[2005/05/09] 미국 하원 국제관계위원장에게 보내는 항의서한(한글, 영문)
평통사
view : 1426
미국 하원 국제관계위원장(헨리 하이드)에게 보내는 항의서한
미국 하원 국제관계위원장인 헨리 하이드는 3월 10일 ‘한반도 6자회담과 핵문제’를 주제로 열린 미국 하원 국제관계위원회 주최의 청문회에서 한국 국방백서의 주적 삭제를 비판하면서 “한국이 미국의 도움을 받으려면 누가 적인지 분명히 밝히라”고 한국 정부를 압박하였으며 “한국과 중국은 핵으로 위협하는 북한에 대해 지원을 쏟아 붓는 것을 재고해야 한다”고 주장함으로써 일국의 국회의원이 주권을 가진 대한민국의 내정을 간섭하는 오만한 발언을 하였다. 이는 엄연히 당당한 주권을 가진 대한민국 국민을 무시하는 행위이며 한반도 평화를 염원하는 남북 동포들의 꿈을 짓밟는 것이다.
이에 평화통일연구소는 홍근수 이사장과 강정구 소장의 명의로 헨리 하이드 위원장에게 4월 28일 항의서한을 발송하였다. (5월 2일 배달 완료)
항의서한의 주요 내용은 다음과 같다.
1. 북한은 남한과 같은 동족이며 주적이 아니다. 한반도 전쟁 긴장을 유발하는 것은 오히려 미국이다.
2. 작전계획 5027은 미국의 패권을 확대하고자 하는 대북 핵 선제공격계획으로서 우리는 이를 단호히 거부한다.
3. 북한 핵문제의 책임은 1994년 북미 제네바 합의를 파기하고 북한을 핵 선제공격 대상으로 지목하는 등 북한 정권을 전복시키려 하는 미국에 있다.
4. 주한미군을 대북한 선제공격을 위한 무력이나 아시아태평양 지역의 신속기동군으로 이동하거나 한국군을 이라크, 아프가니스탄 침략 전쟁에 동원하는 것은 대한민국 영토가 외부로부터 무력공격을 받을 경우에 한해 방어하도록 하는 한미상호방위조약을 위배하는 것이다.
5. 주적 삭제를 시비하고 남북한 교류 협력 중단을 요구하는 것은 대한민국 주권에 대한 침해이며 중대한 내정간섭이다.
Opening Remarks
of Chairman Henry J. Hyde
Full Committee Hearing on
"The Korean Peninsula: Six Party Talks and the Nuclear Issue"
Thursday, March 10, 2005
of Chairman Henry J. Hyde
Full Committee Hearing on
"The Korean Peninsula: Six Party Talks and the Nuclear Issue"
Thursday, March 10, 2005
For over a decade, as the eyes of Washington and the world have turned progressively toward other crises in other places, a dark cloud has been slowly rising over the Korean peninsula. The question today is whether that cloud has taken on a mushroom shape and, if so, what we should do.
The Korean peninsula, while small in global terms, is of strategic importance. For Korea lies at a crossroads where great military and economic powers come together: Japan, China, Russia, and America's State of Alaska. The Korean people have long recognized their homeland's vulnerability as a potential point for Great Power conflict. "When whales fight, shrimp get broken" runs the old Korean proverb.
The whales have indeed come to the Korean peninsula, where they waged bloody wars. Almost exactly a century ago, in the spring of 1905, the capitals of Europe were stunned when the emerging Asian power, Japan, sank the Imperial Russian fleet in the waters off Korea. The repercussions of Tokyo's rousing victory in the Russo-Japanese War were felt throughout the Twentieth Century. Imperial Japan, with a new confidence, began its long march toward empire. This was a march which reached its zenith of imperial overreach on a quiet Sunday morning, almost four decades later, at Pearl Harbor.
Imperial Russia, shaken to its foundations by its unexpected defeat, entered a period of instability which culminated a dozen years later in the Bolshevik Revolution. The repercussions of that revolution continued throughout the Twentieth Century until the Berlin Wall became a pile of rubble in 1989.
Almost fifty years after the clash of Russia and Japan over Korea, the peninsula again became ground zero with the outbreak of the first major Cold War conflict. North Korea, on a quiet Sunday morning, in June, suddenly and deliberately attacked the Republic of Korea. Two other Great Powers, the United States and the People's Republic of China, were soon engaged in a three-year long, conflict which left over 36,000 Americans killed, some 17,000 allied dead, and as many as two million Korean civilian and military casualties.
