 |
  |
|
|
| 부 록 |
<부록 1> 미국 상하의원 대상 설문 질의서
*Please choose just one answer that you think is appropriate. If none, please mark the last choice, “none of the above”.
(1) What do you think should be the top priority of the United States in establishing diplomatic policy toward North Korea?
a)Keeping Northeast Asia at ease
b)Maintaining good relations with allies
c)Guaranteeing the security of the United States
d)Opening up new possibilities in trade and investment
e)None of the above
(2) What must North Korea do most urgently to improve relationship with US?
a)Abandon its weapons of mass destruction
b)Vastly improve human rights
c)Reform its system of state control
d)Seek to ease tension on the Korean peninsula
e)None of the above
(3) Do you view Korea’s missile and nuclear development programs as a real threat to the United States?
a)Absolutely
b)Yes, to a certain extent
c)Not particularly
d)None of the above
(4) The summit between South and North Korea last year brought about the possibility of rapprochment between both halves of the divided peninsula. Do you think the South’s newly adopted open and conciliatory policy has persuaded the North to reform ─ or contribute to easing tensions on the Korean peninsula?
a)Definitely
b)To a certain extent
c)Not much
d)Not at all
e)None of the above
(5) What do you think of the Clinton administration’s relatively active involvement vis-a-vis North Korea?
a)There was tremendous progress
b)There little real progress
c)It actually was harmful
d)None of the above
(6) Do you think the 1994 Geneva agreement was effective in curbing North Korea’s nuclear threat?
a)Definitely
b)It has been available to some degree
c)Not useful at all
d)None of the above
(7) Concerning the Geneva agreement, what would you now advocate as the approproiate position of the United States?
a)Washington should abide by the terms of the agreement as long as North Korea keeps its side of the bargain and does not resume work on building a nuclear warhead
b)Washington should demand a much more critical system to guarantee compliance with the agreement
c)The agreement should be revised
d)None of the above
(8) What do you think of the assertion that the two light water reactors provided in the agreement should be replaced by conventional power facilites since the latter would be quicker to build and easier to operate on the North’s present electrical grid ─ and there is the danger that the North might extract plutonium from nuclear reactors?
a)We should continue to construct the twin light water reactors
b)While conventional facilities are more plausible, the reality is the North will not accept it in place of the twin reactors
c)We should consider constructing conventional facilities instead of light water reactors
d)None of the above
(9) What do you think the ideal way to resolve North Korea’s missile problem?
a)Gradually soften economic sanctions in response to North Korea’s visible efforts to abandon its missile development project
b)Maintain economic santions until the North agrees on a system to guarantee adherence to an agreement not to produce, test or sell nuclear weapons
c)Put heavy pressure, diplomatically and militarily, to compel North Korea give up its missile program
d)None of the above
(10) What do you think is the most effective way is to be sure that North Korea honors an agreement on missile development?
a)Carry out limited inspection over suspect sites
b)Gain the right to Inspect any time, any place
c)None of the above
(11) What is the critical difference between South Korea and the Bush administration in assessing policy toward North Korea?
a)Perception of the likelihood that the North will really change
b)Deciding how to get the North to give up its nuclear and missile projects
c)A difference in outlook on the meaning of “reciprocity” on the part of the North
d)A difference in perspective with South Korea viewing the North-South issue as a Korean national problem while the UnitedStates sees it a strategic issue
(12) The pronounced difference in attitudes between the Bush administration and South Korea toward the North is believed to affect ties between Seoul and Washington. What do you expect?
a)Solid ties will never be damaged despite a huge gap in viewpoint
b)Friction is expected over the pace of improvement in U.S.-North Korea relations and the way to approach the topic of North Korea
c)A serious clash between the two countries is expected due to fundamentally different viewpoints on North Korea
d)None of the above
(13) Kim Jong-Il, North Korea’s leader, visited Shanghai recently following the inter-Korean Summit. How do you evaluate this kind of mission?
