【Global NK 国际会议】第二场会议：构建朝鲜半岛未来秩序与大妥协之路

YouTube 链接 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0MemcQJvM8

在东亚研究院（EAI）于5月10日举办的Global NK国际会议的第二场会议中，韩美中安全专家们就构建朝鲜半岛未来秩序需要三国合作的领域，如核不扩散和核安全等问题进行了讨论。美中两国专家在地区军备竞赛的责任归属问题上立场存在差异，但双方均认为应缩小分歧，加强相互合作，共同促进朝鲜半岛的稳定与和平。

■ 时间: 2023年5月10日（周三），11:10-12:20

■ 地点: 威斯汀朝鲜酒店（Westin Chosun Seoul）兰花厅

■ 出席者（按韩语字母顺序）: 金泰亨（崇实大学教授）、孙烈（EAI院长；延世大学教授）、欧阳卫（国观智库副主任）、 贾庆国（北京大学教授）、全在成（EAI国家安保研究中心所长；首尔大学教授）、弗朗西斯卡·乔瓦尼尼（哈佛大学贝尔弗中心主任）、威廉·托比（洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室主任）

■ 主旨发言：威廉·托比所长（洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室）

“核不扩散的未来之路”

• 《核不扩散条约》（NPT）一直是维护国际和平与安全稳定的基石和宝贵资产。尽管NPT的终结曾被多次预言，但这些预言都被证明是错误的。然而，这一次可能有所不同。

• 对NPT体系的攻击将对朝鲜半岛产生深远影响。自21世纪初以来，解决朝鲜核威胁的外交努力已陷入停滞。

• 2022年2月，俄罗斯破坏并践踏国际秩序，世界因此发生了变化。作为NPT成员国和联合国安理会常任理事国，俄罗斯和中国显然正在重新思考或已直接攻击NPT。

• 作为回应，进一步扩散（核武器）绝非答案。认同NPT和共同价值观的国家必须共同行动。它们必须积极捍卫规范、价值观和法律，并实现更切实的防御。

• 延伸威慑是历史上最成功的核不扩散政策。波兰与乌克兰的差异便是最佳证明。幸运的是，韩国是美国条约联盟的一部分，并受益于美国的延伸威慑。需要通过双边和多边途径付出更多努力，以应对核不扩散所面临的威胁。

■ 主旨发言：欧阳卫副主任（国观智库）

“在战略困境中寻求合作”

• 中美竞争日益加剧，而朝鲜则继续发展其武器，尹锡悦政府治下的韩国对朝政策也日益强硬。然而，相关国家在朝鲜半岛合作的基础和原则依然存在。

• 朝鲜半岛的地区秩序不太可能演变成“新冷战”，因为相关国家在核安全、安保和稳定方面仍有共同利益。

• 因此，各国仍有寻求合作的空间。大国竞争并不意味着在所有领域都必须对抗。核安全、安保、避免核战争、地区稳定以及与核相关的问题都是共同利益和中美韩合作的潜在领域。

• “六方会谈”等多边途径经常被搁置，但基本规则和原则并未过时。任何可能促进无核化、安全与稳定的双边或多边对话都具有意义。

■ 主旨发言：全在成所长（EAI国家安保研究中心；首尔大学教授）

“驾驭朝鲜半岛未来安全挑战：核威慑与战略接触”

• 中美关系表面上可能充满对抗，但这源于战略不信任和误解，是可以解决的。美国认为中国的经济发展具有修正主义性质，而中国则认为美国通过挑战其在台湾的主权和领土完整来不公正地遏制中国。

• 继2022年11月巴厘岛会晤之后，出现了一些积极变化的迹象。中方表现出谨慎乐观，而美方则试图提出其对华战略的最终目标愿景。

• 然而，为了改善其立场并增强承诺的可信度，美国应提出一个更明确的战略框架，表明其希望以合理的方式管理竞争。为了实现成熟的关系，进行持续的对话、外交和基于规则的竞争至关重要。

• 对韩国而言，中美军备竞赛的威胁日益增大。韩国应努力寻找“战略空间”以加强与两国的合作。

• 《华盛顿宣言》更侧重于确认对韩国的保证。但这在某种程度上激怒了朝鲜。我们需要与对手进行沟通，并向朝鲜发出信号，表明延伸威慑本质上是防御性的，而非进攻性的。

■ 讨论1：贾庆国教授（北京大学）

• 正如威廉·托比教授所提到的，NPT面临威胁是一个令人担忧的问题。NPT面临诸多挑战。美国自身通过在澳大利亚部署核潜艇而挑战该条约体系，华盛顿还积极讨论在韩国和日本部署战术核武器。

• 核安全是该地区的共同利益，需要采取务实的步骤来确保这一点。在这方面，美中两国都希望稳定，并且确实已表达了强烈的承诺。然而，现实情况更为复杂。尽管如此，美中两国应进行良性竞争，并努力做得更好。

■ 讨论2：弗朗西斯卡·乔瓦尼尼主任（哈佛大学贝尔弗中心）

• 事实上，未来东亚秩序将主要由中美之间的竞争与合作塑造。这种秩序也将进一步塑造整体国际秩序。

• 美中关系可以定义为“复杂相互依存”。这种竞争不能仅仅从“安全动态”的角度来理解。尽管两国都在进行竞争，但仍然存在合作的需要。

• 朝鲜问题可以为美中两国向世界展示大国合作如何发挥作用提供宝贵机会。中国是朝鲜半岛问题上的主要参与者和负责任的行动者。在此背景下，中国应像在“六方会谈”期间那样，承认并参与进来。

• 中国与韩美在对朝问题上存在不同视角，但这源于“顺序困境”。中国认为必须首先实现经济合作以减轻朝鲜的不安全感，而韩美则认为在任何经济合作实现之前必须首先实现安全保障。因此，从长远来看，所有各方都必须致力于对话以弥合这一差距。

■ 讨论3：金泰亨教授（崇实大学）

• NPT的未来黯淡。美国已面临严峻挑战，例如如何向其盟友提供保证和进行有效的军备控制。在当前的国际政治中，NPT正受到日益严重的威胁，而美、俄、中都在对其核力量进行现代化改造。