The question before us, then, is will history repeat itself in its fifty-year cycle of cataclysm in Korea, or can a unified, measured diplomatic response within the framework of the Six Party Talks resolve this crisis in a peaceful manner?
Pyongyang must realize that a nuclear free Korean peninsula is a fundamental principle to which its neighbors unanimously subscribe. There is no substitute for the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. While Pyongyang's rulers may find such an inspections regime intrusive, they must realize that, after such previous failed attempts as the well-intentioned but ill-advised Agreed Framework, they have zero credibility on nuclear issues. To paraphrase an expression of President Reagan, with regard to Pyongyang, one "should trust very little and verify completely."
North Korea should be under no illusions concerning Congressional support for normalization of diplomatic relations until it provides a complete cessation of its proliferation activities and an accounting of the abduction of both Japanese and South Korean citizens. Those abducted include the Reverend Kim Dong-Shik (KIM DONG-SHICK), the spouse of an Illinois resident, who is of particular concern to that state's Congressional delegation.
Our colleagues, particularly China and South Korea, may have to reconsider the degree to which they shower assistance on a regime which has added nuclear blackmail to its arsenal of threats. The entire existing, delicate security balance in Asia will be deeply affected by failure to address North Korean nuclear adventurism.
We and Seoul should, as allies, work together to meet this challenge as we have done most recently in Iraq. The Republic of Korea has provided the third largest contingent of forces in the coalition working together in Iraq. For that commitment by Seoul, the American people are extremely grateful.
However, mixed signals on the security question, coming from Seoul, only compound the challenge we face with North Korea. The Republic of Korea Ministry of National Defense White Paper for 2004 contained an apparent contradiction which causes some confusion. On the one hand, it deleted the designation of Pyongyang as “the main enemy,” although Pyongyang's continued hostility has been a major rationale for the US-ROK alliance. Second, the White Paper stated that, in the event of armed conflict in Korea, the U.S. would dispatch 690,000 troops B over four times the 150,000 U.S. forces now serving in Iraq. This seems to reflect great expectations at a time when U.S. resources are already elsewhere committed. Congress would certainly have a major role in examining the implications of such a massive deployment. It also raises a very germane issue: if you need our help, please tell us clearly who your enemy is.
Finally, let me note the disquietude with which we must view Pyongyang's attempt to make Washington, rather than itself, the focus of scrutiny over supposed hostile intent. Pyongyang's latest maneuver is to demand an apology from Washington for Secretary Rice's recent reference to "outposts of tyranny." Is there any doubt in this room, or in this entire country, that the North Korean regime is tyrannical?
It is increasingly clear that this is a red herring designed to distract attention from the real proliferation issue at hand. It is equally true, and disturbing, however, to note that these propaganda efforts are being met with increased receptivity by younger and left-leaning elements in Seoul.
Questioning the United States over "hostile intent" turns history on its head. It was not the United States that launched an attack in 1950. The United States did not attack North Korea when Pyongyang seized our ship, the Pueblo, in 1968 and held its crew hostage for eleven months. The United States did not attack even when North Korean soldiers murdered Major Arthur Bonifas and First Lieutenant Mark Barrett with axes in the DMZ in 1976. The United States has never threatened to turn Pyongyang into "a sea of fire" as North Korea has threatened to do to Seoul. Allegations of the hostile intent of the United States are patently ludicrous.
Let me confirm here continued concern over North Korean hostile intent directed at the Republic of Korea. This intent has historic reality and is a major reason for the stationing of U.S. forces in South Korea. North Korea must give concrete indication of the abandonment of its own hostile intent for engagement to proceed.
In this regard, the experience of Germany during its years of division is often cited as an example for present-day Korea. A vital part of Chancellor Willy Brandt's policy of rapprochement with East Germany in 1972 was the establishment of reciprocal permanent missions in each of the German capitals. I would suggest, in future discussions within the Six Party framework, that the two Koreas consider the establishment of missions in Seoul and Pyongyang along similar lines, until Korean reunification is peacefully achieved.
In the meantime, we and our South Korean allies must stand together. Any potential miscommunication will only play into Pyongyang's hands.
We have many questions of critical importance regarding Korea to address today and look forward to hearing from our expert witnesses.
헨리 하이드 의원 귀하!
이 편지를 보내는 평화통일연구소는 한국에서 평등한 한미관계와 한반도 평화 실현을 위해 설립된 단체임을 밝힙니다.