a)As a significant sign of reform and openness
b)As a limited sign of change rather than rapid overhaul
c)As simply a gesture to get more international support
d)None of the above
(14) What’s your opinion of the Bush administration’s National Missile Defence?
a)It is an inevitable policy to protect America and its allies from new threats
b)The United States should abandon NMD since most other countries oppose it
c)NMD is not worthwhile in terms of the cost and technical problems
d)None of the above
(15) When do you expect offical talks between the Bush administration and North Korea to begin?
a)No later than June of this year
b)No later than the end of this year
c)Sometime next year
d)Not until President Kim Dae-jung’s term as president is over
(16)To which political party do you belong?
a)Democratic party
b)Republican party
※ Thank you so much. You just email us back after finishing. If you have any questions, please contact us. Here’s email and fax number
editor01@khan.co.kr (F) 822-735-6140
<부록 2> 일본 의회의원 대상 질의서
アンケ-ト
（選擇肢に適した答えがない場合は「その他」の欄に直接ご記入ください?
1)平成14年度用中學曆史敎科書の檢定をきっかけに日本の曆史敎科書問題が日韓外交懸案として浮かび上がっています?曆史敎科書の波紋が發生した根本的な原因はどこにあると思いますか?
①日本の右翼團體の保守的な曆史認識
②日本政府の周邊國に對しての配慮不足
③日本政府の效果的な對應能力不足
④韓國など周邊國の度外れの內政干涉
⑤その他( )
2)平成14年度用中學曆史敎科書の中で何冊かがなお自國中心的な史觀に卽して,
過去の過ちを合理化して美化させる內容をしているという韓國政府の指摘についてどう思いますか?
①全的に同意する?
②大抵同意する?
③大抵同意しない?
④全然同意しない?
3)植民地支配が韓國の近代化に肯定的な役割を果たしたし, 太平洋戰爭がアジア諸國の解放に役立ったという<新しい曆史をつくる會>側の曆史認識についてどう思いますか?
①全的に同意し, 曆史敎科書に積極的に反映すべきだ?
②一部分には同意するが敎科書に載せるには適していない?
③同意できない?敎科書に載せてはいけない?
④その他( )
4)歷史敎科書問題が今後の日韓關係にどんな影響を及ぼすと思いますか?
①日韓の友好關係に深刻な影響を及ぼすだろう?
②一時的に外交的な摩擦があるだろうが, 日韓の友好關係の基本は搖れないだろう?
③別に影響を及ぼさないだろう?
④全然影響を及ぼさないだろう?
5)日本の歷史敎科書問題に對しての韓國政府の外交的な對應についてどう思いますか?
①內政干涉だ?
②のぞましくない?
③韓國政府の立場を理解する?
④韓國政府はもう少し積極的に對應しなければならない?
⑤その他( )
6)日本の過去侵略の事實をありのまま記述しなければならないという韓國と中國の要求に對して日本の文部科學省がとった態度についてどう思いますか?
①周邊國との關係を意識しすぎて, 過度に修正指示をした?
②大體正常的な檢定定をした?
③周邊國のおそれを反映しようとする努力が足りなかった?
④周邊國のおそれを全然考慮しなかった?
⑤その他( )
7)現行敎科書檢定制度についてどう思いますか?
①現行維持
②自律審査權限强化への補完
③政府の審議權限の强化
④現行制度を閉止して民間の自律に任せる?
⑤現行制度を閉止して檢定敎科書制度を導入する?
⑥その他( )
8)歷史敎科書の檢定基準に含まれている近隣諸國配慮條項についてどんな意見を持っていますか?
①閉止すべきだ?
②現行條項の維持
③現行規定の緩和
④現行規定の强化
⑤その他( )
9)今度檢定を通過した平成14年度用歷史敎科書の中で, 特に過去の侵略戰爭を美化する內容が含まれていて韓國政府が深刻なおそれを示している<新しい歷史をつくる會>側の歷史敎科書に對して韓國政府が再修正を要求していることについてはどう思いますか?
①再修正すべきだ?
②再修正の必要性はあるが, 檢定の結果は更新しにくいと思う?
③再修正の必要性はないと思う?
