此, 中川主张 : 日本如果要对付这两个蛮族, 享有自由 独立好主权, 就决不能脱离麦金德地缘政治学和斯皮克曼地缘政治学的原理原则 76 根据这些地缘战略理论, 中川认为 : 台湾的命运与日本的安全是不可分割的纽带关系 ; 台湾 是 保卫冲绳的不沉航母, 台湾不独立冲绳无安全 他指出 : 阻止台湾被 赤色支那 吞并的唯一方 法是, 在台湾东北部部署强有力的军事力量 届时, 台湾才能仰仗背后不屈服与支那本土的军事力 量, 即使日本暂时不是台湾公开的同盟国, 也无需害怕中共的恫吓, 可以昂然地对北京展开外交 他主张 : 台湾防卫不能只在军事上交给美国, 在对美信任的基础上, 还要使日本外交的重心转向我 们日本必要时也要有出汗流血精神准备的高尚伦理之上 中川建议 : 日本把临近台湾的岛屿全部变为坚固的要塞, 平时最起码也要部署 500 辆以上中型 战车部队 ( 地面部队 5 万人规模 ), 此外至少还要部署两艘可搭载 24 架 VTOL 海上战机的航母 4 艘 74 神保謙 : グレーゾン での対応 画期的 朝日新闻 2015 年 4 月 24 日 75 今野忍 : 米軍への協力質量とも拡大 朝日新闻 2015 年 4 月 24 日 ( 还原日文 ) 76 中川八郎 地政学の理論, 東京 徳間書店 2009 年 3 4 頁 - 87 -
核动力潜艇以应对紧急事态 ; 冲绳全县应该继续作为美国在亚洲展开军力的主要基地 冲绳固定为 美军要塞, 就可保卫台湾, 保卫冲绳 中川还宣称: 日本不应疏忽的是, 中共面向东南亚铺设的高速公路网和高铁建设 因这些才为是中共大部队进攻越南 老挝 柬埔寨的地面兵站运 输线 77 这些思想似乎仍然停留在日本发动甲午战争之前, 日本当代一些人对中国台湾的野心昭然若揭, 值得警惕 如果说中川八洋只不过是一个右翼学者, 他的想法未必有代表性, 但日本自卫队高官的下述主张则不能不令人更为警惕 2012 年时任日本海上自卫队舰队司令的五味睦佳曾撰文宣称 : 对我国的海上防线来说, 台湾具有生死存亡的重要意义 ; 台湾就是我国的生命线, 台湾与日本就是一个命运共同体 他认为: 如果中国统一了台湾并把台湾作为潜艇基地, 那么潜艇一出海就可以进入深水区, 从而可以获得更大的行动自由 必将给日本好美国带来重大威胁 78 其实, 美国积极军事介入南海问题, 也是基于同样的地缘战略认知 其实, 早在新中国刚成立之初, 美国就推行过类似的对华遏制战略, 但最后以失败告终 为打开对华关系大门, 美国跳过日本对华进行 越顶外交 21 世纪的今天, 日本若开历史的倒车, 再挑头扛旗制约中国的和平崛起, 最终只能加深中日矛盾, 使日本重蹈美国的覆辙, 在国际上自我孤立 作为海陆兼备的大国, 中国对外贸易的 90% 经过海上通道 因而, 中国同样需要维持海上通道的安全与航行自由, 根本不存在与海洋国家对抗的必然性 针对日本以海洋国家自居的远交近攻 海陆对抗态势, 中国可以反其道而行之, 谋求 远交近和 海陆和合, 扶正祛邪, 同时要居安思危, 有备无患 如果认为, 只要中国向西部发展而不向太平洋方向挺近, 中美两国就可以相安无事, 那可能就过于乐观了 只要了解到上述传统地缘政治思想对美日两国对华政策的影响后, 或许就会意识到问题没有那么简单 三共建 一带一路 与地缘政治新概念 海陆和合论 当今时代, 已经不是靠武力或金钱就能决定一切的 理念 道义 正当性的认同等越来越重要 其实, 对于上述西方传统的地缘政治学理论, 在欧美学界已经出现反思, 以及与时俱进地跟上 21 世纪科学技术的发展 社会结构 国际关系样态的新变化 新因素 例如, 后现代主义地缘政治学 地缘政治经济学 等主张, 重视经济全球化 国际金融网络 互联网及全球性媒体 跨国公司与跨国风险 跨国犯罪等 79 这些对地缘政治的最新思考, 与现实主义的权力政治渐行渐远 因为某些非传统安全的因素, 在摩根索现实主义权力政治的思维框架内似乎是无解的 从这个意义上讲,21 世纪的地缘政治学的确需要重新建构 ( 一 ) 海陆和合论 是 一带一路 可持续安全的地缘政治理念 海陆和合论 与传统地缘战略理论不同, 具有普适性 互利性 包容性 开放性 进入 21 世纪, 世界处于不同社会制度并存 多种国家模式竞争的时代, 和平发展 合作共赢是时代的主要课题 世界各大力量之间既有矛盾又有共同利益, 既相互竞争又有合作需求, 既相互制约又要避免直接冲突 尽管冷战时期美苏地缘战略对抗的后遗症仍然存在, 但国际反恐不同程度地成为各大力量的共同需要, 非传统安全问题前所未有地受到国际社会的普遍关注 即便美国视中国为未来 最大挑战者, 但受到多种因素牵制, 不仅难以集中力量对付中国, 而且在反恐 防扩散 气候变化等领域 77 中川八郎 地政学の理論, 東京 徳間書店 2009 年 12 ー 13 頁 78 五味睦佳 中国の海洋拡張とわが国の海洋戦略 ( 三 ) 日本 軍事研究 月刊 2012 年第 4 期 79 詹姆斯 多尔蒂 小罗伯特 普法尔茨格拉夫 : 争论中的国际关系理论 ( 第五版中译本 ), 阎学通 陈寒溪等译, 北京 : 世界知识出版社,2003 年, 第 164~165 页 - 88 -
还需同中国合作 所谓强国必霸的 修昔底德陷阱, 在当今时代已不复存在 中国国家主席习近平指出, 中国既是陆地大国, 也是海洋大国, 拥有广泛的海洋战略利益 我们要着眼于中国特色社会主义事业发展全局, 统筹国内国际两个大局, 坚持陆海统筹, 坚持走依海富国 以海强国 人海和谐 合作共赢的发展道路, 通过和平 发展 合作 共赢方式, 扎实推进海洋强国建设 80 这是中国在国际上推进 海陆和合论 的国内政策基础和依据 海陆和合论 的实质是以和平方式管理和利用好国家间的地缘关系, 以促进本国 本地区和全球的持久和平 安全 发展与繁荣 它是 一带一路 参与国彻底摆脱彼此之间可能产生的地缘安全困境的新理念 中国倡导共建 一带一路, 既不是要争夺海上霸权, 也不是要建立陆上霸权, 而是要促进 海陆和合 互利共赢 海陆和合论 与 海权论 陆权论 的大国霸权理论不同, 国家不分大小 贫富 强弱, 以及地理位置, 都可以尝试奉行并从中获益 海陆和合论 所具有的这种普惠性价值, 决定了其普适性价值 伴随 一带一路 合作的深入发展, 所有参与其中的海洋国家与陆地国家的共同利益将不断增加 彼此交融, 谋求 海陆和合 必将成为不可逆转的时代新潮流 从一定意义上讲, 如果说共建 一带一路 中也有竞争, 那就是 交友之争 合作之赛 市场竞争 在这一进程中, 谁在国际上交友越多, 朋友圈 越大, 合作范围越广, 谁便越可能是最成功的国家 ; 谁能做到 海陆和合 陆陆和合 海海和合, 谁就能获得更多可持续发展的机遇与实现可持续安全的保障 那种放着合作共赢的正路不走, 而热衷于唯利是图, 单边获益, 控制别国, 唯我独尊的做法, 将越来越不受欢迎 ; 那种囿于传统地缘战略思维, 坚持 海陆对抗 政策, 则只能自我孤立, 被边缘化 ( 二 ) 共建 一带一路 是 海陆和合论 的具体实践首先, 一带一路 与传统的地缘战略观念完全不同, 它是中国进一步改革开放的必然选择 ; 是中国与相关国家双边关系与多边地区合作发展的必然结果 ; 是中国和平发展, 作为世界工厂 世界市场规模与能力的必然体现 ; 是中国与有关各国共同分享经济增长及合作共赢成果的必然过程 ; 也是中国与有关各国相互借鉴 增加认同 寻求经济可持续发展动力的必然结合 ( 中国部分适当压缩, 可以删吗?) 一带一路 横跨欧亚非三大洲 三大洋, 涉及 65 个国家 共 44 亿人口, 占世界人口的 63% 其中既有中国 印度这样海陆兼备的大国, 也有俄罗斯那样横贯欧亚的大陆国家 尼泊尔这样的内陆小国 韩国 沙特那样的半岛国家 印尼和菲律宾那样的海岛国家 埃及那样拥有苏伊士运河的海峡国家 英国和澳大利亚那样的海洋国家 它们分别地处欧亚大陆 从东海到地中海的沿岸国家, 以及所谓欧亚大陆边缘地带的所有国家 这些国家共建 一带一路 本身就是上述不同地理属性的国家之间的和平合作 这些国家通过政策沟通 设施联通 贸易畅通 资金融通 民心相通, 共同建设贯通欧亚非三大洲 太平洋 印度洋 大西洋三大洋的和平发展大厦 合作共赢大厦 开放包容大厦 共建 一带一路 是中国周边睦邻外交的延伸和发展 中国是陆海兼备的亚洲大国, 可以在 海陆和合 方面发挥桥梁作用 无论是对海洋国家还是对陆地国家, 中国都应一视同仁地与邻为善 以邻为伴 携邻共富 睦邻同安 ; 在外交姿态上, 以诚待 以利惠人 以理服人 以德和人 从根本上讲, 这是 21 世纪中国国家的总战略 和平发展战略所决定的 一带一路 沿线国家将发挥各自地缘经济优势, 开展平等互利的经济合作 ; 通过互联互通与彼此开放, 为对方的发展和彼此合作提供地缘便利条件 ; 不以社会制度 意识形态划线树敌结盟, 而以和平发展 合作共赢为目标, 互为伙伴 80 习近平在中共中央政治局第八次集体学习时强调进一步关心海洋认识海洋经略海洋推动海洋强国建设不断取得新成就, 人民日报 2103 年 7 月 31 日 - 89 -
为此, 中国政府提出以下共建原则 :(1) 坚持共商 共建 共享原则, 积极推进沿线国家发展战略的相互对接 (2) 恪守联合国宪章的宗旨和原则 遵守和平共处五项原则, 即尊重各国主权和领土完整 互不侵犯 互不干涉内政 和平共处 平等互利 (3) 坚持开放合作 一带一路 相关的国家基于但不限于古代丝绸之路的范围, 各国和国际 地区组织均可参与, 让共建成果惠及更广泛的区域 (4) 坚持和谐包容 倡导文明宽容, 尊重各国发展道路和模式的选择, 加强不同文明之间的对话, 求同存异 兼容并蓄 和平共处 共生共荣 (5) 坚持市场运作 遵循市场规律和国际通行规则, 充分发挥市场在资源配置中的决定性作用和各类企业的主体作用, 同时发挥好政府的作用 (6) 坚持互利共赢 兼顾各方利益和关切, 寻求利益契合点和合作最大公约数, 体现各方智慧和创意, 各施所长, 各尽所能, 把各方优势和潜力充分发挥出来 81 中国的上述构想得到有关国家积极响应 例如, 哈萨克斯坦总统纳扎尔巴耶夫在 2015 年 5 月 8 日同到访的习近平主席会谈时表示, 积极支持中方的 一带一路 倡议, 作为重要合作伙伴将做好丝绸之路经济带与哈萨克斯坦 光明之路 经济发展战略的对接, 加强哈中经贸 能源 科技合作 ( 三 ) 共建 一带一路 需要可持续安全战略作保障 一带一路 的安全不仅涉及中国国内安全, 也涉及沿线国家安全及中国海外安全利益 中国位于欧亚大陆东部 东亚中部, 上联东北亚, 下接东南亚, 西靠中亚 南亚, 东向太平洋 中国有 12 个陆地邻国 六个海上邻国和朝鲜 越南两个既陆地相连又隔海相望的国家 中国首先需要维护好同周边邻国的关系, 其次还要同非邻国的 一带一路 沿线 沿海参与国共同争取实现可持续安全 如果共建 一带一路 的国家都能以共同安全为方针 以综合安全为方略 以合作安全为方式, 在互联互通 合作共赢的同时谋求建立安全共同体, 到本世纪中叶就有可能形成世界最大的可持续安全地带 在共建 一带一路 的历史进程中, 各国共同制定和实施可持续安全战略是不可或缺的 可持续安全是指, 国家 地区乃至全球长期持续确保和平与安全的理想状态 可持续安全战略的制定包括传统安全和非传统安全两大领域 国内和国际两大方面, 是有关各国政策沟通的重要议题 可持续安全的宗旨是谋求低成本 高安全的可持续性, 避免安全状态受到威胁而中断 可持续安全就是要保持和平与安全状态的可持续性, 在传统安全领域长期保持世界和平, 在非传统安全通过自身努力与国际合作, 免受威胁 迄今的安全观不计成本, 没有从成本考虑安全的可持续性与科学性, 这需要引起各国政府的反思 可持续安全特点是具有跨国性 共同性, 既是某个国家的安全问题, 也可能关系到相关地区乃至国际社会的共同安全 实现可持续安全的途径是, 通过重视综合安全, 实践合作安全, 以和平多边主义谋求共同安全 没有共同安全就可能影响本国安全的的可持续性 可持续安全战略不针对任何特定国家而包容所有国家 仰仗绝对军事优势或军事集团谋求单方面绝对安全, 在传统安全领域将遇到安全困境, 在非传统安全领域则更难以实现 那种以维护本国安全之名 行危害别国安全之实的做法, 必将产生 安全异化 现象, 使本国陷入更不安全的境地 尽管 一带一路 某些参与国之间存在领土 领海及海洋权益之争, 但也有可能根据可持续安全观所倡导的共同安全 综合安全与合作安全思路, 予以妥善处理 ( 四 ) 海陆和合 地缘战略与有关各国的可持续安全相辅相成 一带一路 参与国国内社会政治是否稳定, 将直接关系到与之进行基础设施建设等领域合作的 81 中国国家发展改革委员会 外交部 商务部 : 推动共建丝绸之路经济带和 21 世纪海上丝绸之路的愿景与行动 文件, 人民日报 2015 年 3 月 29 日 - 90 -
别国劳务人员的生命财产安全 然而, 除了国际合作打击海盗, 应联合国邀参与联合反恐 维和行动, 以及在突发紧急事态的危难时刻, 本国军舰 军机前往救援撤侨人员以外, 任何国家都难以依靠本国军事力量保障 一带一路 大范围的境外本国公民与设施的安全 事实反复证明, 企图依靠一国绝对优势的军事实力 包揽天下, 主宰海陆安全的地缘战略, 是一种高成本 低安全的过时做法, 甚至还会加剧地区紧张局势 然而, 如果 一带一路 沿线沿岸国没有树立可持续安全观, 不仅难以确保本国长治久安, 还可能由于本国安全局势的恶化而损害参与本国建设的其他国家的安全利益 相反, 一带一路 沿线沿海国如果能够共商 共谋 共建可持续安全网络, 这一进程将有利于相关各国共同实现和保持国内安全与国际安全相辅相成的可持续安全状态 ( 中国的少提一些?) 海陆和合 是 一带一路 的必然选择 ; 一带一路 是 海陆和合 的具体实践 共建 一带一路 并不排斥美国和日本的封闭体系或势力范围, 而是开放体系 实际上, 一带一路 的振兴也将为美国 日本带来莫大的安全利益 经济利益和就业机会, 同时可以大大降低各自的安全成本, 避免可能付出的巨大安全代价 就中美关系而言, 一带一路 对中美建立新型大国关系有内在的需求 战后迄今美国在 一带一路 沿线沿岸国建立了许多军事基地, 美国海空力量控制着 21 世纪海上丝绸之路的海上通道与海洋要冲, 中美建立新兴大国关系有利于中美两国实现可持续安全 若中美对抗, 一带一路 就难得安宁, 两国面临的非传统安全方面的威胁也可能同时增大 ; 中美若能建立新兴大国关系, 美国的海外军事基地 军事存在不仅不会对 一带一路 构成威胁, 反而可能在客观上提供国际公共安全产品 这有利于实现中美关系与 一带一路 建设的良性循环 中日两国对海上航线的依赖是两国对海洋安全的需求逐步趋同 在打击亚丁湾海盗方面, 无论主观上是否合作, 客观上的共同安全收益是不容否认的 因此, 无论美国是否参与共建 一带一路, 中国合作大门对美国应该是敞开的 但是, 如果美国 日本误判形势, 曲解中方意图, 美日同中国的矛盾也可能波及 一带一路 沿线参与国, 到头来对任何一方都不利 ( 五 ) 海陆和合论 不是乌托邦而是实实在在的合作利益这是 一带一路 国家地缘经济关系决定的 相关各国山水相连或隔海相望, 既有海洋岛国, 如日本 印尼 菲律宾 ; 又有内陆国家, 如中亚国家 蒙古 ; 还有海陆兼备的国家, 如中国 朝鲜半岛 越南 泰国 印度等国 它们之间完全可以利用彼此相邻的地缘优势, 通过海运 空运和铁路及高速公路网相联接, 形成若干次区域经济圈彼此相通的亚洲广域经济圈 在深化农业 信息产业 人力资源开发 相互投资和湄公河流域开发合作的基础上, 可以开展交通 能源 文化 旅游和公共卫生等中国 东盟新的合作领域 在互联互通交通建设基础上, 还可建设信息高速公路 这是 一带一路 国家共同利益与互补性所决定的 相关各国既有中 日 韩等油气资源进口国, 也有中东 中亚 非洲 俄罗斯等诸多产油国 产气国, 可以通过海运和铺设管道运送能源, 建立比较稳定和互利的能源供求网络 维护海上石油通道的安全, 也是不分海陆的有关国家的共同任务与责任 历史上传统地缘战略鼓吹防止大陆国家控制海上通道而制服海洋国家的假说, 业已过时 因为陆地国家海外贸易 资源能源运输同样需要一个安全 自由 便利的海上航线, 海陆各国具有共同的海上安全利益需求 如果在 21 世纪还企图通过所谓海洋大国军事集团控制海上要道, 制约大国国家, 必定会威胁大陆国家的海上通道安全, 导致海陆对抗及海上不安全因素的上升, 最后可能是两败俱伤 双输 结果 过时的战略思维必然带来愚蠢的政策选择和损人害己的必然结果 这是 一带一路 避免 海陆对立 的 零和局 战略利益决定的 伴随殖民主义体系的瓦解, 海洋霸主很难再通过侵略内陆国家来建立殖民地统治 内陆国家 海陆兼备国家也难以通过损害邻国的方式谋求本国利益 只有和平 合作才对各方都有利, 而人为制造 威胁 与 对立, 到头来只能对本 - 91 -
国不利 谋求 海陆和合 海海和合 陆陆和合, 符合各国的根本利益 海洋安全不能靠 你赢我输 你主我从 的 零和局 地缘战略旧观念维护, 而需通过共享 共建 供维海上通道安全, 实现低成本的海洋可持续安全 这是 一带一路 沿线各国应对非传统安全威胁的共同需要决定的 如今, 国家安全已超出传统安全的概念, 许多非传统安全因素需要跨国合作才能得到解决 例如, 反恐 走私贩毒 跨国犯罪 生态环境 恶性传染病 重大自然灾害等, 无论是海洋国家还是大陆国家, 都难以单独应付, 依靠传统的结盟政策不仅无济于事, 反而可能由于推行 暴力多边主义 激起更强烈的 暴力极端主义 的反弹, 导致更为严重的安全危机 因此, 非传统安全合作与人道主义援助等, 需要更广泛的国际合作共同应对 通过 海陆和合 实践, 共建 一带一路, 将有利于实现所有参与国可持续发展与可持续安全相辅相成的良性循环 这些将为未来构建 新型中美日三边关系 创造必要的条件 - 92 -
지정학적사고방식과중미일관계에미치는영향 동아시아미래백년을결정할중대한문제에관한토론 류장용 중국칭화대학교당대국제관계연구원 초록 : 미국과일본의대중국정책은모두서양의전통적인지정학적사고방식과균형이론의영향을받았다. 구체적으로미국의 아태재균형전략 과남중국해, 동해에서의개입전략, 아베내각의 자유와번영의호 이념과미국과의새로운미일안보가이드라인의체결등역시중국을견제하기위한지정학적사고방식에서출발하고있다. 중국이현재추진하고있는 일대일로정책 또한미국과일본의의심을받고있는데그본질역시지정학전략을배경으로하고있다. 사실 일대일로정책 은지정학사고방식에대한부정인동시에 해륙화합론 을기반으로하는지정학과지경학의조화를추구하는새로운개념이다. 따라서새로운중미일관계를수립하려면정책결정자들의사고방식에영향을주는지정학적개념부터수정해야할것이다. 현재강대국들의국제경합과정에서지정학적사고방식은아직도중요한역할을하고있다. 사실한국가의전략에결정적인역할을하는것은국가이익이아니라정책결정자가국가이익에대한인식, 중요성, 형세판단이라고보는것이더정확하다. 그런과정에서전략적이익에대한지정학적사고방식이가지는힘은무시할수없다. 중국대백과전서 ( 정치편 ) 은지정학을아래와같이해석하고있다. 지정학은정치지리학의이론이다. 지정학은지리적요인과정치구조의지리적형식에근거하여세계와지역의전략적형세또는특정국가의정치행위에대해서분석하고예측하는이론이다. 지정학은지리적요소를한국가의정치행위를결정하는기본적인원인으로보고있다. 국제관계이론이이러한사상을흡수함에따라지정학은한국가의정치결정에상당한영향력을미칠수있게되었다. 2차대전이끝난이후의 70년역사또한지정학의이념으로점철되어있다. 미소대립의냉전으로부터소련의붕괴, 냉전의종식으로부터현재나토의확장, 최근의우크라이나사태까지모두지정학의그림자가깊게드리워져있는것이다. 2015년 4월 26일, 푸틴러시아대통령은방송에출연하여아래와같은발언을하게된다. 나는소련의비밀경찰조직 KGB 에서 20년을근무했다. 공산당의몰락과함께나는모든것이변할줄알고있었다. 그러나사실은아무것도변하지않았다는것을알게되었다. 그것은이데올로기의대립또는와해는지정학과아무런관계가없기때문이다. 다른국가들은반드시이러한사실을인식해야한다. 러시아처럼거대한국가는반드시지정학적정치이익을가지고있다. 한국가에있어서지정학과지경학적이익은객관적으로존재하고있는부정할수없는사실이다. 그러나이러한사실을어떻게인식하고관리할것인가에대해서는국가마다또는시기별로다른판단을할것이다. 서구의전통적인지정학적학설은비록서로다른주장을하고있지만최종목적은모두전쟁에서승리하고세계패권을차지하는것이다. 사실이러한사상은모두지리학을기초로한전쟁이론이고패권정치의표현이다. 따라서지정학적사고방식은제로섬게임의형식으로진행될것이고결과는전쟁이라는비참한형태로나타날가능성이높다. 현재미국과일본은남중국해와동해문제에군사적개입을시도하고경제와금융분야에서중국이주도하고있는 일대일로정책 이나아시아인프라은행 (AIIB) 의출범을견제하고있다. 이러한현상배후에는모두전통적인지정학적사고방식이도사리고있는것이다. - 93 -
1. 서구의전통적지정학정치이론과영향 유럽인들의지정학에대한관심은고대그리스의아리스토텔레스까지거슬러올라갈수있다. 이런사상의기반은바로전통적인현실주의권력정치를전제로하고있다. 이런전통적인사고방식은투키디데스의 펠레폰네소스전쟁 에서잘나타나고있다. 아테네의부상하는권력이결국스파르타의공포심을불러일으켰고전쟁은불가피한것으로되었다, 강자는하고싶은것을하고약자는그것을받아들일수밖에없다 등강대국의논리는국제정치에서의 투키디데스함정 을초래하기도한다. 20세기현실주의국제관계이론의창시자모겐소는권력으로정의된국제정치의본질을밝혀냈으며 지정학은바로지리적인시각에서권력을추구하고세계를통제하는국제정치이론 이라고주장하였다. 비록모겐소이후의일부학자들은지정학을 과학의허울을쓴가짜과학 이라고비판하였지만그영향력은무시할수없다. 다양한지정학적이론은일부국가들의정책결정과정에중요한역할을하고있으며현재국제질서의형성에도여전히영향을미치고있다. 1) 마한의해권론미국의해군장교이자역사학자였던마한 (Alfred,Thayer Mahan,1840~1914) 은 1890년그의저서 역사에대한해상권력의영향 (The Influence of Sea Power Upon History) 을통해 해권론 의개념을제기했다. 마한에의하면해권의역사는바로국가간경쟁의역사이다. 서로대립하고있는국가들은더큰상업이익을위하여전쟁을일으키는것이고결국은바다를통치하는자가최후의승자가된다는것이다. 해권론 사상은그이후국가들의해양전략과해군의건설에계몽적인역할을하였다. 일본은 해권론 사상에서계발을받고해군을발전시켰으며결국갑오중일전쟁과러일전쟁을일으켰다. 일본이태평양전쟁에서미국을공격한다거나러시아의역대지도자들모두바다로향하는출해구를찾고있었다는사실에서도 해권론 의그림자를찾아볼수있다. 2차대전이끝난지 70년이지난현재유일하게해상패권을소유하고있는국가는바로미국이다. 미국의강대한국력과독특한지리적위치는마한의 해권론 이가장적합한국가이다. 미국은유럽에서나토의확장을통해러시아의전략적공간을축소하는데성공했다. 아시아에서미국의가장큰도전은바로중국의해양으로의진출을억제하는것이다. 2010년 2월, 힐러리국무장관은 아시아회귀전략 을선포하였고 2011년 9월오바마대통령은 아태재균형전략 을발표하기도했다. 미국이남중국해와동해에개입하는것은바로중국을견제하기위한목적이라고볼수있다. 그런과정에서일본, 베트남, 필리핀등국가들과중국의모순을충분히이용하여동아시아에서의주도적지위를확보해나가고있다. 미국은 2020년까지 60% ㅇ이상의해상군력을아시아태평양지역에배치할계획을가지고있다. 중국이현재추진하고있는 일대일로 정책역시무의식간에미국의지정학적신경을건드린것같다. 이런상황에서중국은적극적으로자신의전략에대해서설명할필요가있으며미국과의충돌을피하기위해서노력해야할것이다. 중국은자신이추구하고있는 21세기 해상실크로드 계획이결코미국의 해권론 에도전장을내미는것이아니라는것을보여줘야한다. 중미양국의해군교류등군사협력은상호간안보비용을절감하고안전한지역정세를조성하는데유리할것이다. 그러나현재는결코서구국가들이식민지를확장하고보유할수있는시대가결코아니다. 200년전강력한해군을이용하여바다와항로를점령하던시대는이미지나갔고 해권론 사상역시적용될수없는세상이되었다. 만약모든강대국들이아직도 해권론 을신봉하고행동한다면세계는다시강대국전쟁의소용돌이에빠지고말것이다. 모겐소역시 일부국가들이군국주의를추앙했던것은바로마한의 - 94 -