귀하는 지난 3월 10일 ‘한반도 : 6자회담과 핵문제’를 주제로 열린 미국 하원 국제관계위원회 주최의 청문회에서 한국 국방백서의 주적 삭제를 비판하면서 “한국이 미국의 도움을 받으려면 누가 적인지 분명히 밝히라”고 우리 정부를 압박하였습니다. 또한 귀하는 “한국과 중국은 핵으로 위협하는 북한에 대해 지원을 쏟아 붓는 것을 재고해야 한다”고 주장함으로써 사실상 남북 간 경제협력의 중단을 강요하였습니다.
1. “북한의 계속되는 적대행위가 한미동맹의 주요한 관심사”라고 주장하면서 ‘북한이 적임을 확실히 하라’는 귀하의 발언은 동족 간 군사적 대결과 전쟁을 부추기고 우리 민족의 화해협력을 가로막으려는 반인륜적이고 민족분열적인 폭언으로 엄중히 규탄합니다.
북한은 같은 동족이고 우리의 반쪽이기 때문에 결코 주적이 아니며 또 주적이 될 수 없습니다. 그리고 한 해 국방비가 남한 국방비의 1/10에 지나지 않는 북한이 군사적으로 남한에 위협이 되지 않습니다. 우리 민족의 분단은 전적으로 귀국과 소련 두 강대국의 강요에 의한 것으로 우리 민족은 서로 적대해야 할 아무런 이유가 없습니다.
따라서 국방백서 상의 주적 삭제는 당연한 것이며 이를 시비하는 귀하야말로 냉전적 사고에 찌든 시대착오적인 정치인임을 스스로 드러내는 것입니다.
한국의 권위 있는 여론조사기관인 한국사회여론연구소(KSOI)가 북한 핵보유 선언 직후인 2월 15일 한국민을 대상으로 조사한 바에 따르면 안보불안감을 묻는 질문에 58.9%가 불안하지 않다고 응답했으며 북한 핵 해법과 관련해서는 미국의 북한체제보장이 우선이라는 응답이 56%를 차지했습니다. 이런 조사 결과는 우리 국민들에게 ‘북한을 적으로 간주하라’는 귀국의 강요가 이제 더 이상 먹히지 않으며 오히려 귀국이야말로 북한에 위협임을 우리 국민들이 분명히 인식하고 있다는 것을 말해줍니다.
귀하야 적이 실망스럽겠지만 우리 국민 61%가 한반도의 전쟁요인으로 미국을 꼽고 있으며(2003년 7월 24일 KBS여론조사) 한국의 주적이 어디인가를 묻는 설문에 ‘미국’을 지적하는 응답이 1위를 차지하고 있습니다.
‘북한이 주적임을 확실히 하라’는 귀하의 발언은 우리 민족의 역사를 과거 대결과 반목의 시대로 후퇴시키려는 것으로 결코 이루어질 수 없는 헛된 망상입니다. 귀국이 허위적인 북한 위협론을 내세워 남북간 대결과 적대를 계속 강요한다면 한국에서 반미여론만 더욱 고조시킬 뿐입니다. 이에 우리는 귀하가 민족대결적인 폭언을 즉각 취소하고 한국민에게 사과할 것을 촉구합니다.
2. 귀하가 한반도 전쟁 시 69만 명의 미군 증원전력을 운운하면서 ‘우리 도움이 필요하면 누가 적인지 분명히 하라고’ 하였는데 우리는 작전계획 5027과 관련하여 귀국의 도움을 전혀 필요로 하지 않다는 것을 아울러 말씀드립니다. 이 작전계획은 우리 민족의 운명을 볼모로 한반도 전역을 자신의 수중에 넣고 나아가 중국으로까지 패권을 확대해 보려는 귀국의 위험천만한 대북 핵선제공격계획입니다. 이 전쟁계획은 우리가 귀국의 도움을 받아야 할 사안이 아니라 즉각 폐기되어야 할 계획입니다. 귀하가 우리 정부에 대해서 북한이 주적임을 분명히 하라고 다그치는 것도 바로 이 같은 귀국의 전쟁계획에 우리 군과 국민을 동원하려는 속셈이지요. 그래서 더 더욱 우리는 귀하의 민족분열적 발언을 엄중히 규탄합니다.
3. 우리가 귀하의 발언에 분개하는 것은 또한 귀하가 미국 민주주의를 대표하는 정치인임에도 불구하고 진실을 외면하고 호도하기 때문입니다.