④再修正の要求を受け入れてはいけない?
⑤その他( )
10)歷史敎科書問題の再發防止策として日韓の歷史敎科書の共同執筆についてどう思いますか?
①さっそく導入を試みる必要がある?
②長期的に檢討すべきものだ?
③現實性のない制度だ?
④絶對に導入してはいけない制度だ?
11)韓國に對しての認識はどうですか?
①21世紀同伴者國家
②過去の植民地國家
③潛在的な競爭國家
④隣接の開發途上國
12)貴方の所屬政黨は?
①自民黨
②民主黨
③公明黨
④自由黨
⑤共産黨
⑥社民黨
⑦保守黨
⑧その他( )
ありがとうございました?
<부록 3> 페르손 총리 e메일 인터뷰 질문서
1. Your visit to North Korea was an important turning point in South-North Korean relations since it came at a time when inter-Korean and North Korea-US dialogues were brought to a halt after President Bush’s inauguration. Why did you decide tovisit North Korea, and what are the main results of your visit?
2. Although EU - North Korea relations have improved following your visit, not much progress has been made in US - North Korea relations. This has highlighted the importance of the E role as a mediator. What is your opinion on this?
3. The EU and North Korea have decided to establish diplomatic ties after your visit. When do you think this will be done, and what are the procedures that need to be taken?
4. Despite the decision on the establishment of diplomatic ties between the EU and NK, NK has not taken any definite measures to curb weapons of mass destruction or to improve human rights. What are the EU’s plans on these problems?
5. The EU is emphasizing that it plans to complement, and not substitute, America’s role in the Korean peninsula. However, there have been some who comment that the EU is engaging NK as part of its efforts to increase influence in the Korean peninsula. What is your opinion on this comments?
6. It is said that the Bush administration plans to end its policy review on NK and restart talks with NK sometime this month. What is your view on US- NK talks concerning NK’s nuclear and missile problems?
7. What are your plans in case the US requests that the EU give economic support to NK or make contributions for costs in maintaining peace in the Korean peninsula in return to solving NK’s nuclear and missile problems?
8. Does the EU have any plans to increase its food aid or humanitarian assistance in the field of energy to NK?
9. You have forwarded Kim Jong-il’s message that he wishes a second S-N summit meeting to be held to the South Korean government. However, NK is vague on the prospects of another summit meeting, and it is also unclear whether NK is willing to execute the agreements of the 1st summit meeting. Do you think Kim Jong-il will be able to visit Seoul? Do you think NK will execute theagreements of the 1st summit meeting?
10. Kim Jong-il announced a moratorium on missile launches until 2003. What do you think are the reasons behind the moratorium?
11. Some South Korean analysts have recently claimed that NK has stopped S-N dialogues because the difficulties of the South Korea has left the South Korean government with little to offer for the North. There are also comments that Kim Dae-jung’s engagement policy is coming close to its limits. What is your evaluation on KDJ’s NK policy? Do you feel that there are any more measures to be taken?
12. You are the first leader from the West to visit NK. What are your impressions on Kim Jong-il and NK’s political and military system?
13. Do you have any plans to visit NK again?
14. Do you think that NK will pursue a policy of opening up and reform? What is your opinion on comments that NK is pretending a policy of openness and reform only to reap financial benefits from the outside world?
<부록 4> 그린피스 답변서
1. Greenpeace was known for its somewhat attactive way of demonstration.
Nowadays it seems that such an unique style was altered to a bit softened way. what’s your opinion of this?
Greenpeace uses a large number of different approaches to its campaigning. Yes, we are most famous for our high profile actions, but we are also very effective in political negotiations, both publicly and behind the scenes. We have a skilled and respected Science Unite and we also do a great deal of direct communication work through advertising, cyber actions and general publications.
Due to our actions we have been injuncted in many countries over the course of our thirty years history and we are still here and still campaigning. The strength of Greenpeace is our imagination and determination and that remains intact.
2. Unlike other NGOs, Greenpeace has given whole lot credit to branch offices which carry out its own activity independently. Considering this unique system, what is main role of the headquarter? and what do you see strongpoints are over this sort of system?
