사회진보연대 부설 노동자운동연구소

아래 글은 위에서 킴 스카입스가 팀 쇼록의 글을 배포하면서 쓴 소개 글에 대한 팀 쇼록 자신의 입장을 담은 이메일입니다. 킴의 글에 대한 약간의 정정과 콤멘트입니다. 참조하시길. A response from Tim Shorrock on Kim Scipes’ distribution of his Nation article, “Labor’s Cold War” I would like to make a public statement disassociating myself from comments made by Kim Scipes in an e-mail sent out on May 1 introducing my newly published article in The Nation, “Labor’s Cold War: Freshly unearthed documents may force the AFL-CIO to face up to past betrayals.” My article is running in the May 19, 2003, print edition of the The Nation and will soon be available on www.thenation.com. Kim Scipes has made important contributions to our understanding of the AFL-CIO’s operations during the Cold War, and I appreciate his desire to send my article out widely to his friends and colleagues in the labor movement. He has played a valuable role in spurring discussions on labor’s foreign policy, and his work led in part to the “clear the air” resolutions passed by West Coast federations discussed in my article. I regard him as a colleague and respect his views. However, I take strong exceptions to two sections of his cover letter, which I believe require a personal response. 1) Scipes’ comments on Tim Beaty, the AFL-CIO’s deputy director for international affairs, were unfair. I think its inappropriate to take a personal comment from someone and send it out over the internet where it will be read by thousands of people without permission from that person or asking him to respond. Scipes follows his description of Beaty’s quotes with the statement that “the AFL- CIO has still yet to ‘come clean’ on its foreign operations, either in the past or today, and this has never been democratically discussed, much less ratified by union members.” True or not, that statement leaves the impression that Beaty and other AFL-CIO officials are not forthright about their current programs. I agree with Scipes that the AFL-CIO should be far more open about their programs and funding sources. And as I wrote in The Nation, their policy now is not to comment or investigate past abuses - something I believe should change. In Beaty’s defense, however, he and I have had many discussions on labor policy in recent years, and sometimes we agree and sometimes we don’t. But when I’ve asked him as a journalist about current AFL-CIO programs, he has always provided me with accurate information and helped steer me to the right people. Its important to remember that, unlike the Meany and Kirkland eras, when the senior staff of the AFL-CIO international affairs department were recruited from outside of labor, Beaty and most of his colleagues in the international affairs department are trade unionists and have long histories of solid and principled work on behalf of the labor movement. They are people of integrity. I hope Scipes did not intend to imply otherwise, and I say this not at any prompting from Beaty, but because I think the discussions that ensue from my publication of “Labor’s Cold War” should be as principled as possible. 2) Scipes insists that “One point that has NOT been sufficiently emphasized is the role of the AFL-CIO in the development of the National Endowment for Democracy (sic).” He adds, in bold emphasis: “How can the AFL-CIO take money from the Bush Administration for work overseas, when the same Bush Administration is doing everything it can to disembowel the union movement here in the US??? Hello! And does anybody over the age of, say ten, believe that this money does not come with a quid pro quo?” Here, Scipes raises legitimate issues, but I disagree with his tone and his argument that NED is the key issue in this debate - nor do I think its been under- emphasized. In my article, and in a previous piece for New Labor Forum (http://www.qc.edu/newlaborforum/html/11_article9.html) I discussed this issue in detail. Here’s what I wrote: “When asked about the wisdom of using money from NED—which was created to funnel money to groups that oppose governments at odds with the United States—(AFL-CIO officials) say it comes with no strings attached and is used to build support for unions and freedom of association around the world. AFL-CIO members, however, would be better served with more transparency from the Solidarity Center and the International Affairs Department about its programs and their relationship to the priorities set in their funding by the U.S. government and the NED.” Stan Gacek, who runs the AFL-CIO’s Latin America programs, went much further in the interviews we did for The Nation. But I believe Scipes does a disservice by stating that even a ten-year old should know that NED’s money comes with a quid pro quo. In some cases, as Beaty and Gacek have argued, it may not; but to make a case that there is a quid pro quo in a country like Indonesia, one needs solid evidence, and that takes solid reporting – something I now intend to do in the second phase of this project. To conclude, I see NED is a congressionally-funded program designed with a specific political agenda (as baldly stated in my Nation article by the neo-conservative Joshua Muravchik). That agenda, in my opinion, clearly runs counter to any progressive or labor program. I agree with Scipes that that the AFL-CIO should cut its ties with NED specifically because of that agenda and its role in US foreign policy. I also think it should evaluate, particularly in light of recent events, how its international programs mesh with AID’s - and thus the State Department’s - overall mission. The real question for the labor movement, which I lay out in the Nation article, is whether a solidarity-based foreign policy can be built with government funds designed for a particular agenda, particularly with an administration like George W. Bush's in Washington (there’s another, practical issue as well: government money can’t be used for cross-border solidarity campaigns targeting a certain corporation). I wrote my article in hopes of opening some debate about these issues. Maybe what’s needed is a new start, with an international labor solidarity fund raised by trade unions and designed by and for trade unionists and workers. But first we need to discuss these issues openly and with patience and tolerance for other views and perspectives. Tim Shorrock tshorrock51@hotmail.com

Labour's Cold War by Tim Shorrock 아래의 글은 킴 스카입스가 보낸 메일 전문입니다(첨부한 파일은 동일한 내용). 킴은 팀 쇼록의 글 전문을 싣고 꼭 읽어볼 것을 권하고 있습니다. 팀 쇼록은 서울과 동경에서 어린 시절을 보내고 지금까지 20년 이상을 아 시아 문제와 세계화, 금융 문제에 관한 자유기고가로 활동하고 있다고 합 니다. 팀의 글을 더 읽고자 하신다면 www.thenation.com에 가시면 다른 글 들과 함께 한국에 관한 글들도 보실 수 있습니다. 이 글들을 통해서 미국 노동운동의 지금까지의 상황과 더불어 그 반성과 연대에의 모색을 읽을 수 있습니다. 킴은 팀의 글이 남한에서 미국의 AFL-CIO가 냉전의 도구로 기능했음을 지적하는 최초의 문제제기임을 말하고 있습니다만 우리로서는 그다지 새로운 정보라기보다는 하나의 사실확인에 불과할 수도 있겠지요. 그러나 어쨌든 이러한 미국 노동운동 내의 자기비판의 움직임은 우리에게 국제적인 연대라는 문제를 보다 구체적으로 고민하게 하는 계기로써 의미 를 갖을 수 있을 것 같습니다. 오늘부터 영국 Leeds에서 이틀동안 International Trade Unionism in a Network Society: What’s New About the ‘New Labour Internationalism’?라는 컨퍼런스가 열린다고 하는데 이것은 국제적인 연대라는 문제가 단지 우리들만의 고민은 아니라는 것을 보여주는 것 같습니다. 아래의 글은 그리 어려운 글은 아니니 적어도 팀 의 글 중에서 서론과 결론 그리고 한국관련 부분 정도라도 한번 읽어보시 기를... 