해권론사상에근거하여맹목적으로해군력을증가했기때문 이라고비판하고있다. 중국이주도하고있는 21세기해상실크로드 는강력한해군이필요하지도않고미국의해상패권에도전할의도도없다. 현재미국의해상패권은중국에두가지의미가있다. 중국의안보를위협하는수단이될수있는소극적인역할을하고있는동시에해상범죄를타격하고항로안전을유지하는등긍정적인역할도하고있다. 2) 맥킨더의 하트랜드 영국의지리학자맥킨더 (Mackinder Sir Halford John,1861~1947) 는 1904년에자신의지정학적이론인 하트랜드 를발표한다. 바로그유명한 누가동유럽의평원을점령하면바로심장지대를점령한것이고, 심장지대를점령한자가바로세계의섬을통치하게되고, 세계의섬의지배자는곧전세계를통치할것이다. 2차대전이후미소냉전은 하트랜드 의주장대로전개되었다. 미국은유라시아대륙에서자신의권력을위협할수있는적대국가가나타나는것을막기위해서동분서주하였다. 유럽국가들과연합하여소련의팽창을견제했으며심지어중국과손잡고소련의영향력을억제하기도했다. 중국과소련의반목역시미국의전략에는가장유리한상황으로다가왔다. 즉미국은유라시아대륙에서그어떤적대국가또는국가집단의출현을막았던것이다. 그러나미국의전략은오히려잠재적인적수를만들위험도존재한다. 특히냉전이후에도맥킨더의 하트랜드 에근거하여동유럽, 중앙아시아지역에서세력을확장하는것은러시아의의심과견제를받지않을수없다. 중국은미국과의신형대국관계를중시할뿐만아니라러시아와의전략적협력관계역시포기할수없다. 중국의대외전략은비동맹원칙을견지하고자신의전략이제3국에위협주거나유라시아대륙의패권을추구하지않는다고주장한다. 따라서맥킨더의 하트랜드 는현재중국이추진하고있는 실크로드경제지대 전략과 일대일로 전략에모두걸림돌이되고있다. 3) 스파이크먼의 림랜드 미국의현실주의국제정치학자스파이크먼은또다른중요한지정학적이론인 림랜드 를제기한다. 스파이크먼의핵심주장은바로 대륙의가장자리지역을차지하는자가유라시아대륙을점령할것이고또한세계의운명을결정한다 는것이다. 그논리에따르면미국이두차례의세계대전에참가한것도 대륙의가장자리지역이어떤세력에의해점령될위험때문이고이는우리의안보를위협하기때문 이었다. 스파이크먼의 림랜드 이론은미소연합군이독일, 이탈리아, 일본의파시스트연맹을전승하는데는적극적인역할을하였다. 그러나 1944년개정판은그후미국과소련이유라시아대륙의가장자리지역을쟁탈하기위한지정학적근거가되어버렸다. 미국은냉전기간 림랜드 이론에근거하여유라시아대륙의가장자리를점령하는것을안보전략의주요목표로했던것이다. 구체적으로동아시아로부터중동지역에이르는변두리지역이바로미국이관심을가졌던전략적요충지들이다. 이지역에는석유자원, 교통요충지, 민족종교갈등이집중되어있는곳이고강대국들이반드시점령해야할중요한지역으로부상했다. 2001년 9월, 부시대통령은 9.11 사태 이후의첫번째 QDR 를발표했다. 그핵심내용은바로 일본으로부터호주, 벵골만에이르는 동아시아의호 는중동, 서남아시아를아우를수있는핵심지역이다. 이지역이적대국의통제범위에들지방지하는것이바로미국국가이익에대한보호이다. 2002년미국국방백서에도 동아시아의호 에대한언급이등장하는데북한, 이란, 이라크의대량살상무기를미국안보에대한위협으로규정하고있다. 이런사고방식에근거하여미국은아프가니스탄과이라크에대한전쟁을발동하였고중앙아시아와코카서스 (Caucasus) 지역에대한통제를강화하고있다. 스파이크먼의이론은현재미국과일본의대중국정책에도영향을주고있는듯하다. - 95 -
2. 지정학적사고방식과일본의국가전략 일본은전통적으로지정학적사상을중요시했고국가안보와밀접하게연결했다. 그러나평화와공동발 전에유리한지정학적사상은아직일본에서자리를잡지못한것같다. 반대로서구의전통적인지정학적 사상이현재일본의국가전략을좌우지하고있는듯하다. 1) 일본의전통적지정학과대외확장일본의전통적인지정학사상은바로근대일본이대외확장을진행했던배경으로작용했다. 가장대표적인사례가바로도요도미히데요시의사상에영향을미쳤던사토 (Sato Shinen,1769-1850) 이다. 그의주장에의하면 만주를점령하려면먼저조선을점령해야하고만주를통제한이후다시중국대륙으로진출하는 것이다. 전후 70년이래일본국내의자유주의파학자들은지역경제공동체의연구에많은관심을보이고있다. 최근에는유럽공동체의경험에근거하여 동아시아공동체 의담론까지이끌어내고있다. 그러나일본의주류사회는서구의전통적인지정학사상의영향을떨쳐버리지못한관계로 동아시아공동체 같은주장은아직주류를형성하지못하고있다. 일본의전임총리히토야마유키오 ( 鸠山由纪夫 ) 도한중일협력을기반으로하는 동아시아공동체 라는개념을제기했지만국내의반발로성공하지못했던적이있다. 이를대체한것이바로 아베-아소노선 이다. 아베내각은지정학적사상에서출발하여다시 아시아를뛰어넘어미국으로 ( 脱亚入美 ) 의전략을채택하였고미국이주도하는 TPP 에가입할것을결정하였다. 가장위험한것은바로 2014년에결정한 집단자위권 에대한해제이다. 이법안에따르면일본이 집단자위권 을행사할수있는범위는 일본과밀접한관계를유지하고있는국가 를포함하고있다. 2) 하트랜드 이론과태평양전쟁맥킨더의이론에의하면대륙국가와해양국가의이익이다르기때문에인류역사의전쟁은항상두세력사이의대결로진행되었다. 이런사상이국내에전파된이후일본은위험한국가전략을구상하게된다. 이는또한 20세기일본의대외확장에이론적근거를제공하였다. 그러나 2차대전기간의일본에가장큰영향을준것은바로나치독일의지정학학자하우스호퍼 (K arl Haushoper) 이다. 그의이론은독일과일본의동맹결성에이론적근거를제공했고세계대전을발동하는지정학적배경이되었다. 하우스호퍼가주장했던 독일의발전을위해생존공산을확보 해야하는사상은일본의군국주의자들에게그대로받아들여졌고 동아시아공영권 사상의기초가되었다. 3) 마한의 해권론 과일본의해양강국마한은러시아의확장을견제하기위해서서방국가들은해상통로를봉쇄해야하며해양국가들은동맹을결성하여유라시아대륙의양측으로부터가장자리지역까지통제해야한다고주장했다. 2차대전초기에일본은시게루요시다의 경제를발전시키고미일동맹을유지하자 는논리를받아들였는데이러한사상은 20세기 80년대까지유지되었다. 요시다주의 의지정학사상은바로해양국가들이주축을이루고있는브레튼우즈체제에가입하고자유무역이가져다주는이익을공유하면서경제를발전시키는것이다. 전후일본보수주의정치세력의이념은바로나치독일의지정학사상의영향을떨쳐버리고해양대국미국과동맹을맺는것이었다. 20세기 80년대에들어서면서일본의경제적성공과더불어 요시다주의 가점차관심에서멀어지기시작했다. 반대파들은일본의역사에근거하여해양국가와동맹을맺으면성공할수있고대륙국가와의동 - 96 -
맹은실패를가져온다고주장하고있다. 영국과의동맹은성공을가져왔고독일과의동맹은실패를가져왔기때문에미래일본의전략역시해양국가를가까이하고대륙국가는견제하는전략을펼쳐야한다는주장이다. 그러나일본의전략이성공할수있는지의여부는결코어떤국가와동맹을맺는것이아니라대외확장이라는전략을취하는가의여부에달려있다. 만약일본이 해권론 의지정학사상을유지하면서동아시아지역에서확장의기회를엿보고있다면그결과는항상실패일것이다. 일본국내에는항상 해양연맹 을구축하여중국을견제하자는주장들이존재했다. 그러나이러한인식은중국도엄연한해양대국이라는사실을인식하지못한오류에서시작한다. 중국역시해상대국이고대외무역을통해국가이익을발전시킬필요가있기때문에일본과의협력역시가능하다. 항상 해권론 의적대적사고방식을가지고있으면중일협력을방해할뿐만아니라결국에는더많은적대국가를만드는셈이된다. 4) 림랜드 이론과 자유와번영의호 2001년고이즈미일본총리는미국의반테러전쟁의기회를빌어자위대를국외에파견할수있게되었다. 그이후 2006년에는미국, 호주, 인도등국가들과군사협력의가능성을주장하면서동아시아, 남아시아, 중동지역을포함할수있는 자유와번영의호 개념을제기했다. 이는자유주의의가치관에근거하여공통인식을가지고있는국가들끼리연합하여중국을견제한다는구상을배경으로하고있다. 중국은당연히일본의 가치동맹 에대해서강력한반대의견을보이고있다. 현재아베정권도지정학이론에근거하여이데올로기를내세우면서중국의 일대일로 정책에브레이크를걸고있다. 특히중국의아시아인프라투자은행의출범을맞아아베총리가아시아개발은행에 1100억달러를투자하겠다고밝힌것은중국에대한견제가분명하다. 이런추세라면중국이추진하고있는 일대일로 정책에서중국과일본이경쟁을벌이고심지어대립으로까지발전할위험도존재한다. 그런의미에서보면일본이주장하는 자유와번영의호 와중국의 일대일로 는완전히대립되는두가지전략이고볼수있다. 3. 중국의 해륙화합론 현재의세계는결코무력과금전을이용하여모든것을해결할수있는시대가아니다. 이념과도덕, 합법성등개념이이미국제정치에서더많은공감을얻고있다. 따라서서구의전통적인지정학사상역시현시대의발전에부합하지않는다. 경제의글로벌화와국제금융네트워크, 인터넷과세계언론, 다국적회사등새로운현상들은새로운지정학사상을필요하고있다. 중국이주장하고있는 해륙화합론 은바로이러한국제환경의변화와발전에부합한다. 21세기의다양한국제사회에대비해보편성, 호혜성, 포용성, 개방성을주장하고있는 해륙화합론 은국가들사이의충돌을감소하고윈-윈을이루는데유리하다. 그런배경에서중국은해양과대륙의발전을동시에추진할수있는 일대일로정책 을계획하고있다. 중국은해양과대륙을동시에가지고있는국가로써 해륙화합 의측면에서도공헌을할수있다. 조청봉 ( 고려대 ) 역 - 97 -
Conference Materials Session Ⅱ: Historical Reconciliation and Regional Cooperation in Northeast Asia Presenters Jianzhong Shu Professor Nanjing University Somei Kobayashi Professor Nihon University Innwon Park Professor Korea University Mooam Hyun Professor Hokkaido University - 98 -
Institution Building and Northeast Asian Cooperation Jianzhong Shu 制度构建与东北亚合作 舒建中 中国, 南京大学国际关系研究院 冷战结束后, 中韩日三国所处的东北亚地区风云变幻, 中韩日三国既有友好交往的精彩篇章, 也有乌云密布的阴暗时刻 从某种意义上讲, 中韩日三国关系的发展将决定东北亚甚至东亚合作的走向 正因为如此, 探讨中韩日关系成为学术界关注的热点问题, 在各自国内均引发了热烈的讨论 本文将探讨两个问题: 一是中韩日关系的制度构建与东北亚合作, 二是影响中韩日关系制度化建设的主要因素 藉此拙见, 以期就教于同仁 一 中韩日关系的制度构建 进入新世纪之后, 中韩日关系曾经取得了长足的发展 2003 年 10 月 7 日, 中韩日三国领导人在印度尼西亚巴厘岛出席东盟与中韩日 (10+3) 领导人会议期间, 共同签署了 中韩日推进三方合作联合宣言 三国领导人一致认为, 中韩日推进三方合作已经具备了坚实的基础, 拓展和深化三方合作不仅有利于进一步推动三国之间双边关系的稳定发展, 而且有利于实现整个东亚的和平 稳定和繁荣 这是中韩日三国领导人就加强彼此之间的合作发出的明确信号 2008 年 12 月, 中韩日三国领导人在日本福冈举行了第一次三国峰会, 发表了 中韩日三国伙伴关系联合声明, 正式决定建立三国合作伙伴关系 该联合声明表明, 中韩日关系的发展已经超越了双边关系, 是中韩日三国朝着建立更加紧密的三边关系 构建完整的东北亚区域合作制度迈出的重要一步 中韩日伙伴关系 的定位不仅能够推动三边关系进一步深化, 而且对于中韩日三国共同采取和平手段解决双边 地区及全球问题, 促进东北亚地区和平与发展具有深远的意义 2009 年 10 月 10 日, 中韩日三国领导人会议发表 中韩日合作十周年联合声明, 提出三国应在政治 经济 环境 全球问题等诸多领域展开更加积极而有效的合作 2010 年 5 月, 中韩日三国领导人第三次峰会在韩国济州岛举行, 会议发表了 - 99 -
2020 中韩日合作展望 文件, 就提升 中韩日伙伴关系 达成多项共识, 尤其强调了 中韩日伙伴关系 的制度建设问题, 同意于 2011 年在韩国建立中韩日三国合作秘书处, 探讨建立中韩日防务对话机制的可能性 至此, 中韩日伙伴关系 进一步深化, 合作领域已经由经济领域, 开始向安全等领域迈进 由此可见, 经过中韩日三方的共同努力, 中韩日三国初步建立起战略合作的基本框架 从长远来看, 中韩日伙伴关系 是一个逐步深化的过程, 而制度建设则是 中韩日伙伴关系 发展的核心问题 所谓国际制度, 是指有关国家为推动合作而确立的一系列具有约束力的原则 规范 规则和决策程序 ( 而决策程序的主要载体就是组织机构 ) 因此, 国际制度 ( 包括区域制度 ) 的建设不仅应包含普遍性的原则和规范, 更应具有规定具体责任义务的规则和决策程序, 以及与之配套的组织机构 国际制度对于国际合作的意义就在于 : 国际制度可以通过规则和决策程序增强合作的预期, 通过制度约束加强合作关系的稳定性, 减轻违约风险 中韩日伙伴关系 的建设虽然取得了积极进展, 但这种合作主要以联合宣言或者声明的方式体现出来, 具有很强的原则性, 缺乏具有约束力的具体规则和决策程序, 尤其是缺乏组织载体 2010 年的中韩日济州岛峰会本已商定建立三国合作秘书处, 但由于美国亚太再平衡战略的影响以及中日钓鱼岛争端的升级, 中韩日伙伴关系 的制度建设进程被迫中断 这样的现状也恰恰说明了 中韩日伙伴关系 制度建设的重要性 如果有了明确的制度约束和稳定的决策与协商机制, 中韩日伙伴关系 抵御外部干扰和风险的能力将大为提升, 中韩日伙伴关系 的稳定性也将大大增强 正是从这个意义上讲, 制度缺失是影响中韩日关系发展的一个重要因素 根据欧洲一体化的经验, 中韩日三国制度建设的路径可以采取循序渐进的方式, 先在经济领域建立合作机制, 尤其是在贸易 金融 环境 基础设施等特定领域寻求率先突破, 通过签订具有约束力的三边协定, 明确规定三国在这些领域的合作原则 规则和协商决策程序, 建立相应的组织机构, 以此为 中韩日伙伴关系 中的经济合作与发展奠定具有约束力的制度基础, 同时以经济领域的三边制度甚至一体化增强合作的预期, 促进三国关系的相互依赖性和稳定性, 进而增进中韩日三国的信任度, 带动三国在政治和安全等 高政治 领域的合作, 最终建立起中韩日三国全面合作的制度框架, 为 中韩日伙伴关系 的发展夯实制度基础 二 影响中韩日关系制度化建设的因素及应对之策 最近四年来, 中日关系 韩日关系均遇到一些严重问题, 极大地阻碍了中韩日关系的发展, 并且危及东北亚地区的和平与稳定 尽管对于中韩日关系中的问题众说纷纭, 但总括起来讲, 影响并制约中韩日关系发展的因素主要有两个方面 ; 与之相对应, 化解中韩日关系僵局的对策也包括两个方面 : ( 一 ) 历史因素 在中韩日三国关系中, 历史问题无疑是最主要的障碍之一 第二次世界大战期间, 日本对中国 韩国的侵略给中韩两国人民留下了惨痛的历史记忆 近年来, 随着日本右翼思想的抬头和新保守主义势力的上升, 日本右翼试图抹杀战争罪行的趋势愈加明显 尤其是安倍晋三上台后, 日本右翼公然否认战争罪行, 公然否认强征慰安妇的流氓行径以及南京大屠杀的暴行, 引起了中国和韩国的强烈不满, 并增加了中韩两国人民对日本军国主义死灰复燃的疑惧 日本右翼势力及其控制的舆论则认为, 中韩两国政府蓄意将历史问题扩大化, 渲染日本的侵略历史, 以此误导舆论并凝聚民心 实际上, 正是安倍政府和日本右翼对侵略历史的否认导致中韩两国政府和人民对日本的信任感急剧下降, 历史因素成为制约中韩日关系发展的重要因素, 同时也是制约中韩日建立战略互信的重要因素 中国有句名言 : 以史为鉴, 可以知兴衰 任何一个国家的历史都是其自身经历的路程和记忆, 同 - 100 -
时也是其未来的渊源 未来不是空中楼阁, 而是以历史为依托的 ; 没有历史, 就没有未来 ; 任何脱离历史奢谈未来的言行都是急功近利与不负责任的表现 同样, 中韩日关系的发展亦有赖于对历史作出坦诚的认识与交代 在这方面, 德国作出了很好的示范 欧洲一体化的建设之所以取得发展, 一个重要的原因就是德国对战争罪行进行了深刻反省, 对纳粹主义进行了彻底铲除, 由此赢得了欧洲各国乃至世界的原谅, 增进了德国与欧洲其他各国的相互信任, 法德两国也由世仇转变为朋友与合作伙伴, 并共同推进欧洲一体化建设 日本的行为与德国形成了鲜明的对照, 同时也是制约中韩日关系健康稳定发展的主要障碍 日本只有正视侵略历史并深刻反省, 中韩日三国关系才会有值得期待的未来 ( 二 ) 美国因素 自第二次世界大战结束以来, 美国已经从经济 政治 军事等诸多方面深深卷入了亚洲事务, 在亚太地区拥有强大的影响力, 而美国构筑的亚太同盟体系则是美国发挥影响力的政治基础 另一方面, 作为世界超级大国, 美国的利益遍布全球, 而亚太地区在其全球战略和利益布局中同样占据着重要地位 正因为如此, 美国因素始终是影响东北亚局势的一个重要因素, 同时也是影响中韩日关系的重要域外因素 进入新世纪以来, 面对 中韩日伙伴关系 的发展, 美国感到了前所未有的压力, 因为中韩日关系的发展有可能削弱美国在东亚地区的影响力, 导致美国在东亚地区的地位减弱甚至被边缘化, 进而危及美国的全球战略布局和利益 因此, 中韩日发展独立于美国 或者不受美国影响的紧密关系是美国不愿看到, 也是不能容忍的 为破坏 中韩日伙伴关系 的顺利发展, 离间中韩日关系, 美国在政治和经济上均采取了深思熟虑的应对措施 政治上, 美国高调宣布重返亚太, 奉行亚太再平衡战略 经济上, 美国力推并主导 跨太平洋伙伴关系协定 (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreeme nt, 简称 TPP) 谈判, 并将其作为亚太再平衡战略的重要支撑, 力图以此重构美国在亚太地区的权力结构和战略布局 ; 而拉拢日本和韩国 孤立中国则是美国亚太再平衡战略和 TPP 战略的重要环节 1. 亚太再平衡战略对中韩日关系的影响 美国奉行亚太再平衡战略的一个重要目标就是确保美国在亚太事务中的主导地位 第二次世界大战结束以来, 美国作为域外国家, 凭借与日本和韩国的双边同盟关系介入东北亚事务, 并掌控了东北亚事务的主导权 在长达四十多年的冷战过程中, 东北亚地区均是美国亚太战略关注的重点 美国之所以能够一直在该地区保持主导地位, 凭借的就是其与日 韩等国的双边同盟关系及其在盟国的驻军 冷战结束之后, 东北亚地区在美国全球战略中的地位并没有降低, 相反, 随着中国经济的发展和国际地位的提升, 制衡中国的发展成为美国亚太战略的一个重要考量, 东北亚地区在美国全球战略中的地位反而有所增强 在此背景下, 美国亚太再平衡战略主要有以下战略目的 : 首先是制衡中国, 维护美国在亚太地区的主导地位 其次, 通过亚太再平衡战略强化美韩 美日军事同盟关系, 破坏中韩日合作的进程, 防止东北亚地区出现美国掌控之外的地区合作力量的形成和壮大 正是在美国亚太再平衡战略的冲击下, 中韩日三国的合作受到严重影响, 中韩日伙伴关系 的构建被迫中止 其中最突出的问题就是 : 在亚太再平衡战略的框架下, 美国蓄意在钓鱼岛问题上煽动日本与中国对抗, 导致中日关系跌至建交以来的最低点, 中韩日伙伴关系 的制度建设亦就此停滞 相比之下, 美国则坐收渔利, 不仅达到了制衡中国的目的, 同时也达到了离间中韩日关系 破坏中韩日合作的目的 2.TPP 战略对中韩日关系的影响 随着亚太地区经济的迅速发展, 东亚经济一体化的建设亦取得积极成果 除东盟 l0+3 和东盟 10+6 的机制建设之外, 中韩日自由贸易区的建设亦在酝酿之中, 而且, 上述东亚经济合作机制中均未出现美国的身影 在美国看来, 东亚经济合作机制的建设, - 101 -
包括中韩日自由贸易区的酝酿以及相关谈判的展开, 都有可能导致美国在东亚经济合作中的地位被边缘化, 进而损害美国的利益 作为应对之策, 美国开始力推并主导 TPP 谈判, 以期制度性地介入亚太事务, 通过 TPP 的具有约束力的制度规则强化与亚太国家的经济贸易关系, 按照美国的政策目标和利益取向整合亚太经济秩序, 打乱东亚经济一体化的进程, 强化美国在东亚经济合作中的主导地位, 拓展美国的经济利益 正因为如此,TPP 从根本上讲同样是美国从制度上重构亚太权力结构的一个重要组成部分 就其对中韩日关系的影响而言, 美国 TPP 战略的目标之一就是扰乱中韩日自贸区的建设, 从经济上破坏 中韩日伙伴关系 的发展 鉴于此, 美国借助同盟关系, 不断向日本和韩国施加压力, 敦促其参与美国主导的 TPP 谈判 从目前形势的发展来看, 美国 TPP 战略对中韩日关系的消极影响已经开始显现 2011 年, 时任日本首相助理的长岛昭久就公开表示, 日本应当加入 TPP 谈判以制衡中国的发展 2013 年 3 月, 不负美国期望的安倍晋三不顾国内的反对之声, 高调宣布正式加入 TPP 谈判 对于加入 TPP 谈判问题, 韩国方面一开始态度十分谨慎 在 韩美自由贸易协定 已经生效的情况下, 加入 TPP 谈判对韩国意义不大 面对韩国的消极态度, 美国动用各种方式向韩国施压, 美国政府, 甚至民间智库纷纷敦促韩国加入 TPP 谈判 在美国的强烈要求下, 韩国最终决定加入美国主导的 TPP 谈判 至此, 美国的 TPP 战略初步达到预期的效果, 即 : 孤立中国, 破坏中韩日自由贸易协定谈判进程, 进而为 中韩日伙伴关系 的发展及其制度化建设制造障碍 面对美国的搅局, 中韩日三国都应当认真思考一个问题 : 中韩日伙伴关系 到底应当走向何方? - 102 -
제도구축과동북아협력 수젠중 중국남경대학교국제관계연구원 냉전이종식된이후한중일삼국이위치한동북아시아지역역시예측불허의소용돌이에위험하게노출되어있다. 한중일삼국사이에는우호교류의무지개다리가드리운적도있었고먹장구름의하늘에점령된적도있었다. 한중일삼국의중요성으로말미암아삼자관계의발전은동북아시아는물론이고전체동아시아의협력에결정적인영향을미칠것이다. 따라서한중일삼국관계는현재학계의연구이슈로떠올랐고각자국내에서도높은관심을보이고있다. 본문은두가지문제를토론하려고한다. 첫째는한중일관계의제도건설과동북아시아협력, 둘째는한중일관계의제도화에영향주는요인이다. 1. 한중일관계의제도적건설 21세기이후한중일관계는커다란발전을가져왔다. 2003년 10월 7일, 한중일지도자들은인도네시아의발리 (Bali) 에서열린 아세안 +3 정상회담 에참가하였고 한중일삼자협력관계를추진할데관한공동성명 을체결하였다. 공동성명에서삼국지도자들은삼자협력을추진할조건이이미성숙되었고삼자관계의발전은양자관계의안정적인협력에도유리할뿐만아니라전체동아시아의평화와안정, 번영에도유리할것이라는점에합의하였다. 이는삼국지도자들이삼자협력을강화하기위해서발표한가장명확한신호라고볼수있다. 2008년 12월, 한중일지도자들은일본후쿠오카에서제1차 한중일정상회담 을진행하고 한중일삼국파트너관계공동성명 을발표하면서삼자파트너관계의수립을정식으로선언하였다. 공동성명에서는한중일관계의발전이이미양자관계의수준을뛰어넘었으며더욱긴밀한삼자관계와더완벽한동북아지역협력을추진할것을밝혔다. 한중일파트너관계 의확립은삼자관계의발전을더높은수준으로끌어올릴수있을뿐만아니라평화적인수단을이용하여양자관계, 지역과국제문제를해결하고동북아시아지역의평화와발전을추진하는데중요한의미를가진다. 2009년 10월 10일에열린한중일정상회담에서는 한중일협력 10주년공동성명 을발표하였고정치, 경제, 환경, 글로벌문제에서더적극적이고효율적인협력을진행할것을약속하였다. 2010년 5월에는한국제주도에서한중일제3차정상회담이열렸다. 회의에서는 2020년한중일협력전망 을체결하였고 한중일파트너관계 를격상할데관해서합의했으며제도적건설에대한필요성에대해서공감하였다. 따라서 2011년에 한중일삼국협력사무국 을서울에설치할것에합의하였고특히삼자간안보대화를건립할가능성까지제기되었다. 이는 한중일파트너관계 가한층더업그레이드되었다는것을상징적으로보여주며협력분야가경제로부터안보까지확장될가능성이있다는것을잘보여준다. 이상의사실들로부터알수있다시피한중일삼국의공통노력을통해삼국은전략적협력을위한기본틀을마련한것이다. 장기적인시각으로보면 한중일파트너관계 는점진적으로발전하면서심화되는과정으로인식해야할것이다. 그과정에서제도적건설은가장중요한핵심문제이다. 국제제도는바로국가들끼리상호협력을위해서체결한원칙, 규범, 규칙과절차등이다. 따라서국제제도에는보편적으로인정되고있는원칙과규범이포함되어야할뿐만아니라구체적인의무와책임을규정하는규칙과제도적절차가필요하며 - 103 -