Greenpeace has one head office and 27 so-called National/Regional offices. All these offices are independent legal entities, but work of all offices is co-ordinated through the head office, in order to make sure Greenpeace offices work on the same campaigns and focus on the same campaign priorities.
The head office also supports the National/Regional offices that are not financially self-sufficient. The funds for this support comes from those offices that are financial self-sufficient and can contribute to the rest of Greenpeace.
The advantages of this system is that Greenpeace can operate as one organisation, conduct global campaigns, speak with one voice and can also work in countries where the resources are not (yet) available to support a Greenpeace office.
3. As you know, Tuvalu, one of pacific island nation, is in danger of being sunk down owing to the rise of sea level. On behalf of Tuvalu, Greenpeace is reportedly going to file lawsuit against the United States, which has been criticized for its massive production of carbon dioxide. How is the lawsuit going?
As part of our campaign to protect the climate, Greenpeace investigates all avenues, including taking legal action, political lobbying, scientific research, raising public awareness, and taking direct action to stop dangerous climate change. However at present we have no plans to pursue a legal case against the US on behalf of Tuvalu over sea level rise. However we do not rule this out in the future.
4. US has insisted the likelihood of winning the case is very low since it’s not easy to prove there’s connection between the production for carbon dioxide and the rise of sea level. What is your plan to prove the idea of US is wrong?
See above answer. However I refer you to the Greenpeace findings on the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) third assessment report where we state: It is clear that US energy policy at present is in clear violation of this objective as it would not lead to or contribute to global efforts at stabilisation of CO2 at any level. Further more US energy policy is on track to contribute substantially to triggering the meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet which could be begin for a local warming of some 3oC (or a global mean warming of 1-3oC). This could happen within the next 3-5 decades and if sustained would lead to a 3 metre sea level rise over the next millennia. (see link for full report and click on Dangerous Interference with the Climate System: Implications of the IPCC Third Assessment Report for Article 2 of the Climate Convention )
http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/climatecountdown/reports.htm
5. Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research has called Greenpeace “no more than eco-terrorists” and the environmental group’s attempts to disrupt the research whaling program “a publicity stunt”. Japan claimed the possibity of being extinct of whale has drastically lowered. Do you think we still need campaign to curb activities which was once supposed to endanger whale species? Some people say the reason why Greenpeace has been involved in this campaign is to get westerner’s sympathy to draw supporting money. What do you think of this?
Greenpeace opposes whaling because it is a disaster for whale populations, not because we want to raise money on this issue. Indeed, the Institute for Cetacean research, a private company set up by the whaling industry which catches whales under a permit from the Japanese government, is probably the biggest fundraiser on whales in the world - they gross over 4 billion yen a year in sale of whale meat, not including a 900 million yen per year subsidy from the government.
Greenpeace is opposed to all commercial whaling. We see no need for it and there are a number of very real threats to whales, due to changes in ocean environment, whose long term dangers have yet to be evaluated such as pollution, global warming, ozone thinning, overfishing, etc. And despite years of study, the true condition of some whale populations is still not known.
For example, Japan as long been claiming that there are 760,000 minke whales in the Antarctic but recently the Scientific Committee of the IWC agreed that they do not know how many of these whales there. The Committee was unable to rule out that the population may have suffered a sharp decline over the past decade.
Whales are not fish. The have only a single calf at a time which requires over a year of maternal care before it can survive on its own and then takes several years to reach maturity. For this reason whale populations can never recover quickly from over exploitation. Greenpeace has been campaigning against commercial whaling since 1975 and the same factors which caused whaling to over exploit whales ─ the fact that each whale is very valuable and that whale populations are slow growing ─ still apply today. Wherever whaling operations have been undertaken they have depleted whale populations.
The reasons to oppose commercial whaling are as valid today as they ever were.
6. Could you tell me how Greenpeace makes money for its activity?
We do not take any financial support or subsidy from governments or business interests: only from individuals and independent foundations.