• 如果不祥的预测成为现实，大国（尤其是美国）将在维护NPT和向盟友提供有效延伸威慑方面面临巨大压力。因此，相关各方迫切需要进行核军备控制谈判，而这些谈判已被证明在相当长一段时间内是有益的。

• 如今，显著的技术进步正在帮助一些国家建立比核大国更强的反力量能力。因此，一些核大国对其生存能力的信心将减弱，这可能导致一场发展更多武器的军备竞赛。这种趋势正在全球范围内发生，并对军备控制以及NPT产生负面影响。

• 延伸威慑很重要，因为它减轻了韩国对朝鲜的威胁感知。然而，过分强调核武器可能会给人一种错误的印象，即韩美同盟的维持和对朝鲜核威胁的威慑仅通过核武器来实现。

• 尽管相关各方在朝鲜半岛确实存在共同利益，但每个国家都倾向于优先考虑自身的国家利益。每个国家都在互相指责导致朝鲜半岛僵局。

■ 讨论4：威廉·托比所长

• 必须强调两点澄清：澳大利亚已坚定同意采取法律和实际措施，确保核潜艇燃料不会用于武器；没有任何美国行政官员正在考虑在日韩部署战术核武器。

• 大国竞争的再现是一个巨大的挑战，这个问题比核不扩散更为宏大。欧盟、日本、韩国、美国及其他志同道合的国家不仅应为核武器，也应为全球安全而联合起来。这些国家携手合作，将具有强大的力量。

■ 讨论5：欧阳卫副主任

• 重要的是要注意，“核安全”和“核安保”是两个不同的概念。前者也适用于非传统安全问题。

• 由于中国和韩国是邻国，它们已经有对话渠道。美国也是如此，因为有热线。因此，重启双边对话的机会是存在的，或许可以通过1.5轨对话等方式。

■ 讨论6：全在成所长

• 为了解决中国对韩国可能改变其台湾政策的担忧，韩国的官方政策保持不变——支持台湾海峡的和平、繁荣与稳定。韩国尊重“一个中国”政策，但认为台湾海峡很重要，因为它直接关系到韩国的贸易和军事稳定。

• 然而，中国对韩国政策可能改变的疑问是可以理解的，因为韩国总统和外交部长最近一直在呼应美国的言论，反对单方面改变现状。首尔需要做更多工作来阐明反对改变现状对韩国意味着什么。

• 韩国深受日益增长的中美竞争的影响，并且对此非常脆弱。在此背景下，韩国希望能够参与多边对话，以确定韩国可以在何处以及如何发出自己的声音。

■ 金泰亨_崇实大学政治外交学教授。

■ 孙烈_东亚研究院（EAI）院长；延世大学国际学院教授。

■ 欧阳伟_国观智库副主任。

■ 翟惊国_北京大学教授。

■ 全在星_东亚研究院（EAI）国家安保研究中心所长；首尔大学政治外交学系教授。

■ 弗朗西斯卡·乔瓦尼尼_哈佛大学肯尼迪学院贝尔弗中心核管理项目主任。

■ 威廉·托比_洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室国家安全与国际问题研究室主任；哈佛大学肯尼迪学院贝尔弗中心高级研究员。

■ 负责与编辑：朴智秀，EAI研究员

    咨询：02 2277 1683 (分机号 208) | jspark@eai.or.kr

视频脚本

第二次会议，嗯，实际上它延续了前几次会议的议程，主题是构建朝鲜半岛的未来秩序、战略沟通、延伸威慑以及包括核不扩散在内的新领域的合作，这些是我们即将讨论的话题。而且，已经为各位发言人提供了一些关键问题，包括第一个是您对美国、中国和韩国对朝鲜半岛未来的看法。

这个问题非常广泛，但我们的联合主办方统一部非常想听取您的意见，因为他们对此话题非常感兴趣。第二个问题更直接地关系到我们今天的讨论，即我们如何在亚洲建立信任和信心，以实现延伸威慑安排。我们也可以借鉴一些历史范例来讨论这个问题，所以这是一个关于相关参与者之间战略沟通和透明度的问题。第三个问题是，

我认为这是今天会议的最终目标，即美国、中国和韩国这三个国家可以在哪些领域进行合作？例如，在无核化、核安全、核安保等领域存在共同利益，这些可以成为进一步合作以及实现该地区和平、繁荣和共生秩序的垫脚石。那么，现在，为了节省时间，我将非常简要地介绍一下，因为，嗯，你们会

非常简短。首先，在我左边是威廉·托比，他是核不扩散、恐怖主义和军备控制领域的顶尖专家。他拥有辉煌的职业生涯，你们可以在会议记录中读到。接下来是，嗯，欧阳伟博士，他拥有国际安全博士学位，是国观智库学术委员会副主席。他是中国国家安全、国防战略、危机管理和边境安全领域的顶尖专家。第三位发言人来自EAI，他

是EAI国家安全项目中心的主任，也是首尔大学教授。全教授是韩国国际关系领域的真正顶尖专家。还有三位杰出的讨论者。再次感谢您今天的光临，我将跳过您。接下来是弗朗西斯卡·乔瓦尼尼教授，欢迎来到韩国。她是哈佛大学肯尼迪学院贝尔弗中心核管理项目执行主任，也是斯坦福大学的非常驻研究员。

她多年来担任过非常重要的职务。正如你们所知，她是军备控制、地区核扩散动态、核安保和内部威胁领域的顶尖专家。最后，我说的不是最后一位，是金泰亨教授，来自崇实大学。他也是国际安全、核扩散和威慑领域的知名专家，他还专攻中小型国家的外交政策。那么，

我们的时间管理将是，您发言，嗯，三位发言人，每位最多发言12分钟，抱歉，如果超时，之后就没有时间回应了。然后，讨论者每人8分钟，我们将按此顺序进行。威廉，您先开始，非常感谢。很高兴再次来到韩国。在我感染新冠之前，我最后一次来首尔是和约翰·朴一起的。很高兴见到许多老朋友。我还要说，我即将发表的观点是我个人的，不代表任何其他机构。我想先谈谈，我主要会谈论核不扩散和核不扩散条约。我想先提供一些我个人观点的背景。我既是核不扩散条约的支持者，也是一个乐观主义者。我认为，尽管存在一些弱点，该条约在过去几十年里表现良好。几十年前有九个核武器国家，今天仍然是九个。我们用南非换来了朝鲜，可以说不是一笔好交易，

