요사이 북한의 核문제에 대해서 아주 위험한 합창이 나오고 있다. 부시 미국 대통령은 '김정일이 핵무기만 포기하면' 평화협정을 맺고 美北 수교도 가능하다고 말한다. 노무현 대통령은 한 걸음 더 나아가서 당장에라도 평화협정을 논의하자는 태도이다. 李明博 한나라당 후보조차도 '김정일이 핵만 포기하면' 對北지원을 과감하게 해주겠다고 말한다.

'핵만 포기하면...'이란 말이 공통어이다. 그렇다면 김정일이 核만 포기하면 갑자기 평화의 사도가 되고, 국제사회에서 무슨 지원을 다 해주어도 괜찮고 한반도 평화체제가 정착된다는 말인가?

국제법상 김정일의 핵포기는 선택도 권리도 아닌 의무이다. 1994년 제네바 합의에서 김정일은 핵개발 시설을 폐기하겠다고 약속했고, 이에 따라 국제사회는 경수로를 지어주는 공사를 시작했었다. 김정일이 우라늄 원폭을 개발하려는 음모를 꾸미고 있음이 밝혀지면서 이 합의는 무효화되었다.

김정일은 지난 2월13일 6者회담에서 핵개발을 포기하고 모든 핵시설을 폐기하겠다고 약속했다. 거기에 따른 보상조건에도 합의했다. 김정일이 핵폐기를 하는 것은 善意를 베푸는 것이 아니고 그동안 여러 번 어겼던 약속을 실천하는 것뿐이다.

여기에 왜 파격적 보상이 필요한가? 더구나 주한미군 철수나 韓美동맹 해체로까지 이어질 가능성이 높은 종전선언-평화협정이란 선물을 왜 범법자에게 주어야 하는가? 核포기 대가로선 너무나 심한 시혜가 아닌가? 주한미군 철수란 선물도 주겠다는 건가? 이런 문제제기가 오늘 한 전직 대사들 모임에서 있었다.

좌파정권이 한번 더 집권하면 북한정권이 핵을 포기했으니 우리도 韓美동맹을 포기하고 주한미군을 철수시키자고 나올 것임에 틀림 없다. 김정일은 핵포기에 걸린 판돈을 극대화하는 데 성공했다. 무엇보다도 부시가 이라크의 곤경에서 벗어나기 위하여 '김정일이 핵만 포기하면' 많은 선물을 주기로 했기 때문이다.

대한민국은 이 위험한 게임에서 함정에 빠져선 안된다. 우리는 이렇게 주장해야 한다.
'김정일이 핵만 포기해선 안된다'고.
평화체제로 가기 위해서 김정일은 核개발을 포기하는 것과 함께, 몇 가지 일을 더 해야 한다.
6.25 남침에 대한 사과 배상, 국군포로 및 납북자 전원송환, 이산가족의 거주지 선택 자유 부여, 강제수용소 폐지, 휴전선상의 재래식 군사력 후진 배치 등은 필수적 조건이다.

한편으론 核포기와 주한미군 철수(한미동맹 약화 내지 폐기)가 연계되지 않도록 한국정부가 입장을 분명히 하고 국민여론이 이를 뒷받침하도록 해야 한다. 좌파정권을 바꾸지 않고선 이런 일은 無望할 것이다.

==========================================================

Israel, U.S. Shared Data On Suspected Nuclear Site
Bush Was Told of North Korean Presence in Syria, Sources Say

By Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 21, 2007; Page A01

Israel's decision to attack Syria on Sept. 6, bombing a suspected nuclear site set up in apparent collaboration with North Korea, came after Israel shared intelligence with President Bush this summer indicating that North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria, U.S. government sources said.

The Bush administration has not commented on the Israeli raid or the underlying intelligence. Although the administration was deeply troubled by Israel's assertion that North Korea was assisting the nuclear ambitions of a country closely linked with Iran, sources said, the White House opted against an immediate response because of concerns it would undermine long-running negotiations aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear program.


TOOLBOX
Resize Text
Save/Share + DiggNewsvinedel.icio.usStumble It!RedditFacebook Print This E-mail This

COMMENT
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 44 comments about this item.
View All Comments »

POST A COMMENT
Your washingtonpost.com User ID, webmaster, will be displayed with your comment.