Recently NGOs in Korea got into the whirl over the claim that they are no longer clean in terms of drawing supporting money. what measures has Greenpeace taken to keep this matter clear and transparent?
We have audited accounts, we are open to questions about the way we conduct our affairs. We are visible and open to scrutiny. Every year we publish a “worldwide” combined financial statement. For more information check: http://www.greenpeace.org/Annualreport_2001/report.html
7. UN declared 2002 as the year of mountain. UN urged to settle down peace claiming environmental destruction is very grave following the factmountains in some countries, like Afghanistan and Chechen, are being turned to clashing area. Does Greenpeace agree on that? lf so, how do you evaluate the seriousness of destruction of forest and what is your resolution?
Of course the environment, along with the humans that it sustains, is often a victim of war and conflict but as we haven’t been working on this particular issue, mountains, we have no information to be able to comment.
8. What do you think environmentalists should do in dealing with post-Afghanistan, especially concerning mountain environment?
See above answer
9. The crisis of nuclear-terror is on the rise. Besides US pulled out of ABM treaty. How greenpeace see the near and far future of world concerning the matter? Does Greenpeace have any specific idea facing this situation?
Greenpeace believes that it is imperative for the US to abandon its Star Wars programme, rejoin the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and devote all its efforts into supporting, rather than opposing, international efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
Greenpeace is demanding that all nations must intervene to bring the US back into the ABM Treaty. The international community now has just under six months in which to dissuade the US from pushing ahead with Star Wars.
Greenpeace believes that each nation that remains silent is equally culpable.
The recently announced cuts in the US nuclear arsenal must be real cuts and the weapons must be destroyed. The cuts must be legally binding through a verifiable treaty between the US and Russia.
Greenpeace also fundamentally believes that the US must also immediately ratify the global ban on nuclear testing and not build new nuclear weapons.
10. The development of internet and telecommunication has contributed to the improvement of NGOs. How Greenpeace usaully makes use of internet? and what do you think of syber-demonstration like attacking the White House homepage?
The internet, and what we call “Cyberactivism” is revolutionising the way Greenpeace runs its campaigns.
Cyberactivism erodes boundaries between local, national and global communities and gives everyone the opportunity to act globally to help our planet.
For an organisation that has always championed the power of individuals to effect change, cyberactivism is a natural extension of Greenpeace’s campaign work.
In 1995, only a year after Greenpeace published its first website, Greenpeace publicized online a secret nuclear shipment route from France to Japan and listed the fax number of the French Embassy and newspaper Le Monde where online visitors could send letters of protest.
While the site was unsophisticated by today’s standards, the French government reportedly received enough faxes to demand that Greenpeace remove the fax number from its page.
Today Greenpeace employs similar tactics, though on a different scale. We bring millions of people to the scene of environmental crimes with our direct actions. But when we draw them there via the web, we also can give them the opportunity to DO SOMETHING about it themselves.
Recently, we stopped the placement of a nuclear fuel factory in Japan. We did it not by appealing to the Prime Minister of Japan or to British Nuclear Fuels (the corporation that planned to build it).
We set up a system where someone could mail an electronic postcard to the Mayor of the small town where the plant was to be built, demanding the issue be put to a referendum. When the Mayor received pressure from all over Japan, he agreed the referendum, publicly siting the email campaign as responsible. We won the referendum too!
We’ve also found tremendous new power in attacking global corporate brands. Coca Cola did the right thing a year ago when they agreed to phase out climate-killing chemicals from their refrigeration. They did this because we launched a campaign with a worldwide reach labelling Coke as environmental criminals.
When a a company puts a great deal of money into making their brand attractive, they want to be seen as good global citizens: they become very scandal-averse, and we can exact real behavioural changes that make for a better planet.
At Greenpeace, we believe the strength of internet activism is not in attacking servers or hacking websites. We believe the strength is in millions of people demanding the truth, demanding responsible actions by governments and corporations. And it’s in the internet’s ability to dissolve national borders, to help us act globally, and to remember that we’re all, literally and figuratively, connected to each other and to the planet we inhabit.