그리고 가능하시다면 킴과 팀에게 격려의 이메일이라도 보내신다 면 더할 나위가 없겠지요. ^^ From: "Kim Scipes" <sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu> Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 02:09:52 -0500 Subject: [GloSoDia] Important: LABOR'S COLD WAR By Tim Shorrock The Nation May 19, 2003 Chicago, May 1, 2003 Dear Folks-- One of the most despicable aspects of US labor history has been the foreign operations carried out by the AFL and later the AFL-CIO, that has helped cause democratically elected governments to be overthrown by military coups, killed militant trade unionists and undermined militant unions, and undermined democracy and transparency within our own labor movement. Tim Shorrock's new piece, published today in The Nation and which follows below, is the latest account of that history, focusing on AFL-CIO activities in Chile, South Korea and Okinawa. While he adds to what is known about Chile, his material on South Korea and especially Okinawa will probably be new to almost everyone. [There has been little published on the AFL-CIO's operation in Asia between 1967-1996 which was called AAFLI, or Asian-American Free Labor Institute. One other account, which is the best description of what AFL-CIO support has meant for trade unionists, is an account in my book, KMU: Building Genuine Trade Unionism in the Philippines (Quezon City, Metro Manila: New Day Publishers, 1996--available in North America via some universities/colleges and inter-library loans), where I detail how the largest affiliate of the AFL-CIO supported Trade Union Congress of the Philippines worked with death squads to try to counter a local union affiliated to the militant KMU Labor Center in the Atlas Mines in Cebu in 1987-89.] Shorrock points out that labor's international policies and efforts since the election of John Sweeney in 1995 have been a big improvement--and I agree with this point. The AFL-CIO is supporting some militant unions and their struggles in ways that they would have never done in the past--this support, however, only goes to a certain point (it would never challenge US domination of a country, say like Indonesia)--but there's also been evidence developed that suggests even this positive support is not all that "clean," that AFL-CIO efforts play an ambiguous role in union developments. But there have been major questions raised--some by myself--about AFL- CIO operations in Venezuela over the past few years that have again caused activists to question what is going on. One point that has NOT been sufficiently emphasized is the role of the AFL-CIO in the development of the National Endowment for Democracy (sic). The NED is a private, non-governmental agency that is financially supported by the US Government that basically carried out US Government foreign policy (read "imperialism") without the stigma of being a US Government agency (ala CIA, Dept of State, etc.) To give one quick example of NED's devotion to democracy: one of its founding members was Henry Kissinger! The AFL-CIO's American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS) is one of the four core members of the NED, along with the international organizations of both the Democratic and Republican parties and the Chamber of Commerce. (Much more on NED can be found in William Robinson's excellent 1996 book, PROMOTING POLYARCHY about the evolution of US foreign policy.) For quick information, go to the NED web site, and particularly http://www.ned.org/about/about.html. Two weeks ago, at the annual conference of the United Association for Labor Education and the AFL-CIO in Bal Harbor, Florida, Tim Beatty of the International Affairs Department came up to me and tried to convince me that ACILS was "doing God's work" (his words) internationally. When I asked him about the NED connection, he said something, about it's US taxpayers' money and we want our share (or something along those lines--this is not a direct quote). However, the AFL-CIO has still yet to "come clean" on its foreign operations, either in the past or today, and this has never been democratically discussed, much less ratified by union members. These foreign operations remain overwhelmingly funded, not by members' dues after a detailed and open discussion, but by US Government funds. How can the AFL-CIO take money from the Bush Administration for work overseas, when the same Bush Administration is doing everything it can to disembowel the union movement here in the US??? Hello! And does anybody over the age of, say ten, believe that this money does not come with a quid pro quo? I encourage everyone to read this article from the current issue of The Nation, and spread it widely. I have been told that while this article has yet to be published on The Nation's web site, it will be shortly. Incidentally, for the record, the resolutions that Shorrock talks about from the West Coast resulted, at least in part, from an article I published in 2000 titled "It's Time to Come Clean: Open the AFL-CIO Archives on International Labor Operations." Labor Studies Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, Summer 2000: 4-25. [Posted on- line in English by LabourNet Germany at.www.labournet.de/diskussion/gewerkschaft/scipes2.html]. (A response to my article was also published in LSJ by Judy Ancel, and her response is also on line at the LabourNet Germany web site: change "scipes2" to "ancel1".) This article also includes a fairly complete bibliography of material on AFL and AFL-CIO foreign policy and operations.) See also "scipes1" for a discussion of "Building International Labor Solidarity One Central Labor Council at a Time," which focuses on getting the first of these West Coast union resolutions passed. I publicly applaud Tim Shorrock for doing this research and getting this article published--it will help continue the struggle against the reactionary aspects of AFL-CIO foreign operations. In solidarity, Kim Scipes Ph.D. Candidate in Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago ==================================================================== Labor's Cold War TIM SHORROCK The Nation - May 19, 2003 http://www.thenation.com/ In the months before President Bush invaded Iraq, thousands of trade unionists joined the massive protests that filled the nation's streets. Their ranks swelled when the AFL-CIO, for the first time in its history, openly challenged a US decision to go to war and charged that Bush's unilateralist policies had "squandered" the global solidarity that America enjoyed after September 11, 2001. Once the invasion began, AFL-CIO president John Sweeney did shift his antiwar stance, declaring that the federation would "support fully" Bush's war goals. But he also acknowledged the right of "people of good conscience and good faith" to express opposition. Those events, and Sweeney's respectful recognition of the splits in his ranks, marked a major watershed in US labor history-and could serve as a long overdue coda to the events of another September 11, thirty years ago, that still inspire raging debates about labor's role in US foreign policy. That September 11, in 1973, was the day Chilean President Salvador Allende was overthrown in a bloody military coup that ended a brief experiment in democratic socialism and took the lives of Allende and thousands of Chilean workers, students and political activists. Today, many trade unionists remain haunted by the knowledge that their own federation, the AFL-CIO, played a key role in the US campaign, led by the Nixon Administration and the Central Intelligence Agency, to destabilize Chile in the years before the coup. From 1971 to 1973, the AFL-CIO's American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), one of four US-government-funded labor institutes created during the cold war, channeled millions of dollars to right-wing unions and political parties opposed to Allende's socialist agenda. That aid helped finance the revolt by Chile's professional class and fanned the flames of social unrest that provided the pretext for Gen. Augusto Pinochet's violent crackdown and the justification for his seventeen-year dictatorship. According to documents I've unearthed in the AFL-CIO's archives, AIFLD's program in Chile was closely coordinated with the US Embassy and dovetailed with one of the CIA's key aims in Chile: to split the Chilean labor movement and create a trade union base of opposition to Allende, who was viewed as dangerously