尤其是如果您住在这里。但它仍然是一个稳定的制度，确实是国际和平与安全的资产。尽管如此，从罗伯特·麦克纳马拉开始的观察家们一直担心更大的扩散可能性，核不扩散条约的终结也曾被多次预测。所有这些观察家都被证明是错误的。我担心这次可能不同。为什么？核安全领域有一句谚语：任何地方的事故就是任何地方的事故。我担心对核不扩散条约的攻击，在朝鲜半岛以外的地方，将产生深远的影响，包括对朝鲜半岛。世界在2022年2月发生的变化，与1989年11月和1991年12月柏林墙倒塌和苏联解体时发生的变化一样大。我们今天所处的世界与我上次来韩国时大不相同。俄罗斯不仅在违反国际秩序，它还在破坏国际秩序。我不是想轻描淡写，但这是仅仅

超速行驶和撕毁所有限速标志的区别。他们试图摧毁几十年来建立的规范和法律。这在几个方面对核不扩散政策构成了直接威胁：通过攻击《布达佩斯备忘录》，他们攻击了所有无核武器国家的安全；通过庇护伊朗逃避对其违反《联合全面行动计划》及其与国际原子能机构的保障协定的回应，他们破坏了核不扩散条约。我只想问，有人

相信伊朗会担心它可能不得不提交联合国安理会，而俄罗斯却挥舞着否决权，却从伊朗接收无人机？通过威胁使用核武器，俄罗斯直接攻击了核不扩散条约。最重要的是，通过攻击国际法的理念本身，这不可避免地会对朝鲜半岛产生影响。俄罗斯是六方会谈的参与方。我想补充一点，那些未能反对，或者更糟的是，默许支持俄罗斯正在表现出的无法无天的行为的国家，都对

破坏核不扩散条约负有责任。我本想指出，可悲的是，自21世纪初以来，当时有积极的外交努力试图逆转朝鲜的核武器计划，我曾参加过中国主办的六方会谈，但该外交努力已基本停滞。这本身就令人担忧。我更担心听到乔瓦尼尼教授提出中国可能放弃支持核不扩散的可能性。那么，这一切该怎么办？我们面临的情况是，核不扩散条约下的两个核武器国家和联合国安理会的两个常任理事国，可能正在重新考虑或直接攻击核不扩散政策。我不认为正确的回应是进一步扩散。我认为，相反，志同道合的国家必须团结起来，那些信仰民主、人权和法治的国家必须团结起来，支持这些价值观以及核不扩散。这些共同的价值观是我们追求这些共同价值观的最大力量源泉。

我们必须准备积极防御。我们不仅要捍卫规范、价值观和法律，还必须准备更实际的防御。我认为，延伸威慑一直是历史上最成功的核不扩散政策，而最有力的证据是，我认为，波兰作为北约成员国，因此受益于美国的延伸威慑，而乌克兰的情况并没有被其他观察家忽视。幸运的是，韩国是美国的条约盟友，也是延伸威慑的受益者。美国和韩国都需要更紧密地合作，也要与该地区和全球的其他国家一起，共同应对对核不扩散的威胁。谢谢。非常感谢。接下来是欧阳伟博士。谢谢主席。感谢您给我机会分享我对这个话题的个人观点。根据会议，根据主题，我想分享

一些我们关于努力在战略困境中寻求合作的观点。我认为我们正面临所有相关国家，包括朝鲜半岛周边几个相关国家，都面临着艰难的时期。我认为，无论是在全球范围还是在亚太地区，尤其是在朝鲜半岛安全问题上，都非常突出，风险水平确实在上升。但考虑到人类的命运，我一直认为人类拥有自己的智慧和共同利益，为了亚洲和平与稳定，

太平洋地区以及世界的未来，相关国家应该着眼于克服障碍，并在战略困境面前寻求合作。我们确实面临战略困境，即对错和困难。我认为，首先，相关国家在朝鲜半岛合作的基础和原则仍然存在。近年来，朝鲜半岛的相关国家在各自的战略和军事方面都经历了一些变化，许多变化。

能力。这些变化受到大国竞争的影响，正如各位发言人早些时候所说，以及地区安全冲突，也与他们自身的战略需求有关。每个国家都有自己的利益。中美关系正处于低谷，国防安全对话、交流与合作基本上处于停滞状态，停止了，没有官方的任何形式的对话。美国在政治、经济和安全领域加大了对中国的压力，中国感受到了来自美国的更大压力，两国在许多方面的对抗都在上升，这对我们早些时候在几次会议上提到的核问题合作以及半岛的和平与稳定产生了负面影响。朝鲜继续发展核武器，正如一些专家早些时候所说，将其核政策作为一种核能力，这无视了基本的战略手段。我认为，他们不仅关注

常规战争，但核武器是他们国家安全和政权稳定的基本战略手段。与此同时，导弹发射的增加加剧了半岛的不稳定，使得半岛的和平变得更加不可预测。我们目前对朝鲜的政策正变得越来越强硬，美国联盟已升级，延伸威慑已变得具体，包括部署核武器用于威慑，甚至试图使用核武器进行报复。韩日安全关系的调整使得韩日美三国部队的协调和联合指挥更加容易，但这显然不是一个真正对齐的三角形联盟，而是更容易协调。因此，这是半岛和地区安全问题的重点，但它显然增加了对朝鲜的战略压力。我认为他们没有明确回应，但他们确实认为他们面临着

前所未有的打击压力和朝鲜半岛的紧张局势。俄乌战争使俄美关系陷入了敌对状态，就像敌人一样。韩俄关系下降。我认为韩国政府可能会向乌克兰提供一些弹药，以及俄朝之间的关系等等。所以很多变化使得俄罗斯在半岛无核化问题上的政策变得不确定。我不知道。尽管如此，总的来说，基本

相关国家在宣布朝鲜半岛无核化方面的立场并未完全改变。我认为，这是共同利益和整体战略平衡在朝鲜半岛。我的意思是，整体战略平衡也很脆弱，但仍然存在。因此，在一定时期内，半岛危机突然改变的可能性相对较小。有些人可能认为下次会发生，或者很快就会发生。我不这么认为。

