아시아 지역에서 미국과 중국의 패권경쟁이 본격화되면서 무역과 안보 등 전반에 걸쳐 큰 지정학적 변화가 예고되고 있습니다. 미국의 전직 관리들은 트럼프 행정부의 아시아 접근방식이 상황을 악화시킬 수 있다고 지적했습니다. 김동현 기자가 취재했습니다.
프랭크 로즈 전 국무부 군축∙검증∙이행 담당 차관보는 7일 VOA에, 미국에서 “지난 40여 년 간 대화를 통해 중국을 자유 국제질서에 편입시키려 했던 이른바 `키신저 모델'이 더 이상 유효하지 않다"는 인식이 정치권에 폭넓은 공감대를 얻고 있다"고 말했습니다. 그러면서, 중국에 대한 압박을 통한 패권 제압정책이 효과적이라는 시각이 여야 모두에서 초당적 지지를 받고 있다고 주장했습니다.
[녹취: 프랭크 로즈 전 차관보] “Both the republican and the democratic eyes in Washington has come to a conclusion that the effort to integrate China into the liberal international order has failed and therefore we should take a tougher stance against China. Especially their aggressive behaviors in the region and their trade policies and that seems to me by talking to people and reading, a pretty bipartisan view in the United States at this point”
로즈 전 차관보는 미-중 간 패권경쟁 심화와 러시아의 태평양 패권국으로의 회귀, 동맹 간 균열, 트럼프 정권의 동맹 불신 등 요소가 복합적으로 작용하면서 역내 지정학적 변화를 야기하고 있다고 분석했습니다.
아울러, 최근 미국이 중거리핵전력금지조약(INF)를 탈퇴한 배경에는 역내 무력 증강을 추진하고 있는 중국을 견제하고 동맹의 불안을 불식시키기 위한 분명한 목적이 있지만, 구체적인 적용에선 미흡한 점이 있다고 평가했습니다. 미국 정부가 아시아 내 지상용 중거리 미사일 배치를 시사한 점은 동맹 내 정치적 역학구도를 고려하지 못한 접근이라는 주장입니다.
국무부 재직 중 한국 내 고고도 미사일 방어체계, 사드 배치에 깊이 관여했던 로즈 전 차관보는 “사드 배치 때와 마찬가지로 민주 국가에 미사일 체계를 전진배치하는 것은 정치적으로 매우 어려운 결정"이라고 말했습니다. 그러면서, "특히 공격용 지상 발사 미사일 배치는 필연적으로 중국과 러시아의 보복을 불러와 호주, 한국, 일본 등 동맹이 반기지 않을 것”이라고 전망했습니다.
[녹취: 프랭크 로즈 전 차관보] “As we saw with the THAAD deployment it is very difficult to deploy missile systems, especially offensive missile systems in democratic countries and quite frankly I don’t see lot of enthusiasm in places like Australia, Republic of Korea or Japan on forward deployment of US ground launched cruise missiles”
로즈 전 차관보는 아시아 내 중거리 미사일 배치는 공화당이 적극 추진하고 있지만 실제 배치 단계에서 의회 승인이 필요하기 때문에 민주당이 하원을 장악한 현재로선 현실화 되기 어렵다고 말했습니다. 때문에 동맹국에 배치하지 않아도 자유롭게 전개하면서 억지력을 제공할 수 있는 핵 탑재 순항미사일 등이 현실적인 대안이라고 강조했습니다.
에반스 리비어 전 국무부 동아태 담당 수석부차관보는 VOA에, 중국과의 패권경쟁 일환으로 트럼프 정권은 한국과 일본 등에 중거리 미사일 배치 압력을 강화할 것이며, 점점 중국과 미국 사이에서 양자택일을 강요할 것으로 전망했습니다. 이는 이미 방위비 분담금과 통상 마찰 등으로 압박을 받고 있는 동맹국에 추가 부담을 지우는 조치라고 리비어 전 수석부차관보는 우려했습니다.