anti-American and a pawn of the Soviet Union. The campaign's political agenda was summarized in a 1972 cable in the archives from Robert O'Neill, AIFLD's representative in Chile, to AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington. Chile, O'Neill proudly told his superiors, had become the site of "the first large-scale middle class movement against government attempts to impose, slowly but surely, a Marxist-Leninist system." Over the past two years, a coalition of grassroots West Coast labor activists has been seeking to use those archives to spark a discussion about the AFL-CIO's cold war past, when AIFLD and its sister institutes in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe served as labor's spearhead in the US wars against Communism and left-wing liberation struggles. AIFLD's actions in Chile, Brazil and other countries, activists say, blackened the name of the AFL-CIO among the very people to whom American unions have been reaching out in recent years to build a movement for peace and economic justice. Questions about the past have mingled with concerns about the AFL- CIO's current activities abroad, such as its financial support for the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV), which is allied with Venezuela's business elite in a bitter campaign to topple the leftist government of President Hugo Chávez. Initially, the AFL- CIO's program in Venezuela was financed with a $150,000 grant from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was created by Congress to support pro-US democratic movements abroad, and came to light last spring, shortly after Chavez was briefly overthrown in a military coup initially backed by the Bush Administration. To a few critics, the incident resembled the interventionist days of old-a comparison hotly denied by the AFL-CIO. In response, labor councils on the West Coast have been pressing the AFL-CIO leadership to "come clean" about the past and set the course for the future by fully opening its archives-including materials from the Reagan era that remain off-limits to researchers-and creating a truth commission to analyze and publicize their contents. The strongest resolutions, passed in 2000 by the San Francisco and South Bay labor councils in California and in 2001 by the Washington State AFL-CIO, asked the federation to "renounce" what it did in Chile and elsewhere in labor's name, and allow union members and independent researchers to make a full accounting of the past. Last July the California Labor Federation put the weight of its 2 million members behind the effort with a resolution asking the AFL-CIO to open a dialogue about its government-funded foreign affairs activities, past and present, and "affirm a policy of genuine global solidarity in pursuit of economic and social justice." Ultimately, the West Coast activists want to force the AFL-CIO to draw a clear line between the cold war policies of George Meany and Lane Kirkland and the new directions in foreign policy it has started to map through its opposition to the Iraq war and Bush's pro- business economic agenda. "To counter corporate globalization, we need labor globalization," said Fred Hirsch, the vice president of Plumbers and Fitters Local 393 in San Jose, who played an instrumental role in getting the "clear the air" resolution before the California federation. "But we can't embark on a path of genuine solidarity, nor can labor unions overseas trust us, until we own up to the past and divorce ourselves from those actions and the government funding which made us a pawn of US foreign policy." Yet ten months after the California resolution, Sweeney has yet to set a date for a formal meeting with the state federation. Sweeney was elected AFL-CIO president in 1995 with the support of a broad coalition of union leaders who broke with Kirkland over foreign policy-particularly AIFLD's support for US policy in Central America-believing that the old guard's belligerent anti-Communism had become a dangerous anachronism. After taking office, Sweeney reorganized the four labor foreign policy institutes into a single organization, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS) and forced several of the AFL-CIO's most notorious cold warriors into retirement. The new center has refocused its mission on global solidarity and the right to organize. In Venezuela, ACILS insists, the US government money has helped the CTV build grassroots democracy and protect freedom of association. Barbara Shailor, the AFL-CIO's director of international affairs, told The Nation that the federation is eager to begin a dialogue with the California unions. "We won't ignore questions about the past, but we're really going to focus on what we're doing now- organizing opposition to the Free Trade Area of the Americas and responding to the corporate governance meltdown," she said. But Shailor would not comment on the activities or policies of Sweeney's predecessors. Nor would she or her staff discuss what's in the AFL- CIO's international archives, which are stored, along with thousands of other documents from various AFL-CIO departments, at the George Meany Center for Labor Studies in Silver Spring, Maryland. Under the archives' rules, documents can only be released twenty years after their creation, which means that the newest documents, given staff time for processing, date back to the late 1970s. Material about controversial AFL-CIO activities during the 1980s- such as AIFLD's support for the Nicaraguan contras and labor cooperation with US-backed counterinsurgencies in El Salvador and the Philippines-remains classified under the twenty-year rule. When I asked Shailor if the federation would consider speeding up the release of that material or requesting classified documents from US agencies that funded the institutes in order to provide the full story of labor's cold war, she deferred the question to Michael Merrill, director of the archives. Merrill said there is "no consistent policy on what to do when someone wants to open the books sooner." Any request to shorten the current twenty-year waiting period, he added, would have to be approved by the senior leadership of the AFL-CIO. Over the past year, I've read hundreds of pages of newly released documents in the archives. Reading through the letters, policy papers, memos, newspaper clippings and declassified diplomatic cables in the files, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that the AFL-CIO and its institutes were, in a few egregious cases, willing handmaidens for the Pentagon and US multinational corporations as they imposed their will on US allies and developing countries. Nowhere was that clearer than in Chile. Collaboration in Chile Salvador Allende was elected Chile's president in September 1970, and his Popular Unity government took office in November. Around that time, a secret group within the Nixon Administration directed the CIA to conduct a campaign of destabilization and sabotage designed, in Nixon's unforgettable words, to "make the economy scream." The archives contain no smoking gun directly linking the American Institute for Free Labor Development with the CIA. But they confirm that the AFL-CIO's program synchronized closely with the CIA's plan to create social unrest by sowing divisions within the labor movement and financing middle-class and professional organizations-known as gremio-that led the opposition to Allende's populist program. AIFLD's primary target was the 1-million-member Central Unica de Trabajadores (CUT), Chile's largest labor federation. It was led during the Allende years by a Communist, Luis Figueroa, whom Allende appointed labor minister in 1972. The campaign to divide the CUT began in earnest in the spring of 1971, after Allende had strengthened