그것들을주도할수있는조직과기구가있어야한다. 국제제도의존재는규칙과프로세스를통해협력에대한기대치를높여줄수있고제도적속박으로협력관계의안정성을보장해주며약속위반에대한위험을감소시켜준다. 한중일파트너관계 의건설은비록일정한성과를거두었지만아직도공동성명의수준에머물러있을뿐강력한제도적속박, 규칙, 원칙의제한을받지않고있다. 특히구체적인업무를담당할기구의부재는시급히해결해야할문제이다. 비록 2010년제주도에서열린한중일정상회담에서 삼국협력사무국 의창설에대해서기본적인합의를이루었지만미국의 아시아회귀전략 과중일간의조어도분쟁이격화됨에따라 한중일파트너관계 의제도적건설은답보상태에처해있다. 현재의이러한상황또한 한중일파트너관계 의중요성과긴박성을잘보여주고있다. 만약명확한제도적속박과안정적인의사결정체계가존재한다면 한중일파트너관계 는외부의간섭에휘둘리지않고안정성을유지할수있을것이다. 이런의미에서보면제도의부재는바로현재한중일삼자관계의발전을방해하는중요한원인이다. 사실한중일삼국협력은유럽통합이라는아주성공적인사례를모방할수있다. 유럽은먼저경제영역에서협력관계를건립한이후점차무역, 금융, 환경, 인프라건설등분야로협력을확대해나갔다. 동북아시아삼국역시먼저삼자협정을체결하고각자의책임과협력에관한원칙, 규칙과프로세스를규정한이후사무국을출범시켜야한다. 이런제도적건설은삼국협력을위하여결속력과안정성을제공할수있고경제적협력이가져다주는기대치는상호의존도와자신감을높여준다. 이런협력을기반으로하여점차정치와안보를포함한더 높은정치 의영역으로협력을확대하면서최종에는한중일삼국의전면적인협력관계를완성해나가는것이다. 2. 한중일관계의제도화에영향주는요소와해결책최근 4년의중일관계, 한일관계는모두심각한문제가존재했다. 이는한중일삼자관계의발전을방해했으며동북아시아지역의평화와안정을위협했다. 한중일삼자관계의발전에영향주는주요한원인은두가지에서찾아볼수있다. 동시에그해결책역시두가지를제시할수있다. (1) 역사적요인한중일삼자관계를이야기하면서뛰어넘을수없는문제는바로역사이다. 2차대전중일본의침략이중국과한국인민들에게남긴상처는영원한기억으로남아있다. 최근몇년일본국내의우익세력의부상과신보수주의경향이다시나타나기시작하면서역사수정을시도하는움직임이창궐하고있다. 특히아베총리취임이후일본의우익세력들은전쟁범죄에대해서공개적으로부인하고있다. 심지어종군위안부문제와남경대학살등사실에대해서도부인을하면서한중양국인민들에게다시전쟁의아픔을상기시켜주고있는상황이다. 이는한중양국의강렬한불만을자아냈고일본의우경화에대해서심각한우려를낳게만들었다. 그러나일본의우익세력이장악하고있는여론은오히려한중양국정부가일부러역사문제를확대하고있으며일본의전쟁역사를이용하여민중을오도하고있다고왜곡하고있다. 사실일본의주장은흑백을전도한셈이된다. 아베정부와우익세력들이먼저침략역사를미화하면서한중양국인민들의정서를자극했고일본에대한신뢰를떨어뜨렸던것이다. 이러한상황은역사문제가한중일삼자관계의발전에있어서가장핵심적인문제라는것을잘보여준다. 또한역사문제는한중일삼국이전략적신뢰관계를형성하는데가장큰장애물로작용하고있다. 중국에는 역사를거울로하면국가의흥망을알수있다 는명언이있다. 역사는바로그국가의어제와기억이고미래를만들어가는원인이다. 미래는공중누각이아니라역사를기초로하는것이다. 역사가없으면그나라의미래역시존재하지않는다. 역사를떠나서미래를상상하는것은모두무책임한사 - 104 -
고방식이다. 따라서한중일관계의발전또한역사에대한공통한인식과반성에서시작되어야할것이다. 이런면에서독일은우리의좋은모델이라고할수있다. 유럽공동체건설이순조롭게진행될수있었던가장중요한원인은바로독일이나치의역사에대해서심각한반성을진행했고그해독을깨끗이씻어낼수있었기때문이었다. 독일의사과는프랑스와의화해를이끌어냈고유럽과세계의용서를받았으며결국에는유럽공동체의건설까지이어졌다. 반면일본의행태는독일과는완전히다르게나타났다. 이러한일본의태도역시현재한중일관계의발전을제약하는주요한원인인것이다. 일본이침략역사에대해서진정한반성과사과를할수있어야만이한중일관계의미래에도희망이보일수있다. (2) 미국의요인 2차대전이종식된이후미국은이미경제, 정치, 군사등많은영역에서아시아의사무에참여하기시작했다. 특히아시아태평양지역에서건립한동맹체계는미국이강력한영향력을행사할수있는정치적기초로되었다. 따라서아태지역은미국의전략적이익이집중되어있는지역으로그가치가부각되었다. 이는미국의존재가동북아시아에서중요한변수로떠올랐고한중일관계에미치는영향이증가하게되었다는것을의미한다. 21세기이후한중일관계의급속한발전은미국에압력으로작용했다. 왜냐면한중일삼국협력은미국의역내영향력에도전할수있고지위를약화시키면서전략적이익을위협할수있기때문이다. 미국은물론이러한결과를받아들일수없을것이고한중일협력의안정적인발전을그냥보고만있지않을것이다. 따라서미국은 한중일파트너관계 의발전을방해하기위해서삼국관계를이간하기시작했다. 이는미국의아태전략에서잘나타나며정치와경제의영역에서잘보여주고있다. 정치적으로 아태재균형전략 을선포하였고경제적으로는환태평양경제동반자협정 (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement:TPP) 을추진하는것이다. 미국은바로이두가지수단을이용하여아태지역에서의새로운전략을추진하고있다. 이러한구상에근거하여한국과일본을포섭하고중국을고립하는것이다. 1. 아태재균형전략 이한중일관계에미치는영향 : 아태재균형전략 의가장중요한목표는바로미국의아시아태평양지역에서의주도적지위를확보하는것이다. 2차대전이후미국은역외국가의신분이지만일본, 한국과의양자동맹관계를통해역내사무에참여하기시작했으며주도적지위를차지하고있다. 따라서 40여년동안지속된냉전기간동북아시아는미국의중요한전략중심이기도했다. 미국은바로일본, 한국과의양자동맹관계를이용하여이지역에군사기지를운영할수있었다. 냉전이종식된이후에도이지역에대한미국의관심은결코줄어들지않았다. 반면중국의경제발전과국제적영향력의확대와함께미국의아태전략의목표는중국의부상을견제하는쪽으로기울어지기시작했다. 이런배경하에서미국의 아태재균형전략 은아래와같은몇가지목표를설정하고있다. 첫째, 중국을견제하면서미국의주도적지위를확보하는것이다. 둘째, 한미동맹과미일동맹을강화하면서한중일협력을견제하고역내에서미국의지위를위협할수있는국가의출범을방지하는것이다. 이러한미국의지역전략의충격을받고한중일삼국협력역시심각한타격을받고있는상황이다. 한중일파트너관계 의제도적건설또한지지부진하고있는원인은바로미국의 아태재균형전략 때문이다. 미국은바로조어도문제를이용하여중일관계의악화를부채질하고있는것이다. 미국의전략은바로어부지리를노리는것인데이를통해중국의부상을견제할수있을뿐만아니라한중일관계를이간놓을수있으며삼자협력을방해할수있다. 2. TPP 전략이한중일관계에미치는영향 : 아태지역경제의신속한발전은동아시아경제공동체의 - 105 -
발전에도적극적인역할을하고있다. 이러한추세는 아세안 +3 과 아세안 +6 등협력체제의출범을자극하였을뿐만아니라한중일자유무역구역의구상에도희망을가져다주었다. 흥미로운점은이상의아시아협력체제에는모두미국의모습이보이지않았다는것이다. 미국의입장에서보면한중일자유무역구역의출범이나다른형식의아시아국가들사이의협력은모두자신의이익을건드릴수있는도전으로인식할수있다. 그런위험한결과를방지하기위해서미국은바로 TPP의카드를꺼내들었던것이다. TPP는바로미국의정책목표와이익에근거하여아태지역의경제질서를통합하고동아시아경제공동체의발전에타격을가하는것이다. 그런의미에서보면 TPP 역시미국의동아시아지역에서의제도적권력의한부분이고이익을수호하기위한강력한수단인것이다. 미국의 TPP전략이한중일관계에미치는영향은바로동아시아삼국의경제적통합을방해하고자유무역구역의출현을방지하는것이다. 이는미국이동맹관계를이용하여한국과일본에압력을주고자신이주도하는 TPP협상에가입할것을강요하는사실에서잘알수있다. 현재의상황으로볼때 TPP전략이한중일관계에대한소극적인영향은이미현실로나타나고있다. 2011년나가시마 ( 長島昭久 ) 방위성차관은일본은반드시 TPP에참가하여중국을견제해야한다고밝힌적이있다. 또한 2013년 3월아베총리는국내의반대여론에도불구하고 TPP에가입하였다. 그와반면한국의태도는여전히유보적이다. 사실 한미자유무역협정 이체결된상황에서또 TPP에가입한다는것은별로의미가크지않다. 그러나한국의애매한태도에대해서미국은강력한압박을행사하고있다. 미국정부는물론이고심지어민간싱크탱크까지동원하여한국의가입을강요하는분위기가연출되고있다. 물론한국이미국의압박에굴복하고참여의사를밝힌것도사실이다. 따라서미국의 TPP전략역시소기한목적을이룬듯하다. 다시말해서중국을고립시키고한중일자유무역구역의설립을방해하고 한중일파트너관계 의발전과제도적건설에장애물을설치하는것이다. 이런상황을보면서한중일삼국은반드시자기만의사고를해야할것이다. 도대체 한중일파트너관계 는어떤방향으로발전해야할것인가? 조청봉 ( 고려대 ) 역 - 106 -
Historical Reconciliation and the Possibility of Establishing an Achieves Center for East Asia Somei Kobayashi 歴史和解と東アジア アーカイブ センターの可能性 小林聡明 日本大学法学部 報告要旨現在 東アジアには 亡霊が立ち現れている 過去 という名の亡霊は この地域で激しい対立を引き起こし 成されなければならない歴史和解の実現を遠景化させている 多くの人々が 強く認識しているように 東アジアには 20 世紀前半期に起こった出来事をめぐって 鋭い対立が存在している 歴史問題 は 東アジアにおける地域協力の推進を妨げているだけでなく 地域の安定を揺るがしかねない深刻なリスク要因となっている 本来 歴史問題の解決と和解の実現は 日本がアジアの諸国家と結んだ二国間の取り決めによってなされるはずであった 1965 年に締結された日韓基本条約は 植民地支配を含めた日韓間の問題を完全かつ最終的に解決し 日韓の和解を実現する一つの到達点として準備された だが 1990 年代後半に立ち現れた 従軍慰安婦問題 をはじめ 日韓間では さまざまな 過去 の問題が噴出した 和解がなされたはずの関係は 根底から大きく揺さぶられている 2002 年のW 杯共同開催に見られた友好的な関係は すっかり影を潜め 両国の国民は 互いにとげとげしいまなざしを向け合うようになってしまった UNESCOの世界遺産登録会議でも見られたように 政治外交レベルにおいては 日韓は あらゆる局面で激しく対立する関係となってしまった 1972 年の日中共同宣言は 日中の和解を象徴的に示す政治的イベントとなった それは 周恩来首相が示したように 日本国民も中国人民も ともに日本の軍国主義者による被害者であるとの論理によって構築された日中の和解であった 2001 年に始まった小泉政権は 日中関係を大きく変えてしまった 首相自身の靖国神社参拝は 中国側を強く刺激し 反日デモの発生など激しい反発を引き起こしただけでなく 自民党と中国共産党の間に構築されていたパイプをたちどころに切断していった さらに 民主党政権下の2012 年 9 月には 尖閣諸島の国有化が決定されたことで 中国の反発は激しさを増し 日中関係は完全に冷却化した 第二次安倍政権が開始されると 首相自ら - 107 -
の歴史に対するスタンスもあり 中国側は 積極的に歴史問題を外交関係の俎上に載せてくるようになった これにより すでに冷却状態になっていた日中関係は 歴史問題をめぐって さらに対立の度合いを深めることになった それは 周恩来首相によって打ち立てられた日中和解の論理が もはや成り立たなくなったことを意味していた 北朝鮮との間でも和解が試みられた 2002 年 9 月 小泉首相と金正日国防委員長は 平壌で会談し 日朝平壌宣言を発表した 同宣言は 日本側が 過去の植民地支配によって 朝鮮の人々に多大の損害と苦痛を与えたという歴史の事実を謙虚に受け止め 痛切な反省と心からのお詫びの気持ちを表明した ものであった 以後 日朝両国は 和解の実現に形をあたえる日朝国交正常化にむけて歩み出した だが 拉致問題をめぐって日本の世論は硬化し 現在にいたるまで日朝国交正常化交渉は その入口にすら立てていない 日朝の和解は 植民地支配の終焉から70 年経っても実現の糸口さえつかめていない 日本は 1960 年代以降 東南アジア諸国に対する賠償を実施し 和解を進めてきた 一方 東アジアでは 和解の試みに対する大幅な巻き戻しの状況が生じている なかでも歴史問題は 日本と東アジア諸国との間で対立を引き起こす最大の要因となっている 日中韓の間では 歴史戦 (History War) という新たな 戦争 の勃発すら指摘されている とはいえ 成し遂げられたと考えられた和解の関係が崩れ 対立の局面へと進入していく状況は 何も座して見られていたわけではなかった 日本政府のみならず 企業や市民レベルでは なんとか真の和解を実現しようとする いくつかの試みが 不十分であったとはいえ 行われた 花岡事件 の被害者である中国人労働者との和解や 従軍慰安婦問題の解決を目指したアジア女性基金の設立が それであった アジア女性基金には 日本国民の税金と募金が拠出されていた だが 十分な理解を得られた事例もあれば 激しい反発を引き起こし 和解を目指す事業を終了せざる得ないケースもあった 研究者も歴史問題を解決し 和解を目指す動きに加わってきた とりわけ歴史や政治学などを専門とする研究者は 日本だけでなく 韓国や中国の研究者と共同で 相互理解の促進と 和解に向けた努力を積み重ねてきた 民間レベルでの日中韓の共同歴史教科書作りを目指す試みや 日韓歴史共同研究や日中歴史共同研究が実施された だが とりわけ後者は日中韓が ともに歴史問題を解決するという共通の目的を有し 和解を目指して努力したという点を評価できるものの 各国のナショナル ヒストリーや ナショナリズムを抜け出すことができなかったという点で限界を孕むものであった 歴史問題の解決と和解の実現という 当初の目的を十分に果たせないまま 歴史共同研究は幕を下ろしたと言わざるをえない 以上 見てきたように 東アジアでは 過去 が亡霊として蘇り 猛威を振るっている < 歴史 >は 歴史になりきれていない むしろ< 歴史 >は 政治化され 深刻な対立を引き起こす要因となり 地域協力の推進を著しく妨げている 言うまでもなく 地域協力を通じた東アジアの発展と この地域に生きる すべての人びとの未来のために 歴史問題を解決し 和解を実現することは 日本の市民のみならず 他の東アジアの市民にも共通する喫緊の課題である だが 課題を果たすために進んでいく道には 残念ながら多くの 難問 が横たわっている これらの難問すべてを一度に解くことのできる魔法のような解法は用意されていない 本報告では 歴史和解の 余地 を示し 和解実現にむけて なんらかの貢献を果たしうる 東アジア アーカイブ センター の可能性を指摘しようとする それは 難問の解答を示すのではなく 解いていくために必要な補助線を提示する目的から行われるものである 本報告が 日中韓からの参加者が集う会議において 歴史問題の解決に向けた議論の たたき台 になれば 報告者として望外の喜びである - 108 -
역사화해와동아시아아카이브센타의가능성 고바야시소메이 小林聡明, 日本大学法学部 보고문요지현재동아시아에서는망령 ( 亡霊 ) 이떠돌고있다. 과거 라는이름의망령은동아시아지역에서격한대립을일으키고이루어져야할역사화해의실현을요원하게하고있다. 많은사람들이인식하고있지만동아시아에서는 20세기전반기에일어났던여러사건들을둘러싸고첨예한대립이이어지고있다. 역사문제 는동아시아에서지역협력의추진을방해할뿐만아니라지역의안정을흔들수있는심각한위협적요인이되고있는것이다. 본래역사문제의해결과화해의실현은일본이아시아여러나라와체결한양국간의협정에의해이루어져야하는법이다. 1965년에체결된한일기본조약은식민지지배를포함한한일간문제를완전히또한최종적으로해결하고한일간의화해를실현할하나의도달점으로준비된것이었다. 그러나 1990년대후반에불거진 종군위안부문제 를비롯하여다양한 과거 ( 사 ) 문제가분출했다. 화해가이루어졌어야할관계가근본적으로크게흔들리게된것이다. 2002년월드컵공동개최에서보여주었던우호적인관계는어느새자취를감추고현재양국의국민 ( 감정 ) 은첨예하게대립하는구도로치닫고있다. 유네스코세계문화유산등록회의에서도확인되듯이정치 외교적레벨에서한일양국은각종국면에서격렬하게대립하는관계가되었다. 1972년중일공동선언은중국과일본간의화해를상징적으로보여주는정치적이벤트가되었다. 이것은주은래 ( 周恩来 ) 수상이표명한것처럼일본국민과중국인민모두가일본의군국주의자에의한피해자였다는논리에의해구축된중일간의화해였다. 2001년에출범한고이즈미 ( 小泉 ) 정권은중일관계의지형도를크게바꿔놓았다. 수상의야스쿠니신사참배는중국측을격하게자극하여반일데모등격심한반발을불러일으켰을뿐만아니라, 자민당과중국공산당간에구축되어있던연결고리를바로끊어버리는결과를낳았다. 게다가민주당정권이었던 2012년 9월에는센카쿠섬 ( 尖閣諸島 ) 을국유화할것을결정함으로써중국측의반발은더욱격심해져중일관계는완전히냉각되어버렸다. 제2차아베 ( 安倍 ) 정권이시작되면서수상의역사에대한입장문제와도결부되면서중국측은적극적으로역사문제를외교관계의도마위에올리려는태도를취했다. 이에따라이미냉각상태였던중일관계가역사문제를둘러싸고더욱심각하게대립하게되었다. 이것은주은래수상에의해수립되었던중일화해의논리가더이상존립할수없음을의미하는것이다. 북한과의관계에서도화해가시도되었다. 2002년 9월고이즈미수상과김정일국방위원장은평양에서회담하여조일평양선언을발표했다. 이선언은일본측이 과거의식민지지배에의해조선사람들에게많은손해와고통을안겨준역사적사실을겸허히받아들여통절히반성하며진심으로사과의뜻을표명한다 는것이었다. 이후조일양국은화해를실현한뜻으로조일국교정상화를추진했다. 하지만납치문제를둘러싼일본의여론이좋지않아지금까지도조일국교정상화교섭은그문턱에조차들어서지못한상태이다. 조일간의화해는식민지지배의종언에서 70년이지난지금에도실현될실마리조차찾기힘들다. 일본은 1960년대이후동남아시아여러나라에대한배상을실시하고화해를추진해왔다. 그러나동아시아에서는그간의화해시도의노력들이다시원점으로돌아가는상황이생겨나고있다. 특히역사문제는일본과동아시아여러나라사이의대립을불러일으키는가장큰요인이되고있다. 혹자는이러한현 - 109 -
상을두고한중일간에는 역사전쟁 (History War) 이라는새로운 전쟁 발발로지적하기도한다. 그러나달성된것으로여겼던화해의관계가깨지고대립국면으로진입해가는이상황을그저지켜보고만있었던것은아니다. 일본정부뿐만아니라기업이나시민차원에서진정한화해의실현을위해충분하다고는할수없지만계속시도되어왔다. 예를들면 하나오카사건 ( 花岡事件 ) 의피해자인중국인노동자와의화해, 종군위안부문제의해결을위한아시아여성기금의설립을들수있다. 아시아여성기금은일본국민의세금과모금으로설립된것이다. 하지만충분한이해를얻은사례도있지만, 격렬한반발을불러일으켜화해를목표로했던사업이중단되어야했던케이스도있다. 연구자도역사문제를해결하고화해를목표로하는운동에참가하고있다. 특히역사나정치학등을전공하는연구자는일본뿐만아니라한국과중국의연구자들과공동으로상호이해의촉진과화해를향한노력을거듭해왔다. 민간차원에서의한중일공동역사교과서만들기사업이나, 한일역사공동연구, 중일역사공동연구가실시되었다. 하지만특히후자의경우한중일이다함께역사문제를해결하려는공통의목적을공유하고화해를목표로하여노력한다는점에서는평가할만하지만, 각국의내셔널리스트나내셔널리즘을배제하지못했다는점에서한계를안고있다. 역사문제의해결과화해의실현이라는당초의목적을충분히달성하지못한채역사공동연구는그막을내렸다고하지않을수없다. 이상에서살펴본것처럼동아시아에서는 과거 가망령으로소생하여맹위를떨치고있다. < 역사 > 는완전히역사화되어있지않다. 오히려 < 역사 > 는정치화되어심각한대립을일으키게하는요인이되기도하고지역협력추진을현저하게방해하기도한다. 지역협력을통한동아시아의발전과그지역에서살아가는모든사람들의미래를위해역사문제를해결하여화해를실현하는것은일본시민뿐만아니라다른동아시아시민에게도공통되는현안과제임은두말할필요가없다. 하지만과제를수행하기위해걸어가야할그길은유감스럽게도많은 어려운문제 가산적해있다. 이러한어려운문제를모두한꺼번에해결할수있는마법과같은해결책은없다. 본보고에서는역사화해의 여지 를제시하고화해의실현을향해다소나마공헌할수있을것으로보이는 동아시아아카이브센타 의가능성을지적하고자한다. 이것은어려운문제에대한해답을제시하는것이아니라, 해결해가기위해필요한보조선을제시하는목적에서시도하는것이다. 본보고가한중일참가자가모인이회의에서역사문제해결을향한논의의 시안 이되기를바란다. 김연옥 ( 동경대 ) 역 - 110 -
Regional Trade Agreements in East Asia: Retrospect and Prospect 1 Innwon Park Abstract We assess East Asian countries efforts to liberalize the regional market through mutual cooperation. We investigate (i) why regional trade agreements (RTAs) have proliferated in East Asia, (ii) the main characteristics of East Asian RTAs, and (iii) future prospects for East Asian RTAs. We recommend (i) East Asian RTAs should follow an expansionary path, (ii) three priority changes must be implemented: harmonization or simplification of rules of origin (ROO), cumulation of value contents among the East Asian RTA members, and enhancing trade facilitation, and (iii) non-economic cooperation for closer political and cultural linkages is a necessary condition to the desirable evolutionary path. 1 Paper to be presented at the 5th East Asian Community Forum (EACF) on 70 Years of the Divide and Northeast Asia s Next 100 Years at Korea University, Seoul, Korea, August 3-4, 2015. This paper is a modified version of Park, Innwon, Regional Trade Agreements in East Asia, NUPI Working Paper 823, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Norway, 2014. - 111 -