11. What do you think about the environmental problems in Korea? What is the crucial environmental problem of east Asia except for the world environmental crisis?
As we are not really working in Korea we are not very up-to-date about the situation there. We know urgent environmental problems/threats are nuclear power and water pollution. But we suggest you to contact the KFEM (Korean Federation of Environmental Movement) they are for sure a reliable source if you want detailed information about environmental problems affecting Korea.
In South East Asia we are working of Genetic Engineered Food, Toxics pollution and the impacts of Climate change. We believe these are the most immediate threats to the environments and to the human welfare.
12. You have a branch in Japan, which is the only one in east Asia. Do you have any plan to open one in Korea?
Greenpeace has offices another office in Hong Kong. Besides that Greenpeace has an office in Southeast Asia, with presence in Thailand and the Philippines. We do not plan to open any new Greenpeace offices in the short to medium future. We would first like to see our new established offices in India and Southeast Asia in a more stable financial position, before expanding further. When Greenpeace is in the position to open a new office, we believe our first priority should be Africa. Greenpeace is not at all present on the African continent at the moment.
13. Some points out when it comes to environmental problems, there shouldn’t be same criteria between the industrialized countries and developing countries. What is Greenpeace’s stance on this?
Of course, we must recognise that there are different levels of responsibilities. Take climate change for example: the industrialised countries have become rich thanks in part to CO2 emissions that are now affecting first and foremost poor and remote regions. So, these industrialised countries have a duty to act most and foremost. This is the logic between the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, and George
Bush is unfair and immoral to say that he does not want to ratify because the developing countries are not obliged to reduce emissions in the first commitment period. 25% of greenhouse gas emissions originate from the US.
This where action to reduce should start, clearly. It is also clear that the environmental crisis is largely driven by the unsustainable consumption patterns that prevail in the rich North, while the majority of the world is struggling for food and fresh water. How do you want the developing countries to take their responsibilities seriously with regard to the conservation of their biodiverisity if in the North we continue to consume the planet irresponsibly?
14. As a result of opening New Round, globalization is likely to be accelerated. Would you explain the official position of Greenpeace about globalization? And do you have any plans to cope with it?
We were in Doha, Qatar at the ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation last November. We had a positive agenda, a proposal to review the environmental and social impacts of the WTO, and a series of corrective measures (www.greenpeace.org/politics/wto).
The WTO did not support our proposals, though a lot of attention was paid on the relationship between environmental and trade policy, and this is issue will be central in future discussions. But the so-called “New Round” launched in Doha is minuscule compared to the initial ambitions of the WTO: many controversial issues such as the liberalisation of investments, trade facilitation, government procurement, etc were left out. So, while it is true that to some extent in Doha the WTO fell back on its feet after its fall in Seattle, the message from Doha is that the WTO must stop acting arrogantly and that it must stop acting only for the rich few in the interest of large corporations at the expense of local communities and the environment.
15. Apart from somewhat popular environmental issues, which kind of things are threatening to global environment? What do you think is the most urgent thing to solve those problems and what kind of solutions does Greenpeace have?
Complacency, apathy and greed by governments and big businesses is the biggest “invisible” threat to the global environment. For year scientists, progressive businesses, environment groups and non government organisations including Greenpeace have been pointing out the dangers of climate change, nuclear power, genetic engineering, plundering our biodiversity and toxic chemicals. But governments and businesses are chronically slow to act. Alternatives exist now and we must act now.
Renewables such as wind and solar power can provide energy without polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases or nuclear waste. Organic farming and sustainable use of forests and fisheries can provide food without endangering our biodiversity, industries do not need to use, create or release toxic chemicals.
But resistance by governments and big businesses, who don’t want things to change, who do not think about the long term future but keep their eye on short-term profits or re-election chances hold the environment to ransom.
Greenpeace will keep on campaigning on these important environmental issues─they are all urgent and we will continue to useany and all non-violent means to ensure that governments and businesses acknowledge the problems and act to stop damaging our environment.
|
|
|
 |
|