his governing coalition in municipal elections. In response, AIFLD, in consultation with US diplomats and the Agency for International Development (AID), became more aggressive in seeking to expand US influence inside the CUT. That shift was made "with the full support of the Embassy and AID" and involved "the establishment of a dialogue between ourselves and the non-communist Allendista trade unionists," Jesse Friedman, AIFLD's regional director for South America, explained to Andrew McLellan, the AFL-CIO's director for inter-American affairs. Under the plan, Friedman wrote, AIFLD would invite "influential leaders" from selected unions to Washington to show them "that they have been misled in the formation of their concept of the United States." Robert O'Neill, AIFLD's representative in Santiago, was enthusiastic, pointing out that US visits by Chilean unionists were the only way that AIFLD's allies "can grow and eventually control the trade union movement here." (Emphasis added.) He urged other US unions to get involved because a "reinforced effort would add to the unrest." In another cable, O'Neill laid out an ambitious plan to win over workers in the strategic copper, oil, maritime, airline and banking industries so they "could initially form a block within CUT to defend their positions and eventually be the basis for a break-up of CUT." But he hastened to add that "undeniably and unfortunately, the majority of organized Chilean workers still back Marxist leadership, at least in trade union elections." By this time, the Nixon Administration, working covertly with ITT, Kennecott Copper and other US multinationals, was deep into its campaign to weaken the Chilean economy and punish Allende for nationalizing industries in which US corporations held major stakes. In November 1972 O'Neill told McLellan that a CUT leader had approached him with a plan to unite "trade union support against multinational companies such as Kennecott." In response, he told the official that "since the movement would obviously be communist- dominated, I doubted if the AFL-CIO would publicly take a stand against Kennecott." (It never did.) AIFLD utterly failed to make inroads into CUT or win friends among unions striking against state-owned companies, even the copper workers, who took AIFLD by surprise when they went on strike in 1973, despite leadership by Communists supportive of the Allende government. So AIFLD's strategy began to focus instead on the growing right-wing and gremio movements. One of AIFLD's allies, the files show, was the National Party, a notorious right-wing political group that openly backed Pinochet's coup in 1973. In October 1972 O'Neill proposed to use AID funds to send the director of the National Party's labor department to Washington. "He is not a trade unionist in the strict sense of the word since he is a professional but he does have influence in the party structure," O'Neill noted. In the fall of 1973, a series of strikes by truckers, doctors and shop owners paralyzed Chile, giving Pinochet the pretext to launch his coup. The strikes, which were partially funded by the CIA, were no surprise to the AFL-CIO: The last pre-coup document in the Chile files, dated May 22, 1973, shows that at least two senior AFL-CIO officials had advance knowledge of the work stoppages. Bus and truckers' unions "plan for unified strike action" in "early fall, 1973," McLellan wrote to Jay Lovestone, the apostate Communist who headed the AFL-CIO's international affairs department. Pinochet, however, saw all unions, not just left-leaning ones, as the enemy. One of his first acts after seizing power was to outlaw the CUT. In the months following September 11, hundreds of trade unionists- including some who had worked with AIFLD-were rounded up, many never to be seen again. Figueroa managed to make his way to the Swedish Embassy, where he suffered a nervous breakdown during a monthslong stay. In a 1975 interview in Mexico, where he died several years later, he accused AIFLD of "13 years of massive social espionage." The significance of the AFL-CIO documents becomes clear in a 1975 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee on the CIA's activity in Chile. "The scope of 'normal' activities of the CIA Station in Santiago," the committee said, included "efforts to oppose communist and left-wing influence in student, peasant and labor organizations"; the use of "'black' propaganda to sow discord between the Communists and the Socialists and between the national labor confederation and the Chilean Communist Party"; and "combating the communist-dominated [CUT]." In his final radio broadcast to the Chilean people from the besieged presidential palace, Allende thanked the Chilean "patriots who a few days ago were continuing to struggle against the revolt led by the professional unions-that is, the class unions who were trying to hold on to the advantages granted to a few of them by the capitalist society." His widow, in conversations with Hirsch and others, later identified O'Neill, AIFLD's man in Santiago, as the "number one" US intelligence operative in Chile. The archives' Chile file for the year of the coup is remarkably thin, as are the files on Brazil following the 1964 military coup, in which AIFLD was heavily involved. Asked to explain, archive director Merrill said, "It sounds like there was a pattern of people looking through and pulling things." One of the saddest things about the Chile files is the absence of any statement condemning Pinochet's coup. The AFL-CIO's indifference comes across in Meany's response to an October 3, 1973, telegram from Patrick Gorman, then president of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters International Union, beseeching him to protest the pending execution of Luis Corvalan, one of Chile's leading Communists and a prominent member of CUT. "A trade union leader in Chile could, with the present reactionary progress of the world, be a trade union leader of the United States tomorrow," Gorman wrote. But Meany ignored the message: At the top of the cable appears a handwritten note by Ernest Lee, his son-in-law and director of international affairs: "No response." In August 1974, after it had become apparent that Pinochet was hellbent on destroying any semblance of democracy in Chile, the AFL- CIO executive council finally issued a statement. "Free trade unionists did not mourn the departure of a Marxist regime in Chile which brought that nation to political, social and economic ruin," the council said. "But free trade unionists cannot condone the autocratic actions of this militaristic and oppressive ruler." For Chilean workers, that was too little, too late. A Whitewash of South Korea From 1961 to 1979, South Korea was led by Park Chung Hee, a former general who made economic development his number-one priority and created a police state notorious for torture and long prison sentences. Some of the worst repression was directed at unions, which Park saw as a threat to economic growth and national security. The only legal union, the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), was under tight government control and thoroughly penetrated by the Korean CIA (KCIA). The situation was so bad that in 1970, a young worker in Seoul committed a fiery suicide to protest conditions in the garment industry, an action that Korean activists point to as the beginning of their modern labor movement. The AFL-CIO, despite its pledge never to support government- controlled unions, financed and supported the FKTU from 1971 until the late 1980s-with full knowledge of the government's penetration of the FKTU. In 1971 Jack Muth, regional director of the Asian American Free Labor Institute, wrote a report to his boss, AAFLI executive director Morris