[녹취: 에반스 리비어 전 수석부차관보] “But the critical thing obviously for America’s allies is that at some point in the coming months and years, they are going to be faced with tough choice. Washington is obviously going to want to consult with them about accepting new intermediate range missile systems on their territory”
특히 최근 북-중-러 사이의 연대 강화는 모두 한-미-일 3각 공조체제 균열이라는 공동의 목표가 있으며, 지난달 중국과 러시아 공군기의 한국 영공 침공이 대표적인 사례라고 지적했습니다. 아울러 북한은 한-일 관계 악화와 미-중 패권경쟁을 틈타 제재 완화와 미-한 연합훈련 중단 요구를 통한 주한미군 철수 등 한반도 내 미국의 영향력 차단에 주력할 것으로 내다봤습니다.
[녹취: 에반스 리비어 전 수석 부차관보] “The Decision to go at North Korea by itself without any effort with South Korea or Japan has not been helpful and more over the confusion to down play the north Korean short range missile by well in range of South Korea and may be in a different version could be in range of Japan is also undermining a Korean policy”
6자회담 수석대표를 지낸 크리스토퍼 힐 전 국무부 동아태담당 차관보는 VOA에, 동맹 내 공조를 무시하는 트럼프 정권의 외교적 접근이 궁극적으로 동맹 균열을 초래하고 있다고 지적했습니다. 한국 또는 일본을 배제한 미-북 대화나 북한의 단거리 미사일 도발에서 한국 또는 일본의 안보를 경시한 태도 등이 동맹 내 불신을 초래하고 있다는 주장입니다.
앞서 영국의 `파이낸셜 타임스' 신문은 지난 5일 기고문에서 지난 40여 년 간 미국의 아시아 정책의 틀이었던 `키신저 모델'이 종말을 고하고 있다며, 트럼프 정권이 한국과 일본 동맹의 가치에 대해 모호한 태도를 취하고 있는 점이 불안을 증폭시키고 있다고 전했습니다.
이에 대해 마이클 푹스 전 국무부 동아시아태평양 부차관보는 VOA에, 미국이 적극 추진하고 있는 인도태평양 전략 역시 대중국 압박을 통한 무역 협상 타결만을 최우선시하고 있다며, 동맹과 가치를 향유할 수 있는 전략 없이는 `키신저 모델'을 대체하기 어렵다고 말했습니다. VOA 뉴스 김동현입니다.
---------------------------------------
이번 韓日갈등을 통해, 확실히 알게 된 사실(다섯 가지)
펀드빌더
첫째) 문재인 대통령이, 생각보다 夢幻的이다.('북한과 손 잡으면 단숨에 일본 따라잡는다')
둘째) 문재인 정권이, 생각보다 自己破壞的이다.(자해공갈式 한일정보보호협정 파기 云云)
셋째) 한국 사회가, 생각보다 全體主義的이다.(관제 反日종족주의, 강압적 불매운동)
셋째) 한국 사회가, 생각보다 全體主義的이다.(관제 反日종족주의, 강압적 불매운동)
넷째) 상당수 한국인이, 생각보다 時代錯誤的이다.(선동에 놀아나며 朝鮮時代 수준으로 思考하며 행동)
다섯째) 일본기술력(소재·장비)이, 생각보다 絶對的이다.(세 가지 품목만으로 한국이 난리법석)
다섯째) 일본기술력(소재·장비)이, 생각보다 絶對的이다.(세 가지 품목만으로 한국이 난리법석)
-------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
In reality, proliferation has occurred for two principal reasons. First, #China deliberately spread nuke tech. Second, smaller states feared larger states did not have the political will to protect them. Disarmament can make non-nuke states nervous and accelerate proliferation.
핵무기가 확산된 2가지 이유
1. 중국이 의도적으로 핵기술을 퍼뜨렸다.
2. 대국들이 자국을 보호하지 않을거란 불안감에 소국들이 핵무기를 개발했다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon G. Chang
#China's communists cannot acknowledge the fact that they alone are responsible for their loss of hearts and minds in #HongKong. Instead, they come up with wild and groundless conspiracy theories. @chenweihua, if you're looking for someone to hold responsible, try #XiJinping.
홍콩 사태의 근본적인 원인은 시진핑(그의 시대착오적 공산주의)이다.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Jenne
Thanks for your comment! I agree that history education isn't about making people feel "guilty" (nor is it about making people feel "proud") but, as you said, about understanding the historical causes of inequalities/privilege which continue in the present and affect all of us.