1. Introduction Since European countries initiated the first wave of regionalism in the late 1950s, 1 East Asian countries policy stances toward regional trade agreements (RTAs) have shifted in response to changes in both regional and global markets. Until the second wave of regionalism, triggered by the successful expansion of the European Union (EU) and the establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the early 1990s, most East Asian countries favored non-discriminatory multilateral approaches to actively pursuing outward-looking industrialization policies within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) framework. Accordingly, there was a dearth of RTAs in East Asia, 2 especially in the northeast. Only three RTAs were implemented, most of them among Southeast Asian countries: the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) in 1976, the Laos-Thailand Preferential Trade Agreement (Laos-Thailand PTA) in 1991, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Free Trade Area (AFTA) in 1993. However, deepening regional interdependence through trade and investment and the necessity to stabilize and revitalize the regional economy after the late 1990s East Asian financial crisis led the East Asian countries to adopt discriminatory RTAs. Since then, East Asian countries have actively engaged in free trade initiatives with countries within and outside the region. A considerable number of bilateral and multilateral RTAs have been formed, including the China-Thailand FTA, the Japan-Indonesia EPA (Economic Partnership Agreement), the Korea-Singapore FTA, and the five ASEAN+1 RTAs: the ASEAN-China FTA, the ASEAN-Japan CEPA (Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement), the ASEAN-Korea FTA, the ASEAN-Australia and New Zealand FTA, and the ASEAN-India FTA. Furthermore, RTAs among the three Northeast Asian countries have been under consideration and negotiation, such as the recently signed China-Korea FTA 3, the Japan-Korea FTA, the China-Japan FTA, and the China-Japan-Korea FTA. A total of 13 intra-regional RTAs were implemented in East Asia between 2001 and October 2013. Moreover, considering the potentially harmful spaghetti bowl effect of overlapping RTA s 4 and deepening intra-regional production networks, 5 mega-lateral RTAs have been 1 The first wave of regionalism, between World War II and the late 1980s, proved to be unsuccessful mainly because most regional integrations were formed between developing countries for which regional trade and investment cooperation failed to generate significant benefits. In contrast, the second wave of regionalism has been more durable due to wider and deeper integration that includes both developed and developing countries as members. For discussion of the two waves of regionalism, see Bhagwati (1993). 2 We define East Asia as the ten Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries plus China, Japan, and South Korea (hereafter "Korea") in Northeast Asia; this grouping is commonly referred to as ASEAN+3. However, we also consider ASEAN+6, which includes Australia, New Zealand, and India in addition to the ASEAN+3 countries. ASEAN was established on August 8, 1967, with the signing of the Bangkok Declaration by the founding nations Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. The association is meant to enhance political and economic cooperation among member nations. Brunei Darussalam joined on January 8, 1984; Vietnam on July 28, 1995; Lao PDR and Myanmar on July 23, 1997; and Cambodia on April 30, 1999. 3 The agreement was signed on June 1, 2015. 4 In order to avoid the problem of trade deflection in free trade area (FTA), country of origin should be verified. Different rules of origin (ROO) apply to different FTAs. The complex ROO to verify a country from which a product comes incur additional trade costs and discourage trade between FTA members. Thus, the welfare gains from FTAs are likely to be reduced. For the spaghetti bowl phenomenon caused by overlapping RTAs, see Bhagwati, Greenaway, and Panagariya (1998) and Panagariya (1999). 5 Global production networks have proliferated in recent years and are largely regional in nature. The trade in manufactured parts and components through vertical supply chains - 112 -
proposed and negotiated among the relevant countries. These include: the EAFTA (East Asian Free Trade Area), preferred by China and encompassing the ASEAN+3 countries; the CEPEA (Comprehensive Economic Partnership for East Asia), preferred by Japan and including the ASEAN+6 countries; the ASEAN-driven RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), including the ASEAN+6 countries; the US-led TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), including Brunei Darussalam, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, the USA, Canada, Mexico, and Japan; and an FTAAP (Free Trade Area of Asia-Pacific) including 21 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member economies. Given that East Asian policy stances are shifting from unilateral to bilateral to mega-lateral liberalization, this paper attempts to analyze, retrospectively and prospectively, East Asian countries efforts to liberalize their regional market through mutual cooperation. The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 analyzes why RTAs have been proliferating in East Asia since the late 1990s and briefly discusses the main characteristics of East Asian RTAs. Section 3 considers potential evolutionary paths for the East Asian RTAs and evaluates whether the implemented and proposed East Asian RTAs are beneficial for the countries involved. To assess this, empirical studies of likely impacts of the East Asian RTAs on members, nonmembers, and the world economy are reviewed. To conclude, Section 4 briefly discusses policy implications derived from this research. 2. Proliferating Regional Trade Agreements in East Asia 2.1. Why Are RTAs Proliferating in East Asia? Unlike Europe and North America, where political will and a regional hegemon drove integration into the EU and NAFTA, respectively, East Asia s integration was initiated by actors seeking economic gains from deeper regional economic interdependence. Regional economic interdependence was propelled by trade and investment liberalization within East Asian production networks, not by the formation of RTAs. This market-driven regional integration resulted in relatively slow progress in developing RTAs. Recently, however, East Asia has been actively engaged in developing institution-driven RTAs. 1 Thus, both intra- and inter-regional trade agreements are multiplying throughout the region, 2 as surveyed in Table 1. As of October 2013, 71 RTAs had been implemented, 7 had been signed but were not yet in effect, and a number were under negotiation or had been proposed among ASEAN+6 countries. [Table 1 here] spanning multiple countries has grown faster than total trade, especially in East Asia. See Kimura (2006), Athukorala and Yamashita (2006), Athukorala (2010), Athukorala and Menon (2010), and UNESCAP (2011). 1 For the issue of market-driven and institution-driven regionalization in East Asia, see Urata (2008). 2 For proliferating RTAs in East Asia, see JETRO (2003), Lu (2003), Kawai (2004), Feridhanusetyawan (2005), and Lee and Park (2005). For recent surveys of East Asian economic integration, see ADB (2008), Chia (2010), Hill and Menon (2010), Kawai and Wignaraja (2010, 2013), Zhang and Shen (2011), and Baldwin and Kawai (2013). - 113 -
There are several causes of this rapid growth in RTAs in the region. First, the substantial expected positive gains from regional trade and investment liberalization in East Asia facilitate the formation of RTAs. East Asian countries require novel intra-regional supply and demand for goods to revitalize their economies and ensure sustainable development. As illustrated in Figure 1, deepened but currently stagnating interdependence among the East Asian economies in terms of intra-regional trade could be a reason for the policy change. For example, the share of intra-asean+3 (ASEAN+6) trade increased from 28.6% (33.0%) in 1990 to 38.7% (44.1%) in 2010 but decreased slightly to 38.0% (43.2%) in 2012 as a result of the global financial crisis. Table 2 reports more precise information about the different East Asian RTAs average shares of intra-regional trade between 2010 and 2012, ranging from the lowest share (4.5%) in the ASEAN-India FTA to a more moderate share of 24.4% in the AFTA and the highest share (34.6%) in the ASEAN+6 RTA. The increasing volume of trade has largely been propelled by greater intra-regional trade in the manufacturing sector. This can make the regional market much more competitive, result in beneficial restructuring of regional industrial structures, attract more extra-regional foreign direct investment, and finally amplify the dynamic gains from regional integration. 1 In addition, as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, vertical intra-industry exports and imports in manufactured parts and components, for which there are closely connected supply chains and higher expected productivity growth from an international division of labor, have seen sharp increases when compared to those of final capital and consumption goods; such exchanges will enhance economic efficiency and bring large gains from freer trade. [Table 2 here] [Figure 1 here] [Figure 2 here] [Figure 3 here] Second, recognizing the necessity for regional economic cooperation in order to stabilize and revitalize the region s economic dynamism in the wake of the 1997 East Asian financial crisis, the three Northeast Asian countries-china, Japan, and Korea-have shifted their policy stances from favoring a global approach to supporting a regional one. Third, the East Asian countries globalization strategies, combined with leadership competition among them, have further triggered proliferation. In particular, China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and aggressive approach to forming bilateral RTAs are key causes. Japan's desire to regain its regional market share, which was significantly reduced after it was left out of the worldwide movement toward regionalism, and to retain its leadership role amidst competition from China also helps explain the environmental changes in the regional market. Additional factors include Korea's movement toward a more globalized economic system, with the intention of revitalizing its outward-oriented economic growth strategy through trade and investment liberalization, and its ambition to fully utilize its geopolitical middleman advantage to become an East Asian business hub. ASEAN s active intention to become a hub of East Asian regionalism also cannot be ignored. The strong incentives to be a hub of an RTA network spur both individual Southeast Asian countries, 1 See Baldwin and Kawai (2013). - 114 -