Paladino, about a visit to Seoul. "Undoubtedly, the US [Embassy] Mission is aware that the Korean Government keeps a close watch on the activities of the unions," Muth wrote. "Even during our visit, we were introduced to two Korean CIA agents who were attending the FKTU political seminars; they were introduced as CIA agents openly." (The toothless nature of the FKTU is underscored by a CIA study of South Korea in 1979 that I obtained last year under the Freedom of Information Act. "Union activities are restricted by law," the CIA reported. "Many labor leaders still lack credibility among the workers because they often are corrupt or have been co-opted either by management or by the government.") In the late 1970s US religious and human rights organizations began calling attention to the appalling treatment of South Korean workers. They were particularly concerned about the brutality directed at young women laborers in the textile and garment industry, and the lack of response by the FKTU. An AFL-CIO truly concerned about workers' rights would have embraced those efforts by denouncing the repression in South Korea or severing its relationship with the FKTU. Instead, the archives show that Paladino spent much of his time railing against the churches' involvement in Korean labor affairs. At AAFLI's 1978 board meeting, for example, he complained bitterly about Korean religious activists who had come to Washington to protest "against the FKTU, alleging that women workers in South Korea are being seriously abused by their employers and the government without adequate representation by the FKTU unions." Their charges, he fretted, had sparked inquiries from US textile workers and the United Auto Workers. At the next board meeting, in 1979, Paladino lashed out at the Urban Industrial Mission, a religious group in Seoul that provided the only support available to struggling young laborers. Financed by the World Council of Churches, the mission's offices in an industrial area of Seoul provided a safe place where employees in Korean factories could discuss working conditions free from police spies, learn basic organizing skills and connect to the largely underground resistance to Park's dictatorship. Paladino, however, was incensed that the mission's campaigns had "resulted in the diffusion of slanted and partial information in the United States and in Europe" about South Korea and the FKTU. In response, he told his board, AAFLI has "attempted to keep the record straight and provide the facts to American affiliates of the AFL-CIO whenever requested." Paladino's goal, apparently, was to whitewash the image of one of Asia's cruelest dictatorships. In October 1979 Park was assassinated by the head of the Korean CIA during a revolt in the industrial city of Pusan by students and factory workers. Park's successor, Chun Doo Hwan, cracked down even harder on labor, outlawing all industrial unions and sending hundreds of church and labor activists to prison. In 1981, while Paladino was visiting Seoul, a group of garment workers seized the AAFLI office there to protest his refusal to meet with their illegal union. Police were called, and dozens of workers were injured in the ensuing melee. In a 1986 interview I conducted for The Nation, Paladino blamed the violence on the "different ethnic standards" of Koreans. After military rule ended in 1986, Korean industrial workers organized the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions as an alternative to the FKTU; it wasn't officially recognized by the AFL-CIO until 1997. "Many Koreans know the truth about AAFLI and the FKTU's relationship to the KCIA," Kwon Young Gil, a third-party candidate in South Korea's recent presidential election and the first president of the KCTU, told me during a recent visit to Washington. "It's important for American trade unionists to acknowledge those facts so we can move forward to build a better relationship in the future." Resistance in Okinawa During the Indochina war, US bases on the island of Okinawa were used by the US military to store nuclear weapons and to launch B-52 strikes on Vietnam. This infuriated the citizens of Okinawa as well as many Japanese, sparking the political unrest that culminated in the 1972 reversion of Okinawa to Japanese control. But in 1967 and again in 1969, labor tensions in Okinawa boiled over, first after a military base workers' union known as Zengunro called a general strike to protest Okinawa's role in the war, and then when a new labor code imposed by Washington banned strikes on US bases and threatened strikers with severe punishment. The AFL-CIO became directly involved in stifling Okinawan resistance. In April 1967 F.T. Unger, the US Army's High Commissioner in Okinawa, wrote a letter to Meany informing him that Zengunro "has veered considerably" toward the "opposition reversion movement." He asked Meany to send an AFL-CIO staffer to Okinawa because "the Zengunro leadership needs a firm yet reassuring hand to protect them from the hotheads." A year later, Meany's representative in Okinawa warned his boss of the dangers to US interests presented by the election of a prominent leader of the reversion movement-who was also a member of the local teachers' union-as Okinawa's first chief executive. Japanese leftists, he complained, were calling the election "a mandate for immediate unconditional reversion, removal of all US military bases and ultimate abrogation of the Japanese-US Mutual Security Treaty in 1970"-developments anathema to the AFL- CIO. The general strike in February 1969 infuriated Meany and his staff, particularly because it was endorsed by Domei, the conservative Japanese labor federation aligned with the AFL-CIO. In a memo to Meany, his international affairs director, Ernest Lee, warned that the strike was "primarily against the US government authority on the island as well as US foreign policy" and "could affect our Vietnamese effort and support a communist offensive in Vietnam." Lee became livid when he learned that Victor Reuther, international affairs director of the UAW and one of the few labor leaders who challenged AFL-CIO foreign policy, was openly backing the Okinawa base workers. Reuther's telegram of support to Okinawa, Lee told his boss, "is one of the encouragements upon which [Japanese trade unionists] will lean" during the strike. He added, "I believe that both State and Defense should be aware of that cable." Turning in one of the country's most respected labor leaders to the Pentagon surely ranks as a low point in AFL-CIO history. Venezuela and Beyond Since taking control of the AFL-CIO's international programs in 1996, Shailor and her deputy for Latin America, Stan Gacek, have worked hard to transform relations with unions around the world. Last fall, Sweeney and Arturo Martinez, the president of Chile's CUT, signed a declaration urging their governments to include "enforceable obligations" on workers' rights in any free- trade agreement and rejecting the imposition of Chile's privatized social security system "on the workers of the United States." (Ironically, that pact is now threatened by US anger at Chile's refusal to vote with Bush during the UN debate on Iraq.) And a delegation of organizing directors from three US unions recently used ACILS funds to visit South Korea, where they exchanged ideas with their counterparts in the KCTU. Solidarity, in other words, has now replaced intervention as the cornerstone of labor's foreign policy. The AFL-CIO's overseas work, however, retains close government ties. ACILS obtains most of its $18-million-a-year budget from AID and the Congressionally funded NED, with some additional funds from private foundations. AID just concluded a five-year grant to ACILS of $60 million and will provide