북한 핵문제의 본질은 귀국이 1994년 북미 제네바합의를 파기하고 나아가 힘으로 북한 정권을 전복시키려고 끊임없이 획책하고 있는 데 있습니다. 귀국은 제네바합의서 상의 핵무기 불위협 및 불사용 보장에 관한 약속을 어기고 핵태세검토보고서(NPR)에서 북한을 핵선제공격 대상으로 지목하는 등 끊임없이 북한을 위협하였습니다. 또한 귀국은 “경수로 사업의 상당부분이 완료될 때(제1호의 원자로의 터빈과 발전기의 인도 이후에), 그러나 핵심 원자력부품의 인도 이전에” 북한의 과거핵에 대한 특별사찰을 하기로 한 약속을 어기고 조기사찰을 강요하였습니다. 제네바합의를 제대로 이행하지 않은 것도, 파기를 선언한 장본인도 바로 귀국입니다. 미국이 북미불가침협정이나 안전보장에 관한 북한의 요구를 한사코 거부하고 있는 것만 보더라도 미국이 북한 핵문제를 평화적으로 해결할 의지가 없으며 오로지 힘으로 북한을 붕괴시키는데만 관심이 있다는 것을 말해줍니다.
만약 미국이 제네바 합의를 성실히 이행하고 안전보장에 관한 북한의 요구를 수용했다면 북한의 핵 보유 선언은 있지도 않았을 것입니다. 이점에서 부시정권은 북한이 핵보유 선언을 할 수밖에 없는 상황으로 몰아간 책임을 면할 수 없습니다.
그리고 귀국 국방비의 0.3%(15억 달러)밖에 되지 않는 국방비를 쓰는 북한이 미국의 위협이 된다는 것도 이라크가 미국의 위협이 될 수 없었던 것처럼 미국 국민을 기만하기 위해 지어낸 허구에 불과합니다.
우리는 대표적인 미국 정치인임에도 불구하고 진실을 철저히 외면하는 귀하의 부도덕하고 위선적인 태도에 실망을 금할 수 없습니다. 미국은 인류의 보편적 가치로서 민주주의를 설파하고 있지만 진실과 정의를 외면하는 민주주의는 인류의 재앙일 수밖에 없습니다.
귀하가 진정으로 민주주의적 가치를 소중히 여기는 정치인이라면 이라크에서의 오류를 되풀이 하지 않도록 부시정권의 무모하고 호전적인 대북한 적대정책의 잘못을 추궁하는데 적극 나서야 합니다.
4. 한미동맹 운운하면서 북한이 주적임을 확실히 하라는 귀하의 발언은 적반하장도 유분수임을 말씀드립니다.
한미상호방위조약 제3조와 이 조약의 미국 양해사항은 대한민국(남한) 영토가 외부로부터 무력공격을 받을 경우에 한해 방어하도록 규정하고 있습니다.
남한에 대한 북한의 무력공격이 발생한 것도 아니고 더 더욱 미국이 북한의 공격을 받은 것도 아닙니다. 객관적 사실은 미국이 북한에 대해 핵선제공격 위협을 가하고 있는 것입니다. 이런 마당에 부시정권의 일방적이고 호전적인 대북 적대정책에 한국이 협력해야 할 아무런 의무도 이유도 없습니다. 오히려 외부의 무력공격으로부터 대한민국을 지킨다는 명목으로 주둔 중인 주한미군을 귀국이 대북한 선제공격을 위한 무력으로, 아시아태평양지역의 신속기동군으로 이용하고 또 한국군을 이라크, 아프가니스탄 등의 침략전쟁에 동원하는 것이야말로 한미상호방위조약에 대한 명백한 위반입니다.
이에 우리는 불평등한 한미상호방위조약마저 왜곡, 위배하는 귀하의 발언을 즉각 취소하고 우리 국민에게 사과할 것을 요구합니다.
5. 주적 삭제를 시비하고 남북한 간 교류협력 중단을 요구하는 것은 우리 나라의 주권에 대한 엄중한 침해이고 내정간섭입니다.
국방정책을 결정하는 것도 북한과의 교류협력을 추진하는 것도 모두 주권국가로서의 우리 나라의 당연한 권리입니다. 주권국가로서의 한국의 위상을 부정하는 귀하의 이번 발언은 미국 정부와 정치인들이 우리 나라를 미국의 종속국쯤으로 보면서 걸핏하면 내정간섭을 자행해온 그간의 행태를 반복하는 것입니다. 우리는 귀하의 발언을 스스로 취소하고 우리 국민에게 정중히 사과함으로써 우호협력적 한미관계를 만들어가는데 노력해 줄 것을 촉구합니다.