而且，相关各方寻求合作的农业建筑基础仍然存在。我们应该看到另一方面。第二，朝鲜半岛的地区秩序不太可能变成冷战。许多人喜欢谈论新冷战。美国倡导的跨部门三边部长级对话机制成立于2010年，旨在协调对朝鲜的政策。这种三方体系的特点是美国主导的安全伙伴关系，但

它仍然不稳定。在三边安全合作中，特别是针对中国，会有一些组成部分。许多中国人对此感到担忧，但主要焦点更可能是在朝鲜半岛可能发生的危机上。最近韩日关系的改善引起了许多人的极大兴趣。这主要是由于两国相互的政治、经济和安全利益。是的，我们可以专注于安全事务，但同时我们也必须关注

政治和经济问题。最近有人告诉我，朝鲜半岛的紧张局势增加了对韩国和日本的安全压力。与此同时，韩日关系的调整，美国也协调了两国的安全政策。另一方面，从维护东北亚整体秩序的角度来看，韩日关系正常化，特别是贸易战的结束，也具有一定的促进作用。

对东北亚的稳定与繁荣是有益的。我个人认为，相关国家不应停止贸易，正常化可能在一定程度上促进自由贸易区的建设。

维护中国、日本和韩国之间健康平衡的经济和贸易关系，有利于东北亚的整体繁荣与稳定。尽管相关国家由于内外部因素经历了一些战略变化，并且存在利益冲突，但它们在核安全、半岛安全与稳定方面仍有共同的整体利益。因此，未来相关国家不太可能放弃无核化政策和地区稳定。谁想从中受益，并导致集团对抗，走向冷战？第三，在复杂的国际环境中，各国仍在寻求合作空间，以应对朝鲜半岛的竞争。当今世界大国之间的竞争和相关国家之间的争端并不意味着在所有领域都对抗。只要在核心利益方面没有尖锐的对抗，我认为查尔德先生早些时候提到的，在其他领域进行合作是可能的。在朝鲜半岛，中国、美国和韩国应该对维护核安全、避免核战争和防止冲突有共同的理解。至于中国，它与

朝鲜接壤，如果朝鲜半岛发生军事冲突或核安全问题，导致核战争，所有各方的利益都将遭受重大损失，地区和国际安全框架将被颠覆。我不确定是否已经被颠覆了。即使在中国和美国之间存在战略竞争，中国和美国，或者中国和韩国仍然有可能在与半岛相关的某些领域进行合作，例如

核安全和相关的环境问题，例如人道主义援助，包括粮食短缺、灾害和难民。关于半岛核安全问题的双边和多边对话，包括核事故、核试验造成的核污染、地质灾害等。核安全和地区稳定。我们可以讨论这些。各方应作出切实努力，缓和半岛紧张局势。应该指出的是，尽管美国与朝鲜之间的双边对话很重要，但它不可能完全解决半岛的核和安全问题，因为半岛问题涉及所有各方的利益。第三，最后，尽管旨在解决半岛核安全、安全与稳定问题的六方会谈已经暂停，有人说停止了，有人说失败了，但基本规则和原则并未过时。如果目前没有有效的多边会谈和对话框架，

朝鲜接壤，如果朝鲜半岛发生军事冲突或核安全问题，导致核战争，所有各方的利益都将遭受重大损失，地区和国际安全框架将被颠覆。我不确定是否已经被颠覆了。即使在中国和美国之间存在战略竞争，中国和美国，或者中国和韩国仍然有可能在与半岛相关的某些领域进行合作，例如

对东北亚的稳定与繁荣是有益的。我个人认为，相关国家不应停止贸易，正常化可能在一定程度上促进自由贸易区的建设。

维护中国、日本和韩国之间健康平衡的经济和贸易关系，有利于东北亚的整体繁荣与稳定。尽管相关国家由于内外部因素经历了一些战略变化，并且存在利益冲突，但它们在核安全、半岛安全与稳定方面仍有共同的整体利益。因此，未来相关国家不太可能放弃无核化政策和地区稳定。谁想从中受益，并导致集团对抗，走向冷战？第三，在复杂的国际环境中，各国仍在寻求合作空间，以应对朝鲜半岛的竞争。当今世界大国之间的竞争和相关国家之间的争端并不意味着在所有领域都对抗。只要在核心利益方面没有尖锐的对抗，我认为查尔德先生早些时候提到的，在其他领域进行合作是可能的。在朝鲜半岛，中国、美国和韩国应该对维护核安全、避免核战争和防止冲突有共同的理解。至于中国，它与

朝鲜接壤，如果朝鲜半岛发生军事冲突或核安全问题，导致核战争，所有各方的利益都将遭受重大损失，地区和国际安全框架将被颠覆。我不确定是否已经被颠覆了。即使在中国和美国之间存在战略竞争，中国和美国，或者中国和韩国仍然有可能在与半岛相关的某些领域进行合作，例如

在我看来，任何可能的双边、三边、四边或五边以及旨在促进半岛无核化、安全与稳定的多边对话都将是有益的。谢谢。非常感谢。接下来是全教授。非常感谢。我有一篇论文，基本问题是，我们能否找到美中合作的空间，从而为韩国提供更大的战略空间来寻求我们自己的国家利益？这是基本问题。很高兴多年后能在这里举行三边会议，以便我们能够了解两个大国对彼此的看法，以及韩国如何为促进这种关系中的合作做出贡献。所以论文由四部分组成，我将逐一阐述主要论点。第一个是关于美中关系的总体评估，这非常为人所知，但让我谈谈最基本的问题。我认为美中关系可能是对抗性的，但它仍然基于战略不信任。

朝鲜半岛的核安全和相关的环境问题，例如人道主义援助，包括粮食短缺、灾害和难民。关于半岛核安全问题的双边和多边对话，包括核事故、核试验造成的核污染、地质灾害等。核安全和地区稳定。我们可以讨论这些。各方应作出切实努力，缓和半岛紧张局势。应该指出的是，尽管美国与朝鲜之间的双边对话很重要，但它不可能完全解决半岛的核和安全问题，因为半岛问题涉及所有各方的利益。第三，最后，尽管旨在解决半岛核安全、安全与稳定问题的六方会谈已经暂停，有人说停止了，有人说失败了，但基本规则和原则并未过时。如果目前没有有效的多边会谈和对话框架，