another $9 million a year for the next five years. ACILS currently has programs in twenty-eight countries, where, according to Tim Beaty, deputy director of international affairs, staffers work with overseas trade unionists "to build a better labor movement" by linking unions within the same industry and building coalitions with social movements. (The day of our interview, Beaty was coordinating meetings between US unions and a delegation of environmental activists from Taiwan trying to win compensation from RCA for the pollution it caused there before pulling out in 1992.) Proof of the AFL-CIO's independence from the government, Gacek told me, "is in the application. Can we basically follow an agenda that is not tied to any geopolitical interest other than international trade union solidarity? Without making any comments about the past, I think yes, that is something we are doing now." But the AFL-CIO's experience with Venezuela's CTV illustrates how the line between geopolitics and solidarity can get blurred. The AFL- CIO's relationship with the CTV goes back to the 1970s, when Venezuelan unions, through their alliance with the Democratic Action Party, were for many years part of the center-right government. The archives show that the AFL-CIO and the CTV worked closely in those years to isolate Cuba and counter the influence of left-wing unions in Latin America. The labor federations were used by the US and Venezuelan governments as unofficial channels on oil. In a 1974 meeting with the CTV, for example, the AFL-CIO pointed out that "the oil pricing arrangement of OPEC and of Venezuela are wrecking the economic balance of the free world." The CTV assured Meany "that Venezuela is a secure source of supply for the United States. We are not the Middle East. We are similar people. We dress the same. We have the same unions. We have the same capitalists and the same military. When you talk with us it is not a conversation between Kissinger and the shieks [sic] but between brother trade unionists." Today, the CTV and the AFL-CIO remain very close, though President Ch ávez has denounced the CTV and its political supporters as part of the oligarchy that is out to weaken his attempts to redistribute the country's oil wealth. To counter the CTV, Chávez encouraged the organization of a rival labor federation and refused to recognize the results of a CTV election won by former oil workers' leader Carlos Ortega. In response, Ortega built an alliance with Fedecamaras, the Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce, with the aim of toppling Chávez's government. A year ago, they came close to that goal when a general strike they organized became the pretext for a brief military coup. When the New York Times revealed that NED had funded the opposition, the AFL-CIO was swamped with questions about its ties to the CTV. The AFL-CIO immediately put out a lengthy statement condemning the coup and explaining that the CTV used its US funds to fight Chávez's attempts to undermine labor rights. "There is no evidence that the CTV or its leaders went beyond the democratic expressions of discontent," the AFL-CIO concluded. In a significant break from the past, it added that Chávez's programs, including "agrarian reform and assistance to Cuba, are and should be the sole and sovereign concern of the Venezuelan people and their government." Gacek maintains today that ACILS's support for internal democracy within the CTV boosted progressive forces in Venezuela's labor movement. "We assisted a process that actually brought more of the left, and including some elements sympathetic to the admirable redistributive rhetoric of the Chávez government, to the leadership of the CTV," he said. But with tensions still high in Venezuela, questions remain about the CTV and its tactics. Tellingly, strategic, non-Chavista unions in steel, oil and the public sector didn't support the CTV during the general strike last year. A member of a recent fact-finding delegation to Venezuela from the International Federation of Journalists wrote Gacek last summer that "the CTV was actively, directly involved in the illegal plotting for the April coup." Gacek rejected that assessment, but made it clear that the AFL-CIO was trying to defuse the situation. He is working with Brazil's new government and a "friends of Venezuela" labor group formed at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, to "bring down the temperature" in Caracas by negotiating amnesty for some of the 16,000 fired oil workers Chávez has threatened to jail. (Ortega, who was on Chávez's list, is now living in exile in Costa Rica.) Overall, said Gacek, the AFL-CIO wants Chávez to respect the "democratic rule of law" and insure that "violence and force are not employed to force regime change." Using labor funds to undermine a foreign government, he added forcefully, "goes against my fiber." A Full Accounting Today the labor movement is facing a multitude of challenges, from Bush's attacks on unions to the failing economy and the fallout from the war. Given the internal politics at the AFL-CIO, whose unity was shaken by the recent departure of the Carpenters Union, Sweeney's reluctance to embrace the "clear the air" movement is understandable. Many of the unions most closely identified with the federation's cold war policies, such as the Bricklayers and the American Federation of Teachers, fought bitterly against Sweeney's election. Sweeney himself, and several members of his executive council, were board members of AIFLD and the other institutes, and would likely be uncomfortable with a full probe of the past-as would ACILS executive director Harry Kamberis, a former Foreign Service officer who held senior positions in AAFLI during the 1980s. Meanwhile, ideologues on the right may be seeking to revive their old labor alliances in an effort to popularize American goals in the war against terrorism around the world. Recently, American Enterprise Institute scholar Joshua Muravchik cited Jay Lovestone and Irving Brown-the godfathers of the AFL-CIO's overseas operations- as leading lights in "the war of ideas that we waged in the cold war." Those battles, he noted candidly, were fought "largely through the good offices of the CIA," but are now being "carried out overtly by US broadcasting agencies [and the] National Endowment for Democracy." Although it is unlikely the AFL-CIO would join such a campaign, these pressures raise serious questions for labor. Can the AFL-CIO continue to work with institutions like the NED and AID and still maintain its integrity overseas? If, even in this political climate, Colin Powell can proclaim, as he did recently on Black Entertainment Television, that the US role in Allende's downfall "is not a part of American history that we're proud of," could John Sweeney finally say the same about AIFLD? "I think every country and every institution has a right to its own history, particularly in the case of AIFLD, which was publicly funded," said Robert White, who served as US ambassador to El Salvador during one of its worst periods of repression and is now president of the Center for International Policy. During those years, White said, AIFLD "became a total instrument of US foreign policy. It seems to me that the public has a right to know." Indeed, meeting that simple demand would go a long way toward restoring the global prestige American unions enjoyed before the cold war as the folks who invented May Day, industrial unions and the eight-hour day. Tim Shorrock (tshorrock51@hotmail.com) is an investigative journalist based in Silver Spring, Maryland. Research support was provided by the Investigative Fund of the Public Concern Foundation. He thanks Fred Hirsch for his help in interpreting the AFL-CIO files on Chile.