especially Singapore and Thailand, and ASEAN as a whole to aggressively initiate multiple RTA negotiations. Fourth, the slow progress of multilateral negotiations, such as the WTO s stalled Doha Development Agenda and the sluggish progress toward the Bogor Goals within APEC s trade and investment liberalization section, has accelerated this shift toward regionalism. In addition, the United States government s pivot to Asia policy may be another important cause of the increase in RTAs in the region. 2.2. Main Characteristics of East Asian RTAs As classified in Table 1, RTAs including East Asian countries share some distinguishing characteristics. First, efforts to reduce or eliminate trade barriers between members are relatively new in East Asia. Most East Asian countries, especially those in Northeast Asia, were once well known to prefer non-discriminatory unilateral or multilateral liberalization efforts rather than discriminatory regional liberalization. As we mentioned earlier, however, after realizing the importance of regional economic cooperation after the East Asian financial crisis 1 and the lack of progress in the Doha Round of multilateral WTO negotiations, East Asian countries have changed their policy stance from favoring a global approach to favoring a regional approach. As listed in Table 1, among the 77 implemented or signed RTAs that include ASEAN+6 countries, 71 (94.7%) were implemented or signed after the financial crisis. Second, most of the RTAs in East Asia have been bilateral agreements; this aligns with a worldwide trend of prioritizing lower-cost and easier negotiations, even if the gains from freer trade are limited. Among the 71 RTAs including ASEAN+6 countries, 56 (78.9%) are bilateral agreements and 15 (21.1%) are plurilateral agreements. In addition, there has been no distinction between intra- and inter-regional partnerships. Recent innovations in information and communications technology have significantly lowered transaction costs and made geographical distance less important. Among the 71 ASEAN+6 RTAs, 45 (63.3%) are inter-regional RTAs. Fourth, the region is spanned by a complicated web of overlapping RTAs. Most East Asian RTAs have hub-and-spoke structures, which may cause a serious spaghetti bowl phenomenon. In particular, ASEAN, Singapore, and Thailand have all aggressively pursued becoming a hub, such as for the five currently effective ASEAN+1 RTAs (involving China, Japan, Korea, India, and Australia and New Zealand). Finally, there has been a very slow progress in RTA formation. The proposed Japan-Korea FTA, China-Japan FTA, China-Japan-Korea (CJK) trilateral RTA, ASEAN+3 FTA, and RCEP (ASEAN+6) are still under negotiation, even though significant economic gains are expected from these trade blocs. This indicates that socio-political determinants of RTA formation, such as political ties, cultural affinity, and historical background, are more important factors in East Asia than in other regionally integrated areas in Europe and South America. In sum, we find that both intra- and inter-regional bilateral RTAs have proliferated since the East Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s yet still have a long way to go to reach the desired state. 1 No multilateral institutions were thought to have served the interests of East Asian countries well during the crisis. In particular, there was a region-wide perception that the IMF mishandled the crisis and only represented the interests of industrialized countries from other regions. - 115 -
3. The Future of East Asian RTAs 3.1. Evolutionary Paths Each East Asian country will attempt to maximize its own gains from forming regional trade blocs with preferred neighbors. Figure 4 provides a diagram of current RTAs in East Asia. At present, the formation of region-wide mega-lateral RTAs such as RCEP, TPP, and FTAAP is a hotly debated issue in East Asia. Unlike bilateral RTAs, concluded at a specific point in time and offering specific gains and costs, region-wide RTAs are formed over time through an evolutionary process, 1 offering marginal gains and costs as the arrangements gradually advance. In search of more desirable RTAs, East Asian countries may follow one of the following three evolutionary paths. (i) There will be no significant change in the East Asian RTA map in the near future. 2 The current map of overlapping RTAs, consisting of AFTA, five ASEAN+1 RTAs, and the bilateral RTAs (as shown in Table 1 and Figure 4), will be maintained. However, this may not be a desirable scenario for the region as a whole: the complicated overlap of RTAs will decrease the welfare gains received by participating countries due to the spaghetti bowl phenomenon. In particular, a complex web of interrelated hub-and-spoke RTAs in East Asia might result in trade diversion effects and high costs for verifying rules of origin (ROO), especially given East Asia s deepening production networks. Sophisticated supply chains, mainly built because of complex vertical motives driving regional FDI, may overwhelm the initial gains from regional liberalization of trade and investment. (ii) There will be significant competition between the three Northeast Asian countries and the Southeast Asian countries. In other words, duplicate RTAs such as the China-Japan-Korea RTA will be formed in opposition to the existing AFTA to seek a first-mover advantage. 3 The three Northeast Asian countries started to negotiate a trilateral FTA in March 2013. However, it is unlikely to be accomplished in the near future, given the non-economic historical and territorial conflicts among the three countries. (iii) An expansionary path is considered to be the most desirable for the region. Expansionary membership could trigger the domino effect of regionalism and avoid the spaghetti bowl phenomenon caused by overlapping RTAs. For example, the existing AFTA could be expanded into a bigger trade bloc, such as RCEP, by consolidating the existing five ASEAN+1 RTAs. The ASEAN-led RCEP held its first meeting in May 2013 and is aiming to conclude the agreement 1 As described in Lee, Park, and Shin (2008), countries excluded from a particular RTA may join existing RTAs in order to share the benefits of free trade and avoid the disadvantages of isolation (i.e., the expansionary RTA path). Existing RTAs membership will increase as they attract new members, and the gains from free trade will increase. Alternatively, nonmember countries may create separate RTAs by negotiating new agreements among themselves (i.e., the duplicate RTA path), thus competing with existing RTAs and causing the proliferation of RTAs. Both the expansionary and duplicate RTA paths may trigger a domino effect of regionalism and could lead the world economy toward a global free trade environment (for information on this domino effect see Baldwin (1993)). However, some member countries of existing RTAs are currently attempting to form multiple RTAs in order to become an RTA hub (i.e., the overlapping RTA path). This may result in a serious spaghetti bowl phenomenon, as mentioned earlier. 2 We cautiously expect that the TPP will be completed by March, 2015 and the China-Korea FTA will be signed soon. However, the progress of negotiations are not very effective until now. 3 For the first-mover advantage, see Freund (2000). - 116 -
by 2015. The extended membership of the TPP, including Korea and China, may be considered an alternative or complement to the RCEP. This mega-lateral RTA could lead the region to a wider FTA like the FTAAP. [Figure 4 here] 3.2. Quantitative Analysis of the Effects of the East Asian RTAs In this section, we survey existing empirical work on the likely impacts of the aforementioned East Asian RTAs on the participating countries. A growing body of empirical literature has used Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models to estimate the output, welfare, and trade effects of RTAs among East Asian countries. 1 The overall evidence in the literature indicates that most of the East Asian RTAs implemented and proposed deliver greater output and larger welfare gains for participating countries. In particular, we find that expansionary RTAs, such as the ASEAN+3 and the ASEAN+6 RTAs, are strategically optimal for East Asian members in terms of net trade creation, welfare improvement, and output growth. Alternatively, as examined in Park (2009), forming a trilateral Northeast Asian RTA separately from the existing AFTA, which constitutes a duplicate RTA strategy, is a second-best option for the East Asian economies as a whole. Even though the system of overlapping hub-and-spoke RTAs, as currently in effect in the five ASEAN+1 RTAs, appeared to be a better policy option for ASEAN, it is not necessarily a desirable strategy for the neighboring countries in Northeast Asia, which are spokes. Tables 3 and 4 summarize recent CGE model estimations in order to compare each of the expansionary RTAs impacts on members, nonmembers, and the world economy. Comparing between ASEAN+3 and ASEAN+6 (or RCEP), larger gains are expected from ASEAN+6 in terms of income, welfare, and GDP (see Table 3). Even though the marginal gains to existing members of ASEAN+3 and the world as a whole are not large, the harmful effects on members excluded from ASEAN+3 (Australia, New Zealand, and India) are transformed into positive gains. Overall, we find that broader membership will enhance gains for both the world economy and the members. As shown in Table 4, comparing the effects of RCEP to those of TPP in terms of income, GDP, and welfare reveals that much larger gains for the world economy are expected from the Asian track (equivalent to RCEP) than from TPP. In addition, the FTAAP consolidation scenario, which entails combining RCEP and TPP, is expected to significantly enhance the gains from global free trade, as shown in Table 4. 2 [Table 3 here] [Table 4 here] 1 For a literature review of CGE model estimations for East Asian RTAs covering 1995-2003, see Table 2 in Ando and Urata (2007). For recent work, see McKibbin, Lee, and Cheong (2004), Sulamaa and Widgrén (2005), Zhai (2006), Park (2006), Kawai and Wignaraja (2007, 2008), Lee and van der Mensbrugghe (2007), Ando (2009), Petri and Plummer (2012), Itakura (2013), Chirathivat and Srisangnam (2013), Gilbert (2013), and Kim, Park, and Park (2013b). 2 For a comparison of TPP and RCEP, see Hamanaka (2014), Basu Das (2013), Choi and Lee (2013), Petri, Plummer, and Zhai (2011), Petri and Plummer (2012). In particular, Kawai and Wignaraja (2013) and Baldwin and Kawai (2013) strongly recommend that the two mega-lateral trade blocs should become complementary, not exclusive, by harmonizing the scope of the RTAs whereas Choi and Lee (2013) are very pessimistic about the convergence of the two blocs and recommend strong efforts by main actors such as ASEAN, the US, and China to make the two blocs similar. - 117 -