6. 끝으로 우리는 평등한 한미관계 수립과 한반도 평화를 위한 미국 의회의 건설적인 역할을 기대합니다. 이를 위해서 귀하를 포함하여 미국 의회가 한국민의 여론을 폭넓게 수렴하고 특히 평등한 한미관계 수립과 한반도 평화를 위해 활동하는 한국의 시민사회단체와도 대화를 가질 것을 제안합니다.
2005년 4월 27일
평화통일연구소(이사장 홍근수, 소장 강정구)
April 28, 2005
Chairman, Committee on International Relations
United States House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Hyde:
This letter is written by the Research Institute for Peace and Reunification of Korea, a Korean civic organization established in order to strive for an equal relationship between the Republic of Korea and the United States and to achieve a secure and lasting peace on the Korean peninsula.
We would like to express our deep concern about the remarks which you made during the oversight hearing held by the US House of Representatives Committee on International Relations on March 10, which dealt with the North Korean nuclear issue and the six-party talks.
1. We protest against your insistence that our government should clearly tell the US who our enemy is, as "Pyongyang's continued hostility has been a major rationale for the US-ROK alliance". Your statement is considered inhumane, immoral, and violent, because it could lead to a destructive military confrontation and war among people of the same nation, preventing our reunification. Since we regard the North and South Koreans to be one people, of the same ethnic background, and North Korea as the other half of our nation, it is not and cannot be our main enemy. It is rather the partner with whom we must work in order to achieve peace and reunification. Technically speaking, North Korea, with a defense budget only a tenth the size of South Korea's, cannot be a threat to South Korea in terms of military strength.
Moreover, there is no reason for the two Koreas to remain antagonistic to each other. Our country was forcibly divided, against Koreans' will, by the US and the former Soviet Union. In this regard, it is logical to remove the term "main enemy" from the Ministry of Defense's white paper. In the present circumstances, your complaint about this deletion appears to be an anachronistic Cold War era perception.
According to a public opinion survey conducted by the Korea Society Opinion Institution (KSOI), one of Korea's leading public opinion research organizations, immediately after North Korea declared that it possessed nuclear weapons on 15 February 2005, 58.9% of the South Koreans are not worried about national defense, and with reference to the issue of North Korea's nuclear program, 56% of the respondents believe that it is urgent that the US provide North Korea with assurances that its security is not endangered. These results indicate that South Koreans are no longer convinced that North Korea is their main enemy. Instead they see the US as a threat to North Korea.
You may be disappointed to know that, according to the Korea Broadcasting System (KBS) poll of 24 July 2003, 61% of the South Koreans think that the greatest danger of a possible war on the Korean peninsula comes from the US.
Therefore we think that your claim that North Korea should be regarded as South Korea's main enemy is dangerously deluded, as though Korean history now can be pushed back to the Cold War period of conflict and antagonism. If you continue your false and distorted rhetoric about North Korea and demand hostile confrontation between the two Koreas, anti-American sentiment in this country will intensify. In this regard, we demand that you immediately withdraw your hostile statement and offer an apology to the Korean people.
2. Your comment, that in case of war on the peninsula 690,000 US troops will be sent, is far from the truth. Based on Operation Plan 5027, South Korea does not need the US assistance at all. The plan is designed to carry out a preemptive nuclear strike against North Korea and even to ensure that the US gains supreme power on the peninsula and even extends its supremacy to China at Korea's expense. According to the plan, the South Korean forces and people will be utilized for the war. This is the reason why you insist that North Korea remain the main enemy. The war plan should rather be eliminated immediately. Again we strongly accuse you of trying to split the Korean people.
3. Another reason why we are shocked and dismayed by your remarks is that you, a member of Congress, representing American democracy, made misleading statements, distorting the truth.
The North Korea nuclear issue originated from the US' abrogation of the 1994 North Korean-US Agreed Framework on the nuclear problem and the US' long-term determination to overthrow the North Korean government by force. In violation of the Agreed Framework, contrary to the obligation that the "US will provide formal assurances to the DPRK, against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the US", the US has constantly threatened North Korea by designating it in the NPR Report as a target for preemptive nuclear attack. Furthermore, your government violated the agreement that the DPRK's previous nuclear facilities (at Yongbyon) would be inspected after a considerable part of the light-water reactor project was completed, in other words, after the turbines and electric generators were delivered for the reactor, but before important components were supplied, to force the North to accept the earlier inspection.