역사교육은 사람들에게 죄의식을 갖게 하거나 자부심을 갖게 하는 게 아니라, 현재의 우리 모두에게 영향을 끼치고 있는 불평등과 특권의 역사적 원인을 이해시키는 것이다.
-----> 말은 좋은데 좌파적인 관점이다. 역사 교육의 목적이 불평등의 원인을 캐기 위한 것이어서는 안 된다. 불평등은 모든 사회에 존재해왔다. 그보다는 현재의 풍요를 이룬 원인이 무엇이었는지 이해해야 하는 것이어야 한다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Stone Fish
In articles about the trade war, protests in Hong Kong, and China’s global advances, every major U.S. publication calls Xi Jinping China’s “president.” This is bizarre, because China has no president. Thread on why we should start calling Xi Chairman.
시진핑을 대통령으로 부르는데, 그보다는 의장으로 불러야 한다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
치 있는 것이다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
나의 소설에는 어리석음과 당황 그리고 광기와 꿈이 있다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The untold story of the root cause of America's education crisis--and the seemingly endless cycle of multigenerational poverty.
It was only after years within the education reform movement that Natalie Wexler stumbled across a hidden explanation for our country's frustrating lack of progress when it comes to providing every child with a quality education. The problem wasn't one of the usual scapegoats: lazy teachers, shoddy facilities, lack of accountability. It was something no one was talking about: the elementary school curriculum's intense focus on decontextualized reading comprehension "skills" at the expense of actual knowledge. In the tradition of Dale Russakoff's The Prize and Dana Goldstein's The Teacher Wars, Wexler brings together history, research, and compelling characters to pull back the curtain on this fundamental flaw in our education system--one that fellow reformers, journalists, and policymakers have long overlooked, and of which the general public, including many parents, remains unaware.
But The Knowledge Gap isn't just a story of what schools have gotten so wrong--it also follows innovative educators who are in the process of shedding their deeply ingrained habits, and describes the rewards that have come along: students who are not only excited to learn but are also acquiring the knowledge and vocabulary that will enable them to succeed. If we truly want to fix our education system and unlock the potential of our neediest children, we have no choice but to pay attention. 아마존 홍보 문구
It was only after years within the education reform movement that Natalie Wexler stumbled across a hidden explanation for our country's frustrating lack of progress when it comes to providing every child with a quality education. The problem wasn't one of the usual scapegoats: lazy teachers, shoddy facilities, lack of accountability. It was something no one was talking about: the elementary school curriculum's intense focus on decontextualized reading comprehension "skills" at the expense of actual knowledge. In the tradition of Dale Russakoff's The Prize and Dana Goldstein's The Teacher Wars, Wexler brings together history, research, and compelling characters to pull back the curtain on this fundamental flaw in our education system--one that fellow reformers, journalists, and policymakers have long overlooked, and of which the general public, including many parents, remains unaware.
But The Knowledge Gap isn't just a story of what schools have gotten so wrong--it also follows innovative educators who are in the process of shedding their deeply ingrained habits, and describes the rewards that have come along: students who are not only excited to learn but are also acquiring the knowledge and vocabulary that will enable them to succeed. If we truly want to fix our education system and unlock the potential of our neediest children, we have no choice but to pay attention. 아마존 홍보 문구
미국의 망가진 교육 시스템의 숨은 원인을 찾았다고 하는데, 반신반의지만 어쨌든 흥미있는 책인 듯하다.
아래는 관련 글
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Newman
"As Canadian science fiction writer Donald Kingsbury eloquently put it in his novel Courtship Rite, “Tradition is a set of solutions for which we have forgotten the problems. Throw away the solution and you get the problem back.”
단의 해결책이, 바로 전통이다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Naya (1816–1882) Night View of the Grand Canal, 1875
Venice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
주관적 가치
상품의 경제적 가치는 단지 주관적 가치로만 이해될 수 있다. 즉 그것은 언제나 경제 주체의 효과적인 목적과 관련되며, 또 그 목적에 의존한다.
Richard von Strigl on Subjective Value
Richard von Strigl
[This is an excerpt from Richard von Strigl's 1937 textbook Einführung in die Grundlagen der Nationalökonomie, as found in chapter 3, part 5: "Die Lehre vom wirtschaftlichen Werte." It is here presented in the English language for the first time. The translator, Pedro Almeida Jorge, from Instituto Mises Portugal, would like to thank Dr. Eduard Braun, from Technische Universitat Clausthal, for his very kind revision of a previous draft, comparing it to the original German edition. Other editions were consulted, namely in the French and Spanish languages.]