4. Concluding Policy Implications In this paper, we assessed East Asian countries efforts to liberalize their regional market through mutual cooperation. We investigated the reason RTAs have been proliferating across East Asia and the main characteristics of East Asian RTAs. Finally, we considered future directions for East Asian RTAs. Based on this analysis, we are able to make several policy recommendations. First, East Asian RTAs should follow an expansionary RTA path, such as transitioning from the currently active AFTA and 5 ASEAN+1 FTAs to the RCEP and/or TPP and then to the FTAAP. Second, in order to enable East Asian economies to follow the more desirable expansionary RTA path amidst the current complicated web of RTAs, deepening regional production networks, and FTAAP consolidation, there are several prerequisites to further RTA progress: harmonization or simplification of ROOs, cumulation of value contents among the RTA members, and enhanced trade facilitation. Finally, non-economic cooperation for closer political and cultural linkages is a necessary condition to the desirable evolutionary path mentioned earlier. 4.1. Strategy for a Region-Wide RTA The most desirable expansionary path toward a region-wide RTA can be achieved by strategically leveraging competitive RTAs (for example, AFTA vs. China-Japan-Korea FTA and RCEP vs. TPP). Rivalry between the competing RTAs will push the respective other to speed up negotiations and expand their scope. As noted earlier, China did not support Japan s preferred solution of an ASEAN+6 RTA (CEPEA) until the US initiated the TPP. Because the TPP could marginalize China s regional dominance, China allowed ASEAN to bring the 16 countries together via the RCEP by surrendering the ASEAN+3 RTA (EAFTA) option. In order to make this expansionary path feasible, a trilateral FTA among China, Japan, and Korea (CJK RTA) should be formed first. The CJK RTA will spur ASEAN to more actively drive the RCEP. The China-Korea FTA may be a necessary condition for realizing a trilateral FTA, as it will push Japan to rejoin the Northeast Asian regional cooperation scheme. At the same time, the three Northeast Asian countries should actively participate in the formation of the RCEP. Compared with the TPP, the RCEP may be more desirable for East Asian countries because the TPP s high standard of liberalization may magnify the differences between developed and developing East Asian member states, including potential members like Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, India, Indonesia, and China. 4.2. Multilateralizing East Asian RTAs As mentioned earlier, a complicated web of overlapping hub-and-spoke type RTAs can result in high costs for verifying ROO and in trade diversion or suppression effects. Park and Park (2011) propose the cumulation of ROO, especially full cumulation, as a means of enhancing global free trade by mitigating these negative effects. More specifically, Kim, Park, and Park (2013a) recommend that regime-wide ROO, such as diagonal cumulation, de minimis, and self-certification requirements, be applied to reduce additional administrative and compliance costs of verifying restrictive ROO. 1 Kim, Park, and Park (2013b) find that the 1 According to Estevadeordal and Suominen (2003), diagonal cumulation allows producers within one RTA member state to use non-originating materials from another member without losing the preferential status of the final product; de minimis allows for a specified maximum percentage of non-originating materials to be used without affecting origin status; and - 118 -
FTAAP has great potential for improving the welfare of participating APEC economies, will boost economic growth in the region, and would be further improved if linked with liberalization of trade in services and enhanced trade facilitation. 1 Baldwin and Kawai (2013) also emphasize the need to harmonize ROO and enhance trade facilitation in order to reap larger gains from region-wide East Asian RTAs. Thus, key priorities for enabling East Asian economies to take the expansionary RTA path include harmonizing or simplifying ROO, cumulation among RTA members, and enhancing trade facilitation. 4.3. Non-economic Cooperation in East Asia As investigated by Park and Park (2013), socio-political cooperation is a key factor for successful implementation of the proposed region-wide and cross-regional RTAs and will lead them to a desirable evolutionary path. We would like to highlight that non-economic cooperation for closer political and cultural linkages is a necessary condition to build up mutual trust and to reduce trade costs. In negotiating FTAs, however, countries have shown the tendency to focus exclusively on economic aspects of trade liberalization, completely disregarding political, societal, and cultural dimensions of the trade pact that could easily disrupt trade relations. Ignoring these important determinants could run the risk of making unrealistic predictions and proposing misguided policy prescriptions in examining gains from the FTAs and possibility of forming new ones path (see Table 5). Table 6 reports the probability of forming proposed RTAs in the Asia-Pacific region investigated by Park and Park (2013). They investigate the feasibility of the proposed RTAs, such as the CJ (China-Japan), the CK (China-Korea), the JK (Japan-Korea), the CJK (China-Japan-Korea), the ASEAN+3 (ASEAN+CJK), the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), and the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership), in the Asia-Pacific region by calculating the probability of RTA formation based on the estimates in their qualitative choice model analysis. They find that probabilities of forming RTAs in the Asia-Pacific region are significantly decreased when we consider the socio-political factors such as political ties and cultural affinity in the region. This implies that the lack of political ties and the cultural distance can be interpreted as significant obstacles for forming an RTA in the region. This finding logically proves the conventional belief, arguing that East Asian regional integration has not been successful due to the diversity in culture and a lack of political will, when compared to the European case. From their observations, we find that closer political and cultural linkages between countries within the region are necessary in order to realize the formation of regional RTAs. self-certification by exporters, in contrast to certification by an industry group or the exporting country s government, enhances RTA utilization. 1 For detailed information on reducing or eliminating trade barriers in East Asian RTAs, see Chia (2010), Lee and Okabe (2011), Kawai and Wignaraja (2007, 2013). Considering tariff barriers specifically, ASEAN has achieved its goal of complete tariff reduction under the CEPT (Common Effective Preferential Tariff)-AFTA scheme. According to Table 1 in Kuno (2011), which evaluates the level of liberalization by calculating preferential tariffs for five ASEAN+1 RTAs, the most liberalized ASEAN+1 RTA in the region is that with Australia and New Zealand (94.6%) followed by those with China (92.0%), Korea (91.6%), Japan (89.2%), and India (76.5%). (See Kuno, 2011). Kawai and Wignaraja (2007) provide a more comprehensive analysis. In their Table 8, they classify East Asian FTAs by scope. Among the 34 FTAs as of 2006, 8 (24%) cover goods provision, 3 (9%) cover both goods and services, 9 (26%) cover goods, services, and Singapore issues, and 14 (41%) cover goods, services, Singapore issues, and cooperation enhancement. According to Appendix Table 3 in the same paper, which covers 25 selected FTAs including China, India, Japan, Korea, and Singapore, the average percentage of goods and services provisions covered is 69% and that for WTO-plus provisions (both Singapore issues and cooperation enhancement) is 38%. - 119 -
References Asian Development Bank (2008) Emerging Asian Regionalism: A Partnership for Shared Prosperity, ADB. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Asia Regional Integration Center FTA database, Ando, Mitsuyo and Shujiro Urata (2007) "Impacts of East Asia FTA: A CGE model Simulation Study," Journal of International Economic Studies 11(2): 3-75. Ando, Mitsuyo (2009) Impacts of FTAs in East Asia: CGE Simulation Analysis, RIETI Discussion Paper Series 09-E-037, Research Institute of Economy, Trade & Industry (RIETI), Japan. Baldwin, R. (1993) "A Domino Theory of Regionalism", NBER Working Paper Series 4465, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Baldwin, R., and M. Kawai (2013) "Multilateralizing Asian Regionalism", ADBI Working Paper 431. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI). Basu Das, Sanchita (2013) "RCEP and TPP: Comparisons and Concerns", ISEAS Perspective, #02-2013, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS). Bhagwati, Jagdish (1993) "Regionalism and Multilateralism: An Overview", In New Dimensions in Regional Integration, edited by Jaime de Melo and Arvind Panagariya, pp. 22 51. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bhagwati, Jagdish, David Greenaway, and Arvind Panagariya (1998) "Trading Preferentially: Theory and Policy," The Economic Journal 108: 1128-1148. Chia, Siow Yue (2010) "Regional Trade Policy Cooperation and Architecture in East Asia," ADBI Working Paper Series No. 191. Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI). Chirathivat, S. and P. Srisangnam (2013) "The 2030 Architecture of Association of Southeast Asian Nations Free Trade Agreements", ADBI Working Paper 419. Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI). Choi, Byung-il and Kyounghee Lee (2013) "Future of Trading Architecture in Asia Pacific: TPP vs. RCEP", KERI Brief 13-24, Korea Economic Research Institute (KERI). Estevadeordal, Antoni and K. Suominen (2003) "Rules of origin: a world map and trade effects", Paper prepared for the workshop on The Origin of Goods: A Conceptual and Empirical Assessment of Rules of Origin in PTAs, INRA-DELTA, May 23-24, Paris. Feridhanusetyawan, Tubagus (2005) Preferential Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region. IMF Working Paper WP/05/149, International Monetary Fund (IMF). Fruend, Carolyn (2000) "Different Paths to Free Trade: The Gains from Regionalism", Quarterly Journal of Economics 115: 1317-41. - 120 -
