G-7 정상회담은 예측했던데로 아무런 결론도 내지 못하고,어린 아이들처럼 감정이 깊이 섞인 말싸움만 하고, 서방세계의 분열된, 중국과 러시아의 조롱거리로 끝나고 말았다.
그동안 미국이 나토 동맹국들과 NAFTA회원국인 캐나다와 멕시코와의 무역 협상에서 진전이 없자, 트럼프가 캐나다산 알루미늄과 철강제품에 대한 관세를 10%,25% 부과하면서, 싸움이 시작됐었다.
캐나다는 미국에 경고 하기를 7월1일까지 유예기간을 주면서 관세부과를 없던일로 해달라고 주문하면서, 이행안되면, 캐나다는 미국에서들여오는 농산물에 대해 보복관계를 부과하겠다고 응수하는 사이에, G-7정상회담을 퀘백주의 La Malbaie에서6월8-9일 양일에 걸쳐 있었다. 트럼프대통령은 가장 가까운 이웃 나라이면서, 가장 늦게 회담에 참석했었다.
정상회담에서 캐나다를 포함한 다른 회원국, 특히 유럽나라들도 미국이 관세를 부과한데 불평을 늘어놓는성토장이 될정도로 정상들간에 회담 기류는 냉냉했었는데, 캐나다수상, Justin Trudeau와 Trump대통령간의 주고 받는 농담속에서 뼈있는 대화를 회담에 참석한 다른 정상들은 마치 관객처럼 듣기만 하는 그런 회담으로 끝나고 말았다.
트럼프는 Trudeau수상에게, 캐나다가 먼저 270% 부과한 관세를 철폐하라고 퍼부어 댔고, 북한의 김정은과의 싱가폴 정상회담으로, 먼저 회담장을 떠나면서, Trudeau를 맹공격했었다.
"Trudeau수상이 회담중에는 정중하고 얌전한 모습으로 대화를 주고 받았었으나, Trump가 떠나온후 그의 태도와 담화발표를 보고, 바로 트윗을 날렸는데, 그내용은 다음과 같다.
"기자회견장에서 Trudeau가 발표한 성명서는 사실이 아닌 거짖으로 캐나다는 우리 미국의 농부들, 노동자와 미국회사들 턱없이 높은 관세를 부과 하고 있어, 남아있는 미국대표단들에게 G-7이 작성한 성명서에 서명하지 말도록 지시했었다"
한편, 캐나다의 정치인이면서, 사업가인 Kevin O'Leary은 CNN과의 대담에서 Trudeau를 맹공격하면서, 트로도 수상의 정책이 굉장히 잘못돼가고 있음을 확인할수있었다. 그의설명에따르면, Trudeau가 집권한이후, 관세를 너무도 많이 부과하여, 캐나다에서 제품을 생산하고 있는 많은 다국적 기업들이 상대적으로 제품을 판매할수가 없어, 캐나다를 떠나고 있다는것이었다.
현재 G-7국가중에서 미국만이 유일하게 지구환경정화(Global Climate)조약에 서명하지 않고있다.
이번 정상회담에 앞서, 일본수상 Abe는 와싱턴으로 날아가 트럼프와 또다시 만나서 정상회담을 했었다.
일본의 속내는, 다알고 있다시피,북한으로부터 일본의 안보를 지키기위한 더 확고한 맹방으로서의 미국의 보호를 확고히 하는것을 확인차, 그외에 주목적은 납북된 일본인들의 송환을 북미회담시 강력히 주문해 줄것을 확인하기위해서 였을 것으로 이해된다. 이런 내치문제를 걱정하는 Abe와는 달리, 문통은 2번씩이나 정으니를 만났지만, KAL기 납북국민을 비롯한, 북한에 억류되여 있는 한국민들의 송환촉구를 했었다는 회담후의 소식은 없었다.
결국 아무런 결론도 없이 정상들이 얼굴보고, Wine잔들과 알맹이도 없는 대화를 나누기위해, 주최국인 캐나다는 VIP들의 경호와 장소제공을 위해 엄청난 예산을 투입했고, 각국정상들은 납세자들의 세금을 탕진하면서,최고급 자가용(?)을 이용하여 여행왔다가 별로 여행 재미도 못보고 되돌아 간 형상으로 끝났다.