Thus it was the US that failed to comply with the terms of the Agreed Framework and subsequently declared that the agreement had broken down. In view of Washington's persistent rejection of Pyongyang's demand for a non-aggression pact and its refusal to guarantee North Korea's national security, it is evident that your government has no intention of seeking to achieve a peaceful resolution of the crisis of North Korea's nuclear program through dialogue, but remains determined to overthrow the North Korean government by force.
If the US had honored its commitment, faithfully implemented the terms of the Agreed Framework, and accepted North Korea's demand for guarantees of its security, the North would not have declared that it is in possession of nuclear weapons. In this regard, the Bush administration cannot deny its responsibility for driving the North to pursue its nuclear program and proclaiming itself as a nuclear power, leading to the current nuclear crisis on the peninsula.
North Korea, with a national defense budget of only tpf=board/list&board_code=1.5 billion, 0.3% of the US' military expenditures, is no more a threat to the US than Iraq was. Your administration's insistence that the DPRK is a threat to the US is merely a fiction fabricated to deceive the American people, similar to the lies told about Iraq.
Therefore we were very disappointed that you, as a prominent American political figure, took such an immoral and hypocritical stance toward the truth of this case. Although the US claims that it has been spreading democracy as a universal value, a democracy without truth and justice will only end up by inflicting death and destruction on millions of people. If you are a politician who has respect for democratic values, it is expected that you should closely re-examine your government's thoughtless and aggressive policy toward North Korea. Then you will not have to make the same mistake on the Korean peninsula that you made in the Iraq war and your public statements can reflect the true essence of democracy.
4. Referring to the Republic of Korea-US alliance, you arrogantly demanded that the South Korean government clearly state who its "main enemy" is, an instance of "The thief turns on the master with a club".
According to article 3 of the ROK-US Mutual Defense Treaty, and by mutual agreement, it stipulates that "each party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties in territories... would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes". South Korea is to be defended ONLY against external attack. At present North Korea is not mounting any armed attacks on South Korea, much less the US. The DPRK has never attacked the US. On the other hand, it is obvious that the US has repeatedly threatened North Korea with a preemptive nuclear strike. Under these circumstances, the Republic of Korea has no good reason to support the Bush administration and collaborate in carrying out its unilateral hostile policy against North Korea.
We would also like to point out that it is definitely a violation of the ROK-US Mutual Defense Treaty to mobilize the US forces in South Korea, under the guise of defending the ROK from outside armed attack, in order to carry out a preemptive strike against North Korea, or to deploy the rapid deployment forces for other military operations in the Asia-Pacific region. Moreover, in a further clear breach of the Mutual Defense Treaty, Washington has demanded that our government send South Korean troops to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. We hereby demand that you retract your statement which violated and distorted the terms of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the ROK and the US, which we regard as an unequal treaty, and apologize to the Korean people.
5. In our view, you have intervened in South Korea's domestic affairs and even violated its sovereignty by pressing Seoul to define the DPRK as the "main enemy", not to mention demanding that we suspend our exchange and cooperation with North Korea. It is common sense that South Korea, as a sovereign nation, is fully within its rights to determine what its military policy shall be and to promote its relationship with North Korea. Your remark, undermining the status of Korea as an independent, sovereign state, is similar to remarks frequently made by some of the previous administration's officials and politicians who saw South Korea only as a kind of colony or protectorate, a country subordinate to the US. Again we emphasize our belief that a retraction of your statement, accompanied by a sincere apology, will surely contribute to maintaining the ROK-US relationship in a more cooperative atmosphere.
6. Finally, we expect the US Congress to play a constructive role in helping to establish an equal and fair relationship between the Republic of Korea and the US and to make a concerted effort toward securing peace on the Korean peninsula. In this connection, we suggest that the members of the US Congress, including you, pay careful attention to the trends of public opinion in South Korea and engage in dialogue with the many non-governmental organizations working to achieve an ROK-US relationship based on mutual respect and equality and establish peace on the Korean peninsula and throughout the region.
April 28, 2005
Research Institute for Peace and Reunification of Korea,
____________________ ____________________
Mr. Hong, Geun-Soo Mr. Kang, Jeong-Gu
Chief Director Executive Director