Gilbert, John (2013) "The Economic Impact of New Regional Trading Developments in the ESCAP Region," Asia-Pacific Development Journal 20(1): 1-32. Hamanaka, Shintaro (2014) TPP versus RCEP: Control of Membership and Agenda Setting, Journal of East Asian Economic Integration 18(2): 163-186. Hill, Hal and Jayant Menon (2010) "ASEAN Economic Integration: Features, Fulfilments, Failures and the Future," ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration No. 69. Asian Development Bank (ADB). International Monetary Fund (2013), Direction of Trade Statistics CD-ROM, IMF. Itakura, Ken (2013) "Impact of Liberalization and Improved Connectivity and Facilitation in ASEAN for the ASEAN Economic Community", ERIA Discussion Paper Series ERIA-DP-2013-01, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA). JETRO (2003) Prospects for Free Trade Agreements in East Asia, Overseas Research Department, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO). Kawai, Masahiro (2004) Regional Economic Integration and Cooperation in East Asia, paper prepared for the Experts Seminar on the Impact and Coherence of OECD Country Policies on Asian Developing Economies. Kawai, Masahiro and Ganeshan Wignaraja (2007) "ASEAN+3 or ASEAN+6: Which Way Forward?" ADB Institute Discussion Paper No. 77. Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI). Kawai, Masahiro and Ganeshan Wignaraja (2010) "Asian FTAs: Trend, Prospects, and Challenges," ADB Economics Working Paper No. 226. Asian Development Bank (ADB). Kawai, Masahiro and Ganeshan Wignaraja (2013) "Patterns of Free Trade Areas in Asia," Policy Studies 65. East-West Center. Kim, Sangkyom, Innwon Park, and Soonchan Park (2013a) Trade-creating Regime-wide Rules of Origin: A Quantitative Analysis, Applied Economics Letters 20(11): 1056-1061. Kim, Sangkyom, Innwon Park, and Soonchan Park (2013b) A Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP): Is It Desirable? Journal of East Asian Economic Integration 17(1): 3-25. Kuno, Arata (2011) "Constructing the Tariff Dataset for the ERIA FTA Database," Chapter 2 in Comprehensive Mapping of FTAs in ASEAN and East Asia edited by Chang Jae Lee and Misa Okabe, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), Indonesia. Lee, Chang Jae and Misa Okabe (2011) Comprehensive Mapping of FTAs in ASEAN and East Asia, ERIA Research Project Report 2010, No.26, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), Indonesia. Lee, Jong-Wha and Innwon Park (2005) Free Trade Areas in East Asia: Discriminatory or Nondiscriminatory? The World Economy 28(1): 21-48. Lee, Jong-Wha, Innwon Park, and Kwanho Shin (2008) Proliferating Regional Trade - 121 -
Arrangements: Why and Whither? The World Economy 31(12): 1525-1557. Lu, Feng (2003) Free Trade Area: Awakening regionalism in East Asia, Working Paper Series E2003010, China Center for Economic Research. McKibbin, Warwick J. (1998) Regional and Multilateral Trade Liberalization: The Effects on Trade, Investment and Welfare, in Europe, East Asia and APEC: A Shared Global Agenda? edited by Peter Drysdale and D. Vines. Cambridge University Press, pp.195220. McKibbin, Warwick J., Jong-Wha Lee, and Inkyo Cheong (2004) A Dynamic Analysis of a Korea-Japan Free Trade Area: Simulations with the G-Cubed Asia-Pacific Model, International Economic Journal 18: 3-32. Panagariya, Arvind (1999) The Regionalism Debate: An Overview, The World Economy, 22: 477-511 Park, Innwon (2006) East Asian Regional Trade Agreements: Do They Promote Global Free Trade? Pacific Economic Review 11(4): 547-568. Park, Innwon (2009) Regional Trade Agreements in East Asia: Will They Be Sustainable? Asian Economic Journal 23(2): 169-194. Park, Innwon (2011) Is AFTA a Desirable Regional Trade Agreement for ASEAN? International Area Studies Review 14(4): 49-72. Park, Innwon (2013) "China s Regional Economic Cooperation with ASEAN, Japan, and Korea", Unpublished manuscript. Park, Innwon and Soonchan Park (2011) Best Practices for Regional Trade Agreements, Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv) 147(2): 249-268. Park, Innwon and Soonchan Park (2013) Cultural Affinity, Political Ties, and Endogenous Regional Trade Agreements, paper presented at the GEP China/ifo/CEPII Conference on Structural Change and Trade Efficiency organized by the Nottingham Centre for Research on Globalisation and Economic Policy (GEP) at the University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China, November 7-8, 2013. Petri, Peter A. and M. G. Plummer (2012) The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Asia-Pacific Integration: Policy Implications, Policy Brief PB 12-16, Peterson Institute for International Economics Petri, Peter A., M. G. Plummer, and Zhai Fan (2011) The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Asia Pacific Integration: A Quantitative Assessment, East-West Center Working Papers, Economics Series, No.119. East-West Center. Scollay, Robert, and John Gilbert (2001) New Subregional Trading Arrangements in the Asia-Pacific, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics. Sulamaa, Pekka and Mika Widgrén (2005) Asian Regionalism versus Global Free Trade: A Simulation Study on Economic Effects, Discussion Papers, The Research Institute of the - 122 -
Finnish Economy. United Nations, UN COMTRADE Database, http://comtrade.un.org/ United Nations Economic and Social Commissions for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) (2009) Trade Statistics in Policymaking: A Handbook of Commonly Used Trade Indices and Indicators, Bangkok: UNESCAP. Urata, Shujiro (2008) "Institutionalization of Regional Economic Integration in East Asia," GIARI Working Paper, Vol. 2008-E-16, Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration (GIARI), Waseda University, Japan. Urata, Shujiro and Kozo Kiyota (2003) The Impact of an East Asia FTA on Foreign Trade in East Asia, NBER Working Paper Series 10173, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Zhai, Fan (2006) "Preferential Trade Agreements in Asia: Alternative Scenarios of Hub and Spoke," ERD Working Paper No. 83. Asian Development Bank (ADB). Zhang, Yunling and Minghui Shen (2011) "The Status of East Asian Free Trade Agreements," ADBI Working Paper Series 282, Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI). - 123 -
Table 1. RTAs including Countries in ASEAN+6, by Status Notes: - Acronyms used: Preferential Trading Agreement (PTA), Free Trade Agreement (FTA), Closer Economic Partnership (CEP), Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA), Regional Trading Arrangement (RTA), Comprehensive Economic Partnership Signed and in effect (year) Bilateral and Intra-Regional (20) ANZCERTA (1983) Laos-Thailand PTA (1991) Papua New Guinea-Australia Trade and Commercial Region (1991) India-Sri Lanka FTA (2001) Indo-Nepal Treaty of Trade (2002) Japan-Singapore EPA (2002) China-Thailand FTA (2003) China-Hong Kong CEPA (2003) India-Afghanistan PTA (2003) China-Macao CEPA (2004) India-Bhutan Trade Agreement (2006) Korea-Singapore FTA (2006) Japan-Malaysia EPA (2006) Japan-Thailand EPA (2007) Japan-Indonesia EPA (2008) Japan-Brunei FTA (2008) Japan-Philippines EPA (2008) China-Singapore FTA (2009) Japan-Vietnam FTA (2009) China-Chinese Taipei ECFA (2011) Korea-Canada FTA (2015) Bilateral and Inter-Regional (36) New Zealand-Singapore CEP (2001) Singapore-Australia FTA (2003) US-Singapore FTA (2004) Korea-Chile FTA (2004) Thailand-Australia FTA (2005) Thailand-New Zealand CEPA (2005) India-Singapore CECA (2005) Singapore-Jordan FTA (2005) US-Australia FTA (2005) Japan-Mexico EPA (2005) Singapore-Panama FTA (2006) China-Chile FTA (2006) China-Pakistan FTA (2007) Japan-Chile EPA (2007) Signed but not yet in effect (year) China-Korea FTA (2015) Korea-Vietnam FTA (2015) Korea-New Zealand CEP (2015) Pakistan-Indonesia FTA (2012) Korea-Colombia FTA (2013) China-Switzerland FTA (2013) China-Iceland FTA (2013) New Zealand- Taipei ECA (2013) Under negotiation Negotiations launched (year) Framework agreement signed (year) Korea-Indonesia CEPA (2012) Japan-Mongolia EPA (2012) Singapore-Mexico FTA (2000) Canada-Singapore FTA (2001) India-Egypt PTA (2002) US-Thailand FTA (2004) India-Mauritius CECPA (2005) Pakistan-Singapore FTA (2005) India-Israel PTA (2006) Korea-Mexico SECA (2006) US-Malaysia FTA (2006) Singapore-Egypt CECA (2006) Singapore-Ukraine FTA (2007) Japan-Australia EPA (2007) China-Norway FTA (2008) Malaysia-Turkey FTA (2010) India-Thailand FTA (2004) Thailand-Bahrain FTA (2002) China-Australia FTA (2005) Proposed (year) Korea-Thailand FTA (2003) Korea-Japan FTA (2008) Korea-Mongolia FTA (2008) China-Mongolia FTA (2010) Malaysia-Korea FTA (2011) Philippines-Chinese Taipei ECA (2012) New Zealand-Mexico FTA (2002) US-Brunei FTA (2002) China-India RTA (2003) Singapore-Sri Lanka CEPA (2003) India-Colombia PTA (2004) India-Uruguay PTA (2004) India-Venezuela PTA (2004) Pakistan-Philippines FTA (2004) Pakistan-Thailand FTA (2004) Australia-Mexico FTA (2006) India-Russia CECA (2006) Pakistan-Brunei Darussalam FTA (2007) - 124 -