<<뉴 레프트 리뷰>> 2003년 5-6월호에 Editorial로 실린 타리크 알리의 < 이라크 재식민화>를 등록합니다(Tariq Ali, <RE-COLONIZING IRAQ>, New Left Review 21, May-June 2003. 2003.4.8 작성). 최근 국제적 반전운동이 1세기 전의 반전운동(특히 제2인터내셔널)과 어 떤 차별점이 있는지, 미국 부시 행정부 내의 매파들의 전략(특히 911 이 후)은 무엇인지, 이번 전쟁을 둘러싼 각국의 입장은 무엇이었으며 어떻게 변화, 분기하고 있는지, 이라크 점령 이후 향방은 어떻게 될 것인지, 이 번 전쟁이 미국에게는 어떤 의미인지, 결론적으로 국제적 반전운동(세계사 회포럼을 포함하여)은 무엇을 해야 하는지 등에 대해 개괄적으로 서술하 고 있습니다. 참고하시기 바랍니다. 원문 링크는 다음과 같습니다. http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR25501.shtml

지난 4월 23일(수), 서울대학교에서 열린 반전 강연회 자료 3종을 압축해 서 등록합니다. 연사로는 평등연대 김광수, 민주노동당 자통국장 이승헌, 사회진보연대 류 주형 3명이 초빙되었습니다. 참고하시기 바랍니다. *제가 제출한 발제문은 최근에 사회진보연대 반전팀에서 생산한 자료를 종 합, 재구성한 것입니다.

이라크 침략을 판단하기 위해 김진균 ---------- * 필자는 서울대 사회학교 교수를 지냈다 * 이 글은 필자가 4월 28일 열린 '진보적 지성과 양심의 소리' 2주년 토론 회에서 발표한 것이다. 1. 전쟁의 양태 '지식전쟁'은 막강한 정보시스템과 군사력으로 가능하다. 걸프전은 전쟁의 양태를 바뀌고 미국이 소위 앨빈 토플러가 말한바 '지식 전쟁'의 도입을 시도한 것이었다. 이번 미국의 이라크침략 전쟁은 이 전쟁 양태를 적극 도입한 것이다. 이 전쟁은 육군은 소위 소수 '기동부대'를 주 력으로 하여 공격한 것이다. 이를 가능하게 하기 위해서는 총체적 시스템 전략의 수행이 필요하였다. 기동부대의 막강한 사이버 멀티 장비를 갖추 는 것, 육해공에 C4I 운용이 필수적이었다. "걸프전쟁은 전투부대들이 주로 위성통신을 통해 전개 유지 지휘 통제된 최초의 전쟁이었다." "다국적군은 모두 합쳐서 60개의 인공위성들을 직접 사용하였다"(우주에서 찍는 정밀한 사진 위성들, 외국 전화를 도청하는 극 비의 매그넘 위성들, 외국의 레이더 화상을 수집하는 클라우드계획 우주 선, 적의 전함 탐지위성 등등). 우주전쟁 개념, 로봇-테러, 군인은 하나의 시스템(할리우드 복장)의 개념 과 이의 실행이 지식전쟁양태를 구성한다. 1차대전이나 2차대전에서 전개 한 '전선'전쟁양태는 이 우주관리적 지식전쟁양태에 후진적이고 필패의 대 상일 뿐이다. 이라크는 전쟁양식의 그 기술적-자원적 유기적 구성 차원에 서 보면 미국에 대항할 수 없는 '예정된 패퇴자'일 뿐이었다. 이들은 이 전쟁양태로 '비살상전쟁'이라고 선전한다. 발전된 센스장치는 표적물을 가려서 파괴하여 대량살상을 피한다고 한다. 이 주장은 부분적으 로 이번 이라크침략전쟁에서 입증하였다고 미국이 주장한다. 비살상무기란 개념은 성립하지 않는다 남한에서의 미군부대의 한강이남 재배치의 군사기술적 차원 2. 이 전쟁에서 선결적 조건이 설치되어 있었다. 이라크에 대한 장기적 인 '경제제재' 조치였다. 이 경제제재는 미국이 주도하였다. 이라크 주민 들의 일용생활품도 '전쟁무기'와 연관되어 있다는 미군의 판단이면 거래되 지 않게 하였다. 이 경제제재는 몇 가지 효과를 거둔다. 첫째 주민들의 생 활을 궁핍하게 만든다. 둘째, 상대 국가의 무기 및 군사의 기술적 체제의 발전을 가로 막는다. 미국이 이라크침략의 구실로 삼았던바 이라크가 가지 고 있다는 대량살상무기는 이라크에 진주한 미군이 발견해 내질 않고 있 다. 오히려 이라크에 그러한 무기가 없었을 것이다. 이번 이라크에 대한 미국침략전쟁은 이미 이라크 내부 열악한 경제적 및 군사적 조건에서 이라 크의 '궤멸'이 예정된 것이었다. 3. 20세기 후반에 오면 '민족국가'의 주권을 넘어서는 권력체의 등장이 주 목되었다. 대체로 군사적 국제기구와 초국적 자본을 예로 삼았다. 소련이 해체되고 난 뒤에 세계는 미국과 유럽 그리고 일본이 경제와 군사차원에 서 삼각 판도를 구성하고 있다고 지적되었다. 이 경향에서도 유엔은 그 존 재가 인정되고 있었다. 이라크에 대한 미국의 침략전쟁을 목도하면서 민족 국가의 주권을 넘어서는 힘의 실체가 '미국'으로 좁혀지고 있다. 소련이 붕괴된 후 국제관계학자들은 鳴桓??위험성을 지적하였다. 미국 과 소련의 양대국체제 혹은 자본주의 세계체제와 사회주의 세계체제가 세 계의 두 축을 이루고 있을 경우에는 핵무기가 양대국에 의해 그 사용이 억 제되었다는 것이다. 소련이 붕괴되고 난 뒤에 핵무기가 국가관리에서 벗어나 종교, 인종 혹은 폭력집단의 수중에 들어가고 그 무기의 사용범위가 한 나라의 국가영역을 벗어나기 때문에 핵무기의 위협이 있을 경우 해당 국가의 요청이 없더라 도 유엔의 판단에 의하여 평화유지군을 파견할 수 있다고 하여, 장차 미 국 독자적인 개입의 여지를 만들기 시작하였다. 