核安全和相关的环境问题，例如人道主义援助，包括粮食短缺、灾害和难民。关于半岛核安全问题的双边和多边对话，包括核事故、核试验造成的核污染、地质灾害等。核安全和地区稳定。我们可以讨论这些。各方应作出切实努力，缓和半岛紧张局势。应该指出的是，尽管美国与朝鲜之间的双边对话很重要，但它不可能完全解决半岛的核和安全问题，因为半岛问题涉及所有各方的利益。第三，最后，尽管旨在解决半岛核安全、安全与稳定问题的六方会谈已经暂停，有人说停止了，有人说失败了，但基本规则和原则并未过时。如果目前没有有效的多边会谈和对话框架，

在我看来，任何可能的双边、三边、四边或五边以及旨在促进半岛无核化、安全与稳定的多边对话都将是有益的。谢谢。非常感谢。接下来是全教授。非常感谢。我有一篇论文，基本问题是，我们能否找到美中合作的空间，从而为韩国提供更大的战略空间来寻求我们自己的国家利益？这是基本问题。很高兴多年后能在这里举行三边会议，以便我们能够了解两个大国对彼此的看法，以及韩国如何为促进这种关系中的合作做出贡献。所以论文由四部分组成，我将逐一阐述主要论点。第一个是关于美中关系的总体评估，这非常为人所知，但让我谈谈最基本的问题。我认为美中关系可能是对抗性的，但它仍然基于战略不信任。

在我看来，任何可能的双边、三边、四边或五边以及旨在促进半岛无核化、安全与稳定的多边对话都将是有益的。谢谢。非常感谢。接下来是全教授。非常感谢。我有一篇论文，基本问题是，我们能否找到美中合作的空间，从而为韩国提供更大的战略空间来寻求我们自己的国家利益？这是基本问题。很高兴多年后能在这里举行三边会议，以便我们能够了解两个大国对彼此的看法，以及韩国如何为促进这种关系中的合作做出贡献。所以论文由四部分组成，我将逐一阐述主要论点。第一个是关于美中关系的总体评估，这非常为人所知，但让我谈谈最基本的问题。我认为美中关系可能是对抗性的，但它仍然基于战略不信任。

但它希望竞争。

但它希望竞争。

我们可以最终解决安全困境的逻辑。可能存在一些相互误解。从美国的角度来看，中国预计很快将超越美国成为世界最大经济体。关于中国的峰值仍有争论，但我们会拭目以待。中国一直在增加其军费开支和武器技术。因此，美国怀疑中国的经济实力增强可能会使中国的军事力量超越。主要问题是，美国认为中国是一个修正主义国家，试图扩张其

在我看来，任何可能的双边、三边、四边或五边以及旨在促进半岛无核化、安全与稳定的多边对话都将是有益的。谢谢。非常感谢。接下来是全教授。非常感谢。我有一篇论文，基本问题是，我们能否找到美中合作的空间，从而为韩国提供更大的战略空间来寻求我们自己的国家利益？这是基本问题。很高兴多年后能在这里举行三边会议，以便我们能够了解两个大国对彼此的看法，以及韩国如何为促进这种关系中的合作做出贡献。所以论文由四部分组成，我将逐一阐述主要论点。第一个是关于美中关系的总体评估，这非常为人所知，但让我谈谈最基本的问题。我认为美中关系可能是对抗性的，但它仍然基于战略不信任。

军事力量，在东亚的几个热点地区，最终封锁东亚的海上交通线。中国正在通过在“一带一路”国家和其他太平洋国家建立军事基地来扩大其军事影响力。另一方面，中国认为美国正在不公正地遏制中国，阻碍其发展，并阻止其扩大影响力。因此，中国对南海、东海、台湾和香港的主权主张是中国人民的合法主张，美国的干预是阻止中国发展的非法行为。正如前几位发言人已经谈到的，俄罗斯的入侵以及乌克兰与台湾的类比加剧了当前局势。但自去年11月巴厘岛峰会以来，我发现了一些积极的变化。所以，我写下了前外交部长王毅的观点，他指出，尽管两国之间存在一些对抗，但

他有一些非常谨慎的乐观。他表示，在新的形势下，中国和美国无法脱钩或重组供应链。两国之间的共同利益非但没有减少，反而增加了。因此，中国提出了拒绝集团对抗和零和竞争，并与主要国家保持战略稳定的原则。另一方面，从美国方面来看，非常有趣的是，国家安全顾问杰克·沙利文最近提出了许多观点，认为过去30年的世界秩序制造了问题，美国正在试图在许多领域，包括安全和经济领域，重新调整秩序。因此，他试图提出美国对华战略的最终目标。到目前为止，在美国国内以及韩国，许多人批评美国对华战略的目标缺乏明确性。那么，美国对华战略的最终目标是什么？因此，从你们的角度来看，有必要在长远规划中提出一个更明确的战略框架。美国不希望与中国发生对抗性冲突，而是希望竞争。

responsibly and manage this competition in a responsible manner which is very interesting so as Professor jar said in the procession the concept of competition I think that's the core question how we can interpret a competition from Eastern culture like in South Korea or in China competition maybe a sound some uncomfortable but South Korea has also a neoliberal country we think the competition is very important and productive uh so uh going back to Sullivan again see in order to achieve a mature

relations it is important to engage in continuous dialogue and restore diplomacy which is good so I termed that uh as rules based competition so competition is fine but it should be within some rules and norms and that rules and Norms should be made not just by two countries but also with the advice of other countries third-party countries like South Korea or other middle countries middle power countries European unions and so on so according to Sullivan these policies are not aimed at decoupling but at the

risking and diversifying as Professor johnbach mentioned so these points are echoed by uh Jenny Ellen the U.S treasury secretary so he she explains many things the basic argument is that bilateral economic independence is very important in all sectors except for cutting-edge technologies that have National Security and Military implications and complete decoupling from China is impossible and not beneficial however as China has persistently engaged in unfair economic practices that violate basic

Norms under the liberal trade regime tensions between us and China are inevitable until this is resolved so there is some uh differences in perspectives I guess between two countries than where is South Korea president uh the adoption of indo-pacific concept as a central political focus by the way China has argued that the concept of indo-pacific is basically to contain China so we have very different views about the Europe political Regional concept of in the Pacific but our government has issued as you know in the