Signed and in effect (year) India-Chile PTA (2007) New Zealand China FTA (2008) Malaysia-Pakistan CEPA (2008) Australia-Chile FTA (2009) Singapore-Peru FTA (2009) Japan-Switzerland EPA (2009) India-Korea CEPA (2010) China-Peru FTA (2010) Malaysia-New Zealand FTA (2010) Malaysia-India CECA (2011) Japan-India CEPA (2011) New Zealand-Hong Kong CEPA (2011) Korea-Peru FTA (2011) China-Costa Rica FTA (2011) Thailand-Peru FTA (2011) Japan-Peru FTA (2012) Chile-Vietnam FTA (2012) Korea-US FTA (2012) Malaysia-Chile FTA (2012) Malaysia-Australia FTA (2013) Korea-Turkey FTA (2013) Singapore-Costa Rica FTA (2013) Australia-Korea FTA (2014) Plurilateral and Intra-Regional (6) SPARTECA (1981) AFTA (1993) ASEAN China CECA (2005) SAFTA (2006) ASEAN-Korea CECA (2007) ASEAN-Japan CEP (2008) Plurilateral and Inter-Regional (9) APTA (1976) Singapore-EFTA FTA (2003) Korea-EFTA FTA (2006) P4 (2006) India-MERCOSUR PTA (2009) ASEAN-India CECA (2010) AANZFTA (2010) Korea-EU FTA (2011) Singapore-GCC FTA (2013) Signed but not yet in effect (year) Under negotiation Negotiations launched (year) India-Canada EPA (2010) New Zealand-India FTA (2010) India-Australia FTA (2011) India-Indonesia CECA (2011) Thailand-Chile FTA (2011) Japan-Canada EPA (2012) Japan-Colombia EPA (2012) Indonesia-Australia CEPA (2012) Framework agreement signed (year) Proposed (year) Korea-Russia Bilateral EPA (2007) Korea-Israel FTA (2009) India-Turkey FTA (2009) Australia-Colombia FTA (2009) Japan-New Zealand FTA (2010) Malaysia-Syria FTA (2011) China-Colombia FTA (2012) Indonesia-Chile FTA (2013) Japan-Turkey EPA (2013) China-Japan-Korea FTA (2013) EAFTA: ASEAN+3 (2004) PTA-8 (2006) China-SACU FTA (2004) China-GCC FTA (2005) Thailand-EFTA FTA (2005) Japan-GCC FTA (2006) ASEAN-EU FTA (2007) India-EU FTA (2007) New Zealand-GCC FTA (2007) Australia-GCC FTA (2007) India-EFTA FTA (2008) Korea-GCC FTA (2009) PACER Plus (2009) Singapore-EU FTA (2010) Malaysia-EU FTA (2010) Indonesia-EFTA FTA (2011) Customs Union of New Zealand-Customs Union of Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan FTA TPS-OIC (2004) BIMSTEC FTA (2004) India-SACU PTA (2004) India-GCC FTA (2006) TPP (2010) Shanghai Cooperation Organization FTA (2003) Korea-MERCOSUR PTA (2004) Korea-SACU FTA (2005) CEPEA: ASEAN+6 (2005) Thailand-MERCOSUR FTA (2006) ASEAN-Pakistan FTA (2009) Korea-Central America FTA (2010) Malaysia-GCC FTA (2011) - 125 -
Signed and in effect (year) Signed but not yet in effect (year) Under negotiation Negotiations launched (year) Framework agreement signed (year) Proposed (year) (2011) Vietnam-EFTA FTA (2012) Vietnam-EU FTA (2012) Malaysia-EFTA FTA (2012) Vietnam-Customs Union of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan FTA (2013) Japan-EU EPA (2013) RCEP (2013) Agreement (CEPA), Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), Comprehensive Economic Cooperation and Partnership Agreement (CECPA), Strategic Economic Complementation Agreement (SECA), Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), Comprehensive Economic Partnership (CEP), Economic Cooperation Agreement (ECA) - Agreements and their members: Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA): Bangladesh, China, India, Korea, Lao PDR, Sri Lanka; South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (SPARTECA): Australia, Niue, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia; Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (ANZCERTA); Southern African Customs Union (SACU): Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Botswana, Lesotho; ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA): Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam; Shanghai Cooperation Organization: China, Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan; European Free Trade Association (EFTA): Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland; Trade Preferential System of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (TPS-OIC): Bangladesh, Cameroon, Egypt, Guinea, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Pakistan, Senegal, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE, Iran, Uganda, Malaysia; Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC): Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand; East Asia FTA (EAFA): ASEAN+3 (ASEAN 10, China, Japan, Korea); South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA): Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka; The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC): Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates; Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR): Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay; Comprehensive Economic Partnership for East Asia (CEPEA): ASEAN+6 (ASEAN 10, China, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, India); Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (P4): Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore; Preferential Tariff Arrangement-Group of Eight Developing Countries (PTA-8): Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey; Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER): Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu; Korea-Central America FTA: Korea, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Dominican Republic, El Salvador; ASEAN-Australia and New Zealand FTA (AANZFTA); Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP): ASEAN 10, China, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, India; Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, USA, Canada, Mexico, and Japan. Source: Asian Development Bank (ADB), Asia Regional Integration Center FTA database, - 126 -
Table 2. Intra-ASEAN+6 Trade by RTA, 2010-2012 Value (Billion US$) 2010 2011 2012 Average for 2010-2012 China-Japan 599.6 687.4 661.9 649.7 China-Korea 395.2 465.2 469.4 443.2 Japan-Korea 183.4 213.8 205.2 200.8 CJK 1,178.2 1,366.5 1,336.5 1,293.7 AFTA 493.2 581.5 615.0 563.2 ASEAN-China 536.1 663.4 735.7 645.1 ASEAN-Japan 433.8 503.3 524.7 487.2 ASEAN-Korea 199.7 250.3 265.1 238.4 ASEAN-ANZ 160.8 190.2 197.4 182.8 ASEAN-India 109.5 151.5 148.3 136.4 ASEAN+3 2,841.0 3,365.1 3,477.0 3,227.6 ASEAN+6 3,703.9 4,448.4 4,555.5 4,236.0 Share of total 2010 2011 2012 Average for 2010-2012 China-Japan 13.5% 12.9% 11.9% 12.7% China-Korea 10.2% 9.8% 9.5% 9.8% Japan-Korea 7.8% 7.7% 7.4% 7.6% CJK 22.1% 21.3% 20.2% 21.1% AFTA 24.6% 24.3% 24.4% 24.4% ASEAN-China 10.8% 11.0% 11.5% 11.1% ASEAN-Japan 12.5% 12.3% 12.5% 12.4% ASEAN-Korea 6.9% 7.2% 7.4% 7.2% ASEAN-ANZ 6.5% 6.3% 6.3% 6.4% ASEAN-India 4.2% 4.8% 4.5% 4.5% ASEAN+3 38.7% 38.2% 38.0% 38.3% ASEAN+6 44.1% 43.7% 43.2% 43.6% Note: CJK: China, Japan, and Korea; AFTA: ASEAN Free Trade Area; ANZ: Australia and New Zealand Source: IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics CD-ROM, June 2013. - 127 -
Table 3. Effects of the ASEAN+3 and ASEAN+6 RTAs Kawai and Wignaraja 1 Chirathivat and Ando (2009) Ken Itakura (2013) 2 (2007) Srisangnam (2013) Gilbert (2013)3 ASEAN+3 ASEAN+6 ASEAN+3 ASEAN+6 ASEAN+3 ASEAN+6 ASEAN+3 ASEAN+6 ASEAN+3 ASEAN+6 Income Welfare Welfare Welfare Welfare Welfare Welfare Income GDP GDP (% (% change) (Million (Million (% (% (% change) (% change) (Million (Million change) US$) US$) change) change) US$) US$) China 1.26 1.33 658 673 1.66 1.77 808.1 2,822.2 Japan 1.54 1.59 6,492 7,118 0.44 0.54 12,679.9 13,951.3 Korea 6.19 6.43 5,964 6,287 3.56 3.72 23,902.1 25,043.8 Taiwan -2.03-2.23-1,511-1,759-0.08 0.10 Indonesia 4.57 5.39 1.74 1.94-52.8-436.8 Malaysia 4.23 5.19 5.83 6.21 545.4 1,780.8 Philippine s 2.40 2.44 3.94 4.18-116.6-261.8 Thailand 9.69 10.03 4.49 4.78 1,145. 7 882.1 Singapore 8.48 9.21 4.22 4.40 673.0 579.2 Vietnam 7.08 7.33 1,605.4 1,608.2 Cambodia 6.42 6.44 37.2 18.4 Lao PDR 2.53 2.49-5.7-7.3 Canada 0.18 0.15-63 -172 US -0.03-0.06-4,800-6,008 Australia -0.41 3.91-722 4,833-0.09 1.35-457.2 5,010.4 New Zealand -0.27 5.24-145 269-0.06 1.87 India -0.30 2.42-505 -872-0.10 1.30 552.3 7,810.5 EU 0.06 0.02-3,054-3,989-0.01-0.01 ROW -2,494-3,802 1.18 1.30 ASEAN 5.23 5.66 7,582 9,176 3.60 3.83 3,831.5 4,162.9 ASEAN+3 20,696 23,253 1.02 1.30 ASEAN+6 19,324 27,484 0.22 0.28 World 0.45 0.54 6,669 10,833 1.66 1.77 808.1 2,822.2 Notes: 1 - Cumulative deviation from 2011 to 2015, including both tariff elimination and reduced service trade barriers and trade time costs 2 - Trade facilitation and liberalization 3 - The effect of capital accumulation - 128 -
Table 4. Effects of Mega-lateral RTAs in Asia-Pacific Petri and Plummer (2012) Kim, Park, and Park (2013b) 4 Asian Track 1 TPP Track2 FTAAP 3 FTAAP Income (% change) Income (% change) Income (% change) GDP (% change) Welfare (% change) China 1.35 0.27 3.93 0.04-0.07 Japan 1.93 2.24 4.27 0.14 0.37 Korea 4.12 2.16 6.11 0.86 1.36 Taiwan -1.90 0.35 6.31 0.54 1.52 Indonesia 0.83 0.23 2.45 0.17-0.16 Brunei 2.77 1.10 5.45 Malaysia 1.93 6.10 8.90 2.45 2.69 Philippines 1.72 0.35 4.95 0.26 0.69 Thailand 1.78 0.67 4.91 1.23 6.18 Singapore -0.49 1.95 3.28 0.03 1.16 Vietnam 3.97 13.57 21.46 5.05 8.02 Canada 0.02 0.50 1.32 0.04-0.07 US 0.01 0.38 1.31 0.01 0.03 Australia 0.02 0.60 1.84 0.09 0.25 New Zealand 0.13 2.25 2.86 0.16 1.45 India -0.15 0.07-0.56 Europe 0.02 0.02 0.14-0.04-0.13 Rest of World -0.01 0.07 0.44-0.05-0.48 ASEAN+3 1.79 0.66 4.62 APEC 0.86 0.53 3.48 0.13 0.25 World 0.48 0.29 1.86 Notes: 1 - ASEAN+3 2-12 TPP countries + Korea 3-21 APEC countries 4-19 APEC countries excluding Brunei Darussalam and Papua New Guinea. - 129 -
Standard Model Specification Actual Prediction Table 5. Predictions of RTA Formation (1) Without Socio-political Factors (2) With Political Ties (Military Alliance & Democracy) (3) With Cultural Proximity (Common Language & Religion) (4) With Political Ties & Cultural Proximity RTA=1 RTA=0 RTA=1 RTA=0 RTA=1 RTA=0 RTA=1 RTA=0 RTA = 1 0.33 0.05 0.39 0.01 0.37 0.01 0.42 0.01 RTA = 0 0.67 0.95 0.61 0.99 0.63 0.99 0.58 0.99 Note: The figures in each cell represent the percentage of observations for which RTA ijt =1(form an RTA) or 0 (do not form an RTA), and are predicted to have RTA ijt =1or0withaprobability>0.5. Source: Park and Park (2013). Table 6. Probability of Forming RTAs in the Asia-Pacific Region Standard Model Specification (1) Without Socio-politic al Factors (2) With Political Ties (Military Alliance & Democracy (3) With Cultural Proximity (Common Language & Religion) (4) With Political Ties & Cultural Proximity Average Whole Sample 0.1080 0.1053 0.1051 0.1048 0.1058 CJ 0.6448 0.5416 0.6604 0.5573 0.6011 CK 0.8630 0.7821 0.8651 0.7885 0.8247 JK 0.8900 0.8482 0.8914 0.8511 0.8702 CJK 0.7993 0.7240 0.8056 0.7323 0.7653 ASEAN+3 0.4651 0.3944 0.4411 0.3826 0.4208 RCEP 0.1611 0.1586 0.1601 0.1577 0.1594 TPP 0.1594 0.1522 0.1558 0.1498 0.1543 Notes: (i) CJ (China-Japan), CK (China-Korea), JK (Japan-Korea), CJK (China-Japan-Korea), ASEAN+3 (ASEAN+CJK), RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). (ii) Brunei Darussalam and Myanmar are excluded due to data problems. Source: Park and Park (2013). - 130 -
Figure 1. Share of Intra-regional Trade in East Asia Note: CJK - China, Japan, and Korea Source: IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics CD-ROM, June 2013. Figure 2. Intra-regional Exports by Commodity in ASEAN+3 (Billion US$) Source: UN, UN COMTRADE Database http://comtrade.un.org/ - 131 -
Figure 3. Intra-regional Imports by Commodity in ASEAN+3 (Billion US$) Source: UN, UN COMTRADE Database http://comtrade.un.org/ Figure 4. Region-wide RTAs in Asia-Pacific Source: modified from Choi and Lee (2013). - 132 -