이번 G-7 정상회담은, Trump 대통령과 북한의 김정은간에 처음 열리는 세기적 정상회담에 가려져, 뉴스미디아에서도 예년과는 다르게 축소된 것 같은 정도로 보도가 됐을 뿐이고, 전세계의 미디아들은 하루종일, 아니 계속해서 미북간 정상회담과 그결과에대한 추측성 기사로, 특히 CNN같은 경우는 싱가폴 시간으로 한밤중에, 이곳 북미는 한낯의 시간대를 의식하면서, 현지 중계를 끝없이 해대고 있었다.
President Trump and North Korean autocrat Kim Jong Un have arrived in Singapore ahead of the big show — an unprecedented meeting between Washington and Pyongyang's leaders that could, if things go well, pave the way for a historic rapprochement and the eventual end of the last major frozen conflict of the Cold War.
But while their Tuesday summit is this week's headline event, the opening act left many observers fearing the worst.
Trump's two-day stop in Quebec for a meeting with the leaders of the Group of Seven industrial nations was exactly the fiasco many feared. On Friday, Trump told reporters that Russia should be welcomed back into the group, which ejected Moscow after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. On Saturday evening, after leaving early to head to Singapore, Trump said he was pulling out of the summit's joint communique because of comments by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
According to accounts of the G-7 meeting, officials from other members of the bloc confronted Trump with a torrent of statistics
about the importance of the U.S.-authored international order and the
merits of free trade. They watered down the joint communique — scaling
back comments on issues of climate and other concerns of the liberal
order — in a bid to get Trump on board. But after briefly relenting, he
shrugged off these many facts in favor of his feelings, sticking to his
protectionist instincts.
A host of analysts argued that Trump's view of global trade (and posturing over Canada's own tariffs) was both misguided and ahistorical. "Right now, the level of tariffs on trade in goods around the world is lower than it has been for 150 years," said Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, to the Financial Times, "and that is due to the path of U.S. policy over the last 75 years."
A now iconic image, first circulated by aides of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, showed a tense scene in which world leaders confronted Trump. The tableau, likened to a Baroque painting, was hailed by Trump's allies and detractors alike.
The rancor cemented the impression that Trump is actively unraveling the unity of the West. “It was not a surprise,” said Norbert Röttgen, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in Germany’s Parliament, to my colleagues. “The president acted and reacted in the childish way he could be expected to."
“How is it possible to work this way if once you have agreed to something, two hours later the guy decides he doesn’t agree with what he agreed with?” said François Heisbourg, a former French presidential national security adviser, to The Post. “Is there any space for a multilateral order under these circumstances?”
Trump, of course, is not interested in talk of multilateralism. His decision to meet Kim in Singapore is almost entirely drawn from a desire for personal glory. Far more satisfying than a turgid annual summit and the lecturing of other leaders, it's an opportunity to make genuine history and, as Trump himself suggested, perhaps win a Nobel Prize.
In that vein, Trump has a lot in common with his counterpart from Pyongyang. "Thin-skinned alphas, both men are wedded to a go-it-alone leadership style, have a penchant for bombast and are determined to project dominance when they finally meet," wrote my colleague Philip Rucker.
Kim "constantly feels like he has to prove himself, and in that sense he’s going to do what no other North Korean leader has done, and that is command an audience with the president of the United States," said Victor Cha, a National Security Council official in the George W. Bush administration official and former nominee to be Trump’s ambassador in Seoul, to Rucker. "And for Trump, this is the only diplomacy that he’s doing in the whole world right now. Everywhere else he’s either walking out of agreements or sanctioning countries. ... This is Trump’s only chance to make a mark as a statesman.”
But this impulse, experts caution, is precisely what may undermine a lasting agreement. "This mix of reality TV antics and Trumpian disruption has characterized the entire run-up to the summit, generating endless TV talking-points, but little actual movement on the technical issues," noted Robert Kelly, a professor of international affairs at Pusan National University in South Korea. "Indeed, Trump’s bragging about how he had forced the North Koreans to agree to talks and the speculation about a Nobel almost certainly worsened the negotiations."