Pacific report and that creates an impression that South Korea will take Chinese policy in this region seriously a little bit in a negative sense as manifested in the state visit president news emphasis on values especially the value of Freedom closely related to Human Rights will likely encourage the United States to expect South Korea stronger stands toward China the fundamental issue is whether both Yoon and Biden will be on the same page regarding the nature of the threat coming from China and the ultimate goal

of two countries China policy but South Korea has maintained a less alarmist view of China's rise there are indeed elements contributing to decreasing optimism toward China increasingly colliding economic interests between South Korea and China and also a very low level of favorability toward China these days in among South Koreans and China's passive and permissive stance toward North Korea's nuclear provocations however it is also true that China does not pose direct military and security threats to

South Korea because two countries lack a territorial disputes for example in Chinese diplomatic support for dealing with North Korea is still very important so under these circumstances uh the arms races between U.S and China is increasing a strategic competition is still there so we try to find out some strategic space South Korea to enhance cooperation between two countries uh but the real problem is how uh will these overall relations will influence security relations between us and China the second point so security conflicts

between us and China can be divided into three areas Gray Zone conflicts competition over conventional welfare and growing competition in the nuclear weapons sector this project is focused on nuclear issue because nuclear imbalance between two countries are in the background for all these Gray Zone conflict and conventional welfare so far we have maintained a great imbalance between U.S and China in nuclear weapons in favor of United States but as we know we see a rapidly growing uh China's capability in

nuclear weapons and Delivery Systems so how that will impact on the general U.S China relations maybe in the 2030s and after that will be very important and so far U.S has maintained several strategy nuclear strategies toward China uh we have to ask American a Specialists here but if China's nuclear capabilities continue to grow and force the U.S to recognize Mutual vulnerability is this asymmetrical vulnerability but probably we will reach at the point of uh mad Mutual assured destruction at some point

the U.S may change their nuclear police toward China from damage minimization strategy which is arguable but focus on more Mutual deterrence then how will this mad situation will affect the conventional situation between two countries for example stability instability Paradox where we have more risks in conventional welfare if China is confident about its nuclear capability to cope with the U.S military caution or you know policy then maybe we have a more violent conventional Warfare situations so we have to deal with that until we

reach that point so we have to uh you know make deal with overall U.S China relations so that we don't have that adversarial nuclear situations in the coming decade the third part is about North Korean nuclear issues which we have dealt with in the first session so I'll do a very quick for South Korea's point of view to have a reassurance from U.S part has been very important from last year we had a lot of conferences bilateral won between South Korea and the U.S but on the basis of Washington declaration I think uh most of the part

dealt with Assurance even though we dealt with the deterrence part so we have a higher level of reassurance between South Korea and the United States uh but what about the deterrence part uh as a professor Byrne talked about we are provoking North Korea in some sense so we have to maintain some communication you know the basic uh elements of deterrences to maintain the communication with the adversarial counterpart so we have to show some signals to North Korea that we are defensive and try to uh

you know he enhance deterrence not aggressive posture and also we have to talk with Chinese what are the basic intention of our enhancing deterrence but there is a still a growing skepticism about the complete denuclearization of North Korea North Korea has a very strong intention to increase their nuclear powers and Delivery Systems so this is a time not just for extended deterrence but also for extended negotiation or extended diplomacy with North Korea so we have to take all things into consideration

which is very hard because we have focused so much about deterrence and reassurance can we change the direction toward more effective diplomacy and engagement with North Korea so this is time to prepare a road map for negotiations with North Korea I'm almost uh time is up so the last part is can we find out some leeway for U.S China cooperation South Korea's basic position is that the significance of existing multilateral rules-based order is very important so we have to urge both USA and China to collaborate and enhance we

have many issues as Professor Hoya already talked about you know terrorism Health crisis all those things you know unregulated new technologies but a little bit abstract but important thing is that you know compromise and cooperation does not exclude competition so South Korea can benefit from a healthy competition between us and China so rules-based competition and competition-based new rules will be will contributing to a new order in a station so we try to find out as South Korea try to find some chance

to help these two countries and in that sense North Korea issue or issues on The Current financial level have a chance to contribute to the cooperation between two countries so how can South Korea contribute to this issue will be very pivotal in in the future thank you thank you uh thank you very much three uh speakers have have touched upon um you know assessment of the future uh particularly uh U.S China uh rivalry um and uh also it raised the issue of arms race nuclear arms race and potential

implications for uh South Korea I mean Korean Peninsula and uh also touched upon the issue of extended deterrence energy uh you know you you just uh used it as extended returns uh you know as non-proliferation so and a few other issues nuclear safety related environmental agendas um and uh we also I mean you also this we also discussed uh you know deterrence reassurance and negotiation um unfortunately we have uh 15 minutes maybe maximum 20 minutes so there are arguments and also uh you know raised questions

um so you uh I mean I don't know how you respond but it seems like you we have I mean each of you have about seven minutes uh less than seven minutes uh to discuss very sorry about that uh yes Professor you start first I'll be very very brief um you know I agree with uh uh Professor Toby's are point that his uh the non-proliferation treaty has been worked quite well until recently it's under threat is uh it's a great concern actually the it's a it's a very good regime uh it has worked to keep the world safe

from a nuclear disaster but the problem is you know we're not well we are facing a lot of challenges uh one of the challenges is the U.S itself you know uh it's selling nuclear sufferings to Australia how do you explain this uh and also it's actively publicly talking about uh deploying technical nuclear weapons in us in South Korea and and also maybe uh in Japan and uh so uh well that's U.S is the greatest supporter of the non-proliferation regime but then the recent development how do we explain this kind of thing

um the second question is to uh oh yeah you know he the top I agree that the nuclear safety is a shared interest in the region uh and then you mentioned that pragmatic steps have to be taken to uh ensure that maybe you want to elaborate uh you know what kind of pragmatic steps we can take now uh to address the current nuclear problem and for Professor Chung uh yeah both China and the US want stability that's true actually both have voiced a strong commitment to that but the problem is the reality is much more complicated

yeah I agree with you that we should well actually I I personally I think competition is not a bad thing but the problem is maybe I'm too uh I received too much Western education I argue that you know we should have benign competition instead of midline competition you know benign competition is com to compete to be bad to do better okay uh ourselves to malign competitions to make sure that the other side cannot do things so undermine others efforts so I think China and the U.S should engage in Malay income benign

competition if we have to okay but the problem is uh how to get there so my question to Professor Chong is uh in recent visit to Washington uh the South Korean president talked about you know the the Taiwan issue that caused a strong reaction from from China you know uh so uh could you explain uh the South Koreans uh position on that and why what's the background for that for that thing thank you well thank you very much and good morning uh it's first time I'm taking the floor so I really want to thank the