Discussion PolicyDiscussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain 'signatures' by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Ultimately, however, the United States is believed to have provided Israel with some corroboration of the original intelligence before Israel proceeded with the raid, which hit the Syrian facility in the dead of night to minimize possible casualties, the sources said.

The target of Israel's attack was said to be in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. A Middle East expert who interviewed one of the pilots involved said they operated under such strict operational security that the airmen flying air cover for the attack aircraft did not know the details of the mission. The pilots who conducted the attack were briefed only after they were in the air, he said. Syrian authorities said there were no casualties.

U.S. sources would discuss the Israeli intelligence, which included satellite imagery, only on condition of anonymity, and many details about the North Korean-Syrian connection remain unknown. The quality of the Israeli intelligence, the extent of North Korean assistance and the seriousness of the Syrian effort are uncertain, raising the possibility that North Korea was merely unloading items it no longer needed. Syria has actively pursued chemical weapons in the past but not nuclear arms -- leaving some proliferation experts skeptical of the intelligence that prompted Israel's attack.

Syria and North Korea both denied this week that they were cooperating on a nuclear program. Bush refused to comment yesterday on the attack, but he issued a blunt warning to North Korea that 'the exportation of information and/or materials' would affect negotiations under which North Korea would give up its nuclear programs in exchanges for energy aid and diplomatic recognition.

'To the extent that they are proliferating, we expect them to stop that proliferation, if they want the six-party talks to be successful,' he said at a news conference, referring to negotiations that also include China, Japan, South Korea and Russia.

Unlike its destruction of an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, Israel made no announcement of the recent raid and imposed strict censorship on reporting by the Israeli media. Syria made only muted protests, and Arab leaders have remained silent. As a result, a daring and apparently successful attack to eliminate a potential nuclear threat has been shrouded in mystery.

'There is no question it was a major raid. It was an extremely important target,' said Bruce Riedel, a former intelligence officer at Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. 'It came at a time the Israelis were very concerned about war with Syria and wanted to dampen down the prospects of war. The decision was taken despite their concerns it could produce a war. That decision reflects how important this target was to Israeli military planners.'

Israel has long known about Syria's interest in chemical and even biological weapons, but 'if Syria decided to go beyond that, Israel would think that was a real red line,' Riedel said.

Edward Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and founding director of Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, said that when he was in Israel this summer he noticed 'a great deal of concern in official Israeli circles about the situation in the north,' in particular whether Syria's young ruler, Bashar al-Assad, 'had the same sensitivity to red lines that his father had.' Bashar succeeded his Hafez al-Assad as president of Syria in 2000.

The Israeli attack came just three days after a North Korean ship docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, carrying a cargo that was officially listed as cement.

The ship's role remains obscure. Israeli sources have suggested it carried nuclear equipment. Others have maintained that it contained only missile parts, and some have said the ship's arrival and the attack are merely coincidental. One source suggested that Israel's attack was prompted by a fear of media leaks on the intelligence.

The Bush administration's wariness when presented with the Israeli intelligence contrasts with its reaction in 2002, when U.S. officials believed they had caught North Korea building a clandestine nuclear program in violation of a nuclear-freeze deal arranged by the Clinton administration.

After the Bush administration's accusation, the Clinton deal collapsed and North Korea restarted a nuclear reactor, stockpiled plutonium and eventually conducted a nuclear test. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice convinced Bush this year to accept a deal with North Korea to shut down the reactor, infuriating conservatives inside and outside the administration.

But for years, Bush has also warned North Korea against engaging in nuclear proliferation, specifically making that a red line that could not be crossed after North Korea tested a nuclear device last year. The Israeli intelligence therefore suggested North Korea was both undermining the agreement and crossing that line.

Conservative critics of the administration's recent diplomacy with North Korea have seized on reports of the Israeli intelligence as evidence that the White House is misguided if it thinks it can ever strike a lasting deal with Pyongyang. 'However bad it might be for the six-party talks, U.S. security requires taking this sort of thing seriously,' said John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who was a top arms control official in Bush's first term.

But advocates of engagement have accused critics of trying to sabotage the talks. China on Monday abruptly postponed a round of six-party talks scheduled to begin this week, but U.S. officials now say the talks should start again Thursday.

Some North Korean experts said they are puzzled why, if the reports are true, Pyongyang would jeopardize the hard-won deal with the United States and the other four countries. 'It does not make any sense at all in the context of the last nine months,' said Charles 'Jack' Pritchard, a former U.S. negotiator with North Korea and now president of the Korea Economic Institute.