유엔의 평화유지군은 그대 로 시험되고 있었다. 그리고 미국이 걸프전을 감행할 때 유엔의 형식적 동 의를 얻어서 '다국적군'이라는 이름으로 개입하였다. 이번 이라크침략전쟁은 미국이 유엔을 무시하고 전쟁을 감행하였는데 영국 과 스페인을 반려자로 삼았다. 그리하여 '연합군'이라는 이름으로 침략하 였다. 오히려 미국은 세계 모든 국가에 편 가르기를 강요하였다. 막강한 미국의 군사력 위협에 모든 국가가 전쟁을 적극적으로 반대할 수 없었다. 유엔의 평화유지 군사적 행동은 그 의의가 무색해 지고 이제 미국의 패권 적 군사행동으로 대치된 셈이다. 소련이 붕괴된 후 미국 자본의 헤게모니는 전 세계 모든 곳을 자본주의 체 제로 흡수하고 있다. 사회주의권 국가도 이미 자본주의체제에 몰입되었 다. 제3의 길을 모색하던 제3세계의 독자적 존재도 사라졌다. 미국의 초국 적 자본이 운용하는 메카니즘에 모든 국가 혹은 모든 경제체제가 포섭되었 다. 미국 자본주의체제를 정점으로 하고 그 밑에 횡적으로 여러 국가의 경 제체제가 복합적으로 연결되어 있다. 여러 거대지표상으로 미국 경제의 헤 게모니가 낮아졌다고도 한다. 그럼에도 불구하고 초국적 자본과 군사주의 가 융합함으로서 미국의 패권은 강화되고 있다. 4. 20세기후반 '국가독점자본주의론'에서는 그 구성요소로서 '경제의 군사 화'테제를 제시하였다. 자본주의의 이익률 하락을 막기 위해 국가가 생산 과 소비에 적극 개입한다는 것, 그리고 국가가 국가지출로서 소비를 일정 하게 감당해 주는데 그 중에서 가장 중요한 것이 군수물자의 생산과 소비 에 지출하는 항목이다. 따라서 군수물자의 소비를 위해서는 '전쟁'이라는 시장이 필요하다. 이러한 경제의 군사화 테제는 90년대 소련권의 몰락이 후 오히려 군수물자의 민간상품화 경향을 나타내기도 하였다. 그리하 여 '군사의 경제화'테제도 제시되었다. 이 군사의 경제화는 군사의 효율성 제고 문제도 인식되었지만 '전쟁'의 시장화를 더욱 촉구하는 경향이었다. 이렇다고 하더라도 현재 과학기술 혹은 첨단 군사과학기술에의 투자가 종 전처럼 고용을 확대하지 않는 디렘마가 가로 놓여 있다. 첨단 과학기술은 점차 투자의 증대는 요구하지만, 우주전쟁관리시스템이 그러한데, 고용을 확대하지는 않는다. 우주군사관리체제는 자본주의를 실질적으로 포섭해 가 고 있다. 미국이 추진하는 TMD는 그 극단적인 사례이다. 따라서 첨단과학 기술을 이용하는 군수산업은 자본주의에 내재하면서 동시에 자본주의를 실 질적으로 포섭하고 있다. 그리고 이에 필요한 자원을 전 세계에서 흭득하 기 위하여 '전쟁'을 불사하고 있다. 이번 미국의 이라크침략전쟁은 이 자 원의 통제에 관련된 측면이 강하다. 5. 미국이 주도하는 자본주의세계화와 군사적 패권주의는 전 세계 인민의 생활을 위협하고 있다. 생산의 유연화전략은 고용의 유연화전략을 수반하 였다. 흔히 지적되듯이 20%사람만이 안정된 고용과 소득을 향유하고 나머 지 80%는 불안정한 고용 및 삶에 내몰리고 있다. 자본주의 세계화가 진행 될수록 전 세계 민중의 삶은 더욱 불안정해지고 있다. 미국은 바야흐로 투자의 제국과 군사적 패권국가를 구성해 가고 있다. 종 전 민족국가형태의 어떤 것도 이에 대항할 수 없는 지경으로 내닫고 있다. 6. 미국의 이라크침략 전쟁에는 기독교적 수사학이 동원되고 있다. 인간 의 삶에 긍정적 의의를 부여하는 초현실적 질서에의 가치가 투자의 제국 그리고 군사적 패권주의 앞에서 그 효력을 상실하고 있다. 세계적인 종교 는 제국의 건설과 몰락과 함께 할 운명에 있게 되었다. 7. 생산에 투입될 기술과 지혜와 슬기가 소외된 노동자 민중이 많으면 많 을수록 그 생산양식은 균열을 일으킨다. 그리고 생산외적 조건에서 생산양 식 자체를 파괴하려는 힘이 생긴다. 미국에 대한 9.11공격은 그러한 면에 서 이해되어야 한다. 제국의 건설은 이미 창조력을 상실하고 권력의 쟁취에 몰두하게 된다. 민 중들은 권력으로부터, 중심적 가치로부터 점차 소외되고 '변방 프롤레타리 아'로 전위하고 있다. 이미 세계 민중들은 미국의 이라크침략에 저항하고 있다. 이라크 내에서도 장기적 독재에서 벗어난 민중들이 미국을 반대하 고 있다. 인간의 삶 자체, 인간의 존엄을 파괴하는 자본과 군사의 야만적 운동에 대하여 세계민중들의 연대활동이 강화되고 있다. 한국은 남한의 전쟁반대 평화운동이 외연을 넓혀 남북 민중들의 연대를 강 화하고 중국, 일본, 러시아 및 미국과 동남아시아, 특히 베트남 민중과의 연대틀을 강화하여야 한다. 그리고 이라크 후세인의 경우에서 잘 보았듯 이 각 국의 국가체제는 더욱 민주화의 진로를 추구해야만 국가권력이 민중 의 지지를 받을 수 있다는 점도 명백하다. 한반도 전쟁을 예방하고 평화 를 추구하는 주체와 힘은 오로지 민중의 국제적 연대에서 찾을 수밖에 없 을 것이다. ---------- * 필자는 서울대 사회학교 교수를 지냈다 * 이 글은 필자가 4월 28일 열린 '진보적 지성과 양심의 소리' 2주년 토론 회에서 발표한 것이다.