East Asia Institute for inviting me it's always wonderful to be back in Korea I come quite often so I think when one talk about the future a world order or the future order in East Asia I think two questions need to be raised one is uh this East Asia order is going to be designed how and composed by whom because there is a very fundamental difference between a regional order that is emerging out of a catastrophic competition and War and another one that instead you know made out of accommodation and diplomacy

and I think these two paths are not inevitable right so at this point we are at the brink of one or the other and so this is what at stake today now it is true though the East Asia order in my view will be shaped uh predominantly by the US China cooperation and competition and as a result of the East Asia order we will also shape the global order so very different from the Cold War I think it's going to be a regional order here emerging that will ultimately have deep repercussions at the global level

I think we when we talk about uh us and China relation I think the papers highlight two Dynamics but I want to emphasize them especially for students here of international relations I think there is no doubt that there is a security dilemma at place so the two countries are locked in and so they cannot increase their security without decreasing their security but there is a second Dynamic here which is what Bob Cohen and jonai called complex interdependence right and this is what John Park uh talked about we can't

understand China U.S cooperation and competition only from a security dilemma standpoint it is also true that their uh you growth their wealth their status in the world fundamentally depend on how well this cooperation between the two countries is going to go and so these two dilemmas this push and pulls make this this relation so interesting and so ambivalent right deep acute competition and deep needed cooperation now dprk and I think it's really interesting because here we are in a deep crisis dprk can

offer a fantastic opportunity it is in my view a great uh Power cooperation test right we can succeed and show the accommodation and diplomacy can work or we can fail so I think dprk as a crisis offer in fact President Biden and president XI and the future U.S president a great opportunity let me mention how this is the case now both papers explore how dprk put pressure on extended deterrence but I actually argued that dprk puts a lot of pressure on China too the Chinese have no interest in seeing

the South Koreans go nuclear or Japan called nuclear or Australia going Nuclear So the problem the crisis of North Korea cannot only be depicted as a U.S problem right it is a China problem too and North Korea puts pressure on two very important pillars of the nuclear order one is extended deterrence no doubt about it the U.S has been called out it has to be more credible provide more assurances you know develop you know better capabilities SketchUp with North Korea but he puts a lot of pressure on the nucleino proliferation

regime too and China has been a major player and a responsible power in that so both countries have vital Stakes here it's not that we have asymmetric States stakes in handling North Korea it is a symmetry of stakes and I think it's really important that China recognizes and gets to the table as he did by the way with the six party talks right so let's change this narrative all of a sudden is the U.S problem these are great powers that sit on the in the same region they have a serious nuclear issue at hand

now let me also mention that what I found interesting in the two papers is though um how I think the Chinese perspective on the North Korean crisis in the South Korean perspective differ I think both did a fantastic job in explaining exploring how acute this crisis is but here we have a problem of sequencing right I think the Chinese perspective is to say look we have a deep security problem in North Korea we need to go through the political and economic cooperation angle right this is the first step in order to reduce insecurity

I think the US and South Korea comes from a different sequencing First Security then political and economic cooperation and by the way this is sequencing dilemmas are not new they've always existed we have been locked into a sequencing problem with with the Soviet Union during the cold Wars these things we know how to handle them but that requires a very very long-term commitment to dialogue to resolve first this this sequencing strategy problem right we see probably the crisis the same way but we go at solving it in very

different now let me just raise three questions to our phenomenal speakers the first one is I think we need I think China and the United States need to clarify with each other the meaning of Crisis you know I've been in dialogues with many Chinese Scholars and I think we actually don't understand what crisis mean for both countries how does it look like do you need loss of life do you need major entanglements do you need so because I think you we can't talk seriously about crisis management or Crisis Prevention

if we don't know when a crisis starts so I think that would be very important second Point how do we insulate cooperation from Deep entrenched domestic factors I think especially in South Korea and in the United States the polarization of China has grown increasingly acute so even if people want to collaborate or cooperate with China the cost of cooperation are enormous domestically so how do we insulate this and finally what is the right level of institution to bring that dialogue to there I I would say in in the following

session that I think multilateralism really provides a fantastic Channel but I would like to hear whether you guys think as a mayor in informal cooperation is through Academia mail mail cooperation where should this dialogue take place thank you foreign Kim I'm greatly honored to be here it's to such a precedures conference I've been asked to comment on Professor Toby on and orangway so I'm gonna make my comment short um Professor Toby discussed about a passport on nuclear non-proliferation and the recent situation is not very

good because of the egregious violation of of Russia by invading Ukraine it's been a direct threat to Norms and rules of international Society and also direct threat to the npt and also nuclear Sable rattling by putting from time to time it's been bad for the MPT and also bad for the Korean Peninsula under this challenging situation uh what should should be done Professor Toby said that further further information is not an answer and extended deterrence has been the most successful npt Palestine history I

absolutely Target with him but I must say that I'm not as optimistic as Professor Toby regarding the future of the npt um it looks like uh in terms of nuclear weapons United States already confronts enormous challenges um nuclear force modernization providing reassurance through extended returns to allies and efficient nuclear arms control and the preservation of the MPT Etc but if you look at the current International Politics the what is the most determining moment is the great power competition is rising again

so the United States and Russia and China are also all of them are currently modernizing their nuclear forces United States has been modernizing its forces nuclear forces for quite some time all nuclear Triad has been being invested to modernize and upgrade and for the next couple of decades and Russia has been upgrading and building new weapon systems in nuclear nuclear forces like kinsar um or push it on and things like that and China in terms of China according to Pentagon reports China is substantially

uh building and increasing its nuclear arsenic so according to the estimate by 2030 uh China would have 10 000 I'm sorry 1 000 nuclear weapons and by 2035 uh fifteen hundred nuclear weapons if this kind of ominous focused materializes and then um countries the great Powers would have enormous pressure especially the United States would have been given enormous pressure especially in terms of uh preserving uh non-polarly reflection 3D and also uh to how to provide uh extended returns to its allies so

