BBC 뉴스 여기자가 2.13 합의를 한마디로 표현할
때는 북한이 경제 원조를 바라고 핵무기 개발을 포기하기로 했다는 말이 된다. 이것이 북한이 표면상으로 내세우는
명분이고, 국제사회는 그 속에 감추어진 비수를 좀처럼 보지 못한다. 그들에게 한국의 안보는 절실한 문제가 아니기
때문이다.
만약 경찰과 도둑과 비밀합의하면 사회정의는 어떻게 되겠는가? 국제경찰 노릇을 해야 할 미국이 국제깡패와
비밀합의를 했으니, 원칙이 무너져내렸다. 그리고, 그 이면에는 이미 한국의 안보가 미국에 절실한 문제가 아니라는
사실이 있다. 또 하나의 지렛대는 부시 행정부가 북핵 문제라는 골치아픈 문제를 차기 정권에 떠넘기려는 심리이다.
북한이 경제 원조를 바라고 핵무기 개발을 포기하는가? 그렇지 않다. 결국 경제 원조라는 것이 전부 남한에서
오는 것인데, 남한으로부터 경제 원조받기 위해 북미양자회담을 하는가? 그렇지가 않다. 북한의 목표는 한국의
심장을 찌루는 것이다.
노무현 독재정권은 한미 관계와 동일한 관계가 북미 사이에 형성되기를 바라는가? 실제로 그런 일이 현실화될 때
어떤 일이 벌어질까? 한국은 자유민주주의 국가로서의 미국의 우방이라는 정체성이 없어진다. 이렇게 자유민주주의
이데올로기가 무너지면 한국 사회는 붕괴될 것이라는 것이 북한의 계산이다.
1990년 초에 동구 공산권 국가들이 일제히 와르르 무너져내렸던 이유는 공산주의 국가로서의 정체성이 무너졌기
때문이었다. 그 원리를 역으로 이옹하여 한국을 멸망시키려는 것이 북한의 계산이다. 똘만이들을 풀어 남한에
반미주의를 퍼뜨려온 김정일이 미국과 국교정상화를 하겠단다. 그리고, 북미 국교정상화의 비수는 적화통일이다.
>> The house of commons voted in favour of spending the 20
billion pounds to update britain nuclear deterrent. Alda
divisions in the labour party were reopened and four members of
the and agreement crossed party line. The government was backed
by the conservative party. It's formerly der dismissed former
rebels. If we announced we were not to have a nuclear deterrent
in the other countries people sitting in tehran well what a
relief we are now going to abandon our nuclear intention. That
is not the way that world works and he knows and I know that the
realistic decision, and nothing but respect for those who wish
the world could be free of nuclear weapons. But with so much
dissent within labour many wondered why the government pushed
for a decision now. Perhaps the shrewd and the reason I say
that's absurd obviously we have to take the advice of the
experts the director general who's in charge of this and the
military defense and the other experts who say it's a 17 year
programme. It has to be begin now if we want to maintain the
nuclear deterrent. We have to take it now. Britain may agonize
over its position in the world nuclear club it's certainly not
one of the heaviest hitters. One look at the figures you'd think
we were in the cold warwar. Frances nearly 500 has world's third
stock pile then China, and then
Israel.
Now
admitting to its 200 or so weapon.
The U.K has 185 for which the
trident delivery system is ng but deadly arsenals.
>> There were no big marches today for the oppositions are
still visible outside to stop proliferation. North Korea has
agreed to abandon it's development of nuclear weapons in return
for more foreign aid. The head of the
IAEA was in and progress. He's long
argued that the big powers should lead by example. The
number one danger facing today and that's the threat of
proliferation of nuclear weapons the continuing existence of
thousands of nuclear weapons and the prospect of
nuclear activity.
>> The British government says it's
precisely country like Iran which make a nuclear
deterrence necessary be and protect us
from today's threats. Rogue states or terrorists? Needs to spend
25 milliion dollars
for unkown
future threat in which it's not clear which
deterrence will hold. The today
britain decided to remain a nuclear power but the debate won't
go. Belurks the questions. Do nuclear weapons make the world
safer or more dangerous. Would britain ever use them and is the
price worth paying? The vote as compwru nighted security council
is meeting in new york to sanctions against arraign following
their failure to stop enriching uranium. What sort of frern
sanctions are we talking about now.
>> What we're talking are
iran anuclear weapons programme. That's what western
countries it's trying to do. Iran says that nuclear programme so
that it generate electricity. The kind of ms among the five
members of the scoubl and germany. They hasn't been toe ahe
draft text to the mning shortly the thought of measure are
trying to agree thato sell any arms. Not to certain kinds of
arms to iran. There are going to be restrictions calling for
countries not to lend money to iran although that's not going to
be compulsory. Strong language couldn't be agreed on that the
main disagreement they're having that financial institutions
without iran thought to be associated with iran's nuclear
weapons programme so that they can asset free. That's causing a
lot of disagreement china has you can't do that because banks
are involved in all sort of the other transactions as well.
>> Are we saying the same old programme getting china and
russia to sign up what the other countries want. That's been the
issue as we've gone down this road
>> That's part of the problem to be fair there was a proposal
in here about tees. Taxpayer breaks that trade with iran. That's
been dropped because the european countries particularly germany
didn't want to do they didn't want to damage their companies
that do trade with iran. So it's not apl yes china and russia
trade extensively with iran. They don't want to do anything that
which is go jeopardize the stability of the country and punish
the iranian people. They're hoping this will go through quickly.
That seems to be slipping.