The exchange economy, as we know it today, is an historical circumstance; it was preceded in the past by an economy which knew little or no exchange at all. It is possible (although not very likely) that some day evolution may lead us to an economy completely devoid of exchanges. For two reasons, economic theory has attached renewed importance to the consideration of an economy without exchange, a consideration which has been more closely developed in the doctrine of economic value. First of all, because, as a result of the possibility to conceive of an economy without exchanges, the most general theory of the economy can only be one that includes within its scope all types of economic circumstances — meaning not only the exchange economy, but also the economy without trade. Furthermore, a second reason is that the development of the theory of economic value provides a more satisfactory basis for general economic postulates than that which is provided by the theory of prices. We shall hereby occupy ourselves in a brief summary of the theory of value with the aspects that are most relevant for the purpose of our study, postulating, in advance, that all we have previously said about the income structure must also be applicable to an economy without exchange.
1. Every economic agent faces an insufficient provision of means for the achievement his ends, which forces him to make a choice between the various ends that he can possibly achieve. This circumstance constitutes the economy, i.e., the necessity of economizing. Insofar as the means are completely sufficient (for example, the case of water, in normal times), these means are no longer "economic goods". The employment of a given type of means shall take place in such a way that the "most important" goals (i.e., those that the agent “prefers”) will be achieved "first". The employment will cease at the "least important" goal that can be achieved with the help of the available supply of means. Since that least important use is “dependent” upon a unit taken from a certain supply of similar goods, it is this “marginal employment” which will determine the value of any single unit ("Marginal value." — According to a very frequently adopted formulation: The utility provided by a particular unit taken from the available sum of similar goods, that is to say, its contribution to the "satisfaction of a need", is different in each situation. The minimum utility that can be reached with a certain supply, the "marginal utility", is decisive for the valuation of any single unit taken from the whole).
2. The value of a means of production is always and solely "derived” from the value of the product. The "imputation of value" is done by first calculating the share of the product which depends upon the use of that means of production (the marginal product). The value of the means of production is then equal to the value of the marginal product. (If only one means of production is used, its value is equal to the value of the product. A more difficult problem arises, however, when we consider the combined work of several "complementary” means of production, a situation we encounter in most production activities and with which we have dealt in our discussions on the theory of income.) Where a "means of production" is available in sufficient quantity, so that every envisaged enterprise is made possible (for example, under certain conditions, the case of water), no part of the income depends on this means, and it will, therefore, be deemed of no (“economic”) value — even though it could be “technically” indispensable for the production process. The distribution of the means of production between the various productive activities will be such that the value of the "marginal product" is the same in each employment.
3. From this imputation postulate, we can infer that the value of a means of production is independent of the costs previously incurred in order to acquire it. This fact will be of importance in our discussion of capital goods. Incidentally, it is also clear that the valuation of a finished product is not carried out according to the magnitude of the costs incurred (maybe under false suppositions), but instead only with regard to the possibility of "satisfying a need” with the given supply of goods.
4. The economic value of a good can only be understood as a "subjective value", that is to say, it is always related to and depends upon the effective ends of a determinate economic agent (even though the agent may, of course, take into account the interests of several individuals when setting his ends, as is, for example, the case of a family father). In the exchange economy, value may also depend on the possibility of acquiring another commodity by way of exchange, in which case we speak of “exchange value”. A formula that speaks of a "social value" (an economic estimate performed by society), on the other hand, cannot be useful in economic theory. The reason for this is that economic valuation, as such, is only meaningful when related to the possible employments of an economic good, and such employment can only be carried out by an "economic agent". (If we speak of the valuation carried out by the central administration, within the structure of a communist system, the principle of subjective value is still fully applicable, albeit with relation to the aims proposed by those who are in charge of such valuation.)
Richard von Strigl (1891–1942) studied economics at the University of Vienna under Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk. Strigl was the author of pioneering studies on economic theory, applied economics, capital theory, and the relationship between theoretical and historical research. His work Kapital und Produktion was as a key contribution to technical economic theory. It was first published in 1934 by the former Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research in its series "Contributions to Business Cycle Research."
----------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기