I think it's quite urgent and imperative for concerning the parties to proceed nuclear arms control talks which has been quite almost used to this for for quite some time because the only uh surviving significant nuclear arms control really is you start and each future is still very uncertain and since I think the micrograms controller among the great powers and npt need to go together to be more efficient um the talks need to be needed to start sooner than later and the another concern another concern

that I have is that um recent significant level of technological advancement uh in like a more Precision better censoring sensor systems and cyber and satellite has given has provided a better counter Force capability to nuclear Powers so if that's the case then other nuclear Powers would have less confidence about the survivability of their nuclear weapons then the Chain Reaction could happen they would need to build more and better nuclear weapons and that means uh more Fierce arms race and lower roaring

of strategic stability so I think this situation is happening to many if not or of the nuclear Powers around the world at this moment so then uh this also could get could have could give very negative impact on the arms control as well as and I'm probably different non-proliferation treaty so I'd like to ask Professor Toby what you think of this I my prediction prediction and speaking of uh extended returns uh the the last week South Korea and the United States agreed on the Soviet meeting agreed on and declared

Washington declaration and you know agreed to substantial increase in consultation and cooperation between the Allies on nuclear matters I think it's the right direction to go as an allies to uh to to more effectively deal with North Korean threat and also it could help to alleviate some of the concerns by some South Koreans who want to build our own nuclear capability but when I when I saw that I was kind of worried that there has been a bit too much emphasis on nuclear weapons um because this level of the salience of

nuclear weapons is that um it could give some wrong impression that the maintenance of the alliance between the United States and uh and South Korea um and the deterrence against the North Korean nuclear threat is only uh could only done by nuclear weapons that that is not good especially if you think about this kind of over emphasis of the role and function of the nuclear weapons uh because it could give it could give a negative impact on the airlines itself down the road and also to nuclear arms

control the npt so I'd like to ask the professor Toby about this situation as well and regarding um Professor Owen or young ways a presentation I agree with you even though the current situation is quite bad among the among the countries in the East Asia East Asia there are common grounds there are common interests we share and okay um but just one thing um the even though there are fundamental differences uh differences uh there is a common ground we all agree with but how to proceed and what to prioritize would

be very difficult because after all all of us all the countries in in the in the region are blaming each other uh because of you we are we are in the in this mess so what are you going to do we want this and the other countries say some another thing to even start the dialogue so what would be your answer to to start even to start and how to include uh the the most um a disobedient actor like North Korea to this dialogue and how to make agenda setting to start the dialogue thank you for listening

thank you very much uh those are um excellent uh comments uh we are over time but I think we will have to extend uh because you will have to respond to the great question so let me let me give three minutes each so we uh I think I will extend uh 10 minutes uh so why don't you start first thank you I should clarify that I'm neither a professor nor a doctor I was once a lecturer but that sounds bad even to me the so I'll just answer three of the points many good ones have been made but I I thought I should get back on three

of them um Australia has agreed to legal and physical steps that would ensure that the fuel in the submarines could never be used for weapons purposes and it also has an unblemished record of non-proliferation treaty compliance and support second I know of no U.S executive official who has suggested deployment of nuclear weapons in Japan or the ROK um that said we do have a free press and open debate including even views that are not official government policy uh third I agree that the re-emergence

of great power competition is the great challenge of our time the issue is larger than non-proliferation and that's why I am so firm in asserting that the United States the European Union South Korea Japan and Australia need to band together not only for non-proliferation purposes but for other security reasons and I'm also quite confident that we can be effective those countries together have a GDP that exceeds 48 trillion dollars that's an enormous amount of resources that can be brought to bear to provide

for International Peace and security okay thank you uh thank you for the the three discussion the very good questions but very difficult to answer I think the uh uh I think these issues from my point of view we should divide the different issues nuclear safety for example and nuclear security the different concepts I think nuclear safety is a Among Us very serious problems nuclear safety also belongs to the NTS I mean a non-traditional security issues can we start on this I think the Innovative opposed it I think the UV sit

here and talking about nuclear safety I I think they even North Korean where we agree that because he is in the people's life you know you know we share border with the North and the North and share about it with the South I think either nuclear leak and the nuclear test around the environment problems I think the new human being problems so we like to start as some dialogue with the United States with CSL screen maybe the other parties I think look at the uh I mean uh Fukushima deity nuclear League I think that everybody

notice that is the disastrous so if the something happened in the North how do we deal with secondly we can share this some kind of information scientifically scientifically it's not a very sensitive there is a Beyond a big Power competition so as a military relations I like to maybe because we're a neighbor something like the China and the South Korea we do have a mechanism to dialogue I mean the hotline even we have the hotline with the United States we have a hotline in the in with the South Korean in the regional and mutual

region and a third Army I think is very positive can we restart our dialogues bilaterally maybe in the second track maybe in the 1.5 track thank you thank you for professor's question about South Korea's Taiwan policy if you read uh the summit uh statement from 21 22-23 we have mentioned uh the issues related to Taiwan straight three times it's exactly the same just one sentence we try to preserve peace and prosperity stability on the Taiwan Street it is not our Taiwan policies police toward Taiwan Strait so we still

respect One China policy we don't express any officially our police toward Taiwan as a political entity we just think that the stability and peace in the Taiwan trade is important because it's uh it related to our trade military stability and so on so our official position uh is is just the same but I think I know why professor John asked that question because our statement uh seems to be changing for example our president and foreign minister mentioned that we are opposed to any efforts to change the status quo based on coercion

which is the U.S rhetoric so we are resembling or repeating to some part the U.S rhetoric so we have to work on that so what do we mean when we oppose to the change of status quo basic question it could be North Korea or it could be other other states but but basically uh we are affected by U.S China relations so we are in the middle uh we we are very difficult situation which is related to Francesca's question about the concept of Crisis because we are so much vulnerable to us China any possible

confrontation just still incident can be interpreted as a crisis for South Koreans so we just hope that as you suggested we can participate in multilateral setting where we can raise our voice about our concerns about U.S China relations