Many analysts believe the meeting will be heavy on theatrics and light on substance. The two sides may come up with a statement that includes both commitments to North Korean "denuclearization" and a process that could lead to a formal peace treaty with South Korea. But skepticism abounds over the possibility of monitoring North Korea's nuclear program — not to mention Pyongyang's willingness to follow through on its promises.
Of course, while Pyongyang is eager for economic relief and the end of sanctions, Kim may consider the summit itself the real coup. “This unprecedented meeting with the U.S. president will make Kim Jong Un feel very proud, having achieved something his father and grandfather didn’t,” said Joo Seong-ha, a North Korean defector turned Seoul-based commentator, to my colleague Anna Fifield.
No matter what happens, the outcome could be dangerous. After the debacle at the G-7, experts fear Trump may be desperate for a real victory. And in the rush to champion a successful deal, he could consider concessions to Kim that would only strengthen a nuclear-armed dictatorship.
And if things simply fall apart, we're in for a period of rapidly spiking tensions in Northeast Asia. "If there is no statement of intentions to move toward a peace treaty, if there's no statement from the North Korean side on denuclearization," argued Ryan Hass of the Brookings Institution in a briefing to reporters last week, "we're going to find ourselves in a very hollow summit and I think that quickly we'll move into ... finger-pointing about whose fault it was."
At least on this count, Trump's erstwhile allies in the West can certainly relate.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/163ed38c60735550
그동안 미국이 나토 동맹국들과 NAFTA회원국인 캐나다와 멕시코와의 무역 협상에서 진전이 없자, 트럼프가 캐나다산 알루미늄과 철강제품에 대한 관세를 10%,25% 부과하면서, 싸움이 시작됐었다.
캐나다는 미국에 경고 하기를 7월1일까지 유예기간을 주면서 관세부과를 없던일로 해달라고 주문하면서, 이행안되면, 캐나다는 미국에서들여오는 농산물에 대해 보복관계를 부과하겠다고 응수하는 사이에, G-7정상회담을 퀘백주의 La Malbaie에서6월8-9일 양일에 걸쳐 있었다. 트럼프대통령은 가장 가까운 이웃 나라이면서, 가장 늦게 회담에 참석했었다.
정상회담에서 캐나다를 포함한 다른 회원국, 특히 유럽나라들도 미국이 관세를 부과한데 불평을 늘어놓는성토장이 될정도로 정상들간에 회담 기류는 냉냉했었는데, 캐나다수상, Justin Trudeau와 Trump대통령간의 주고 받는 농담속에서 뼈있는 대화를 회담에 참석한 다른 정상들은 마치 관객처럼 듣기만 하는 그런 회담으로 끝나고 말았다.
트럼프는 Trudeau수상에게, 캐나다가 먼저 270% 부과한 관세를 철폐하라고 퍼부어 댔고, 북한의 김정은과의 싱가폴 정상회담으로, 먼저 회담장을 떠나면서, Trudeau를 맹공격했었다.
"Trudeau수상이 회담중에는 정중하고 얌전한 모습으로 대화를 주고 받았었으나, Trump가 떠나온후 그의 태도와 담화발표를 보고, 바로 트윗을 날렸는데, 그내용은 다음과 같다.
"기자회견장에서 Trudeau가 발표한 성명서는 사실이 아닌 거짖으로 캐나다는 우리 미국의 농부들, 노동자와 미국회사들 턱없이 높은 관세를 부과 하고 있어, 남아있는 미국대표단들에게 G-7이 작성한 성명서에 서명하지 말도록 지시했었다"
한편, 캐나다의 정치인이면서, 사업가인 Kevin O'Leary은 CNN과의 대담에서 Trudeau를 맹공격하면서, 트로도 수상의 정책이 굉장히 잘못돼가고 있음을 확인할수있었다. 그의설명에따르면, Trudeau가 집권한이후, 관세를 너무도 많이 부과하여, 캐나다에서 제품을 생산하고 있는 많은 다국적 기업들이 상대적으로 제품을 판매할수가 없어, 캐나다를 떠나고 있다는것이었다.
현재 G-7국가중에서 미국만이 유일하게 지구환경정화(Global Climate)조약에 서명하지 않고있다.
이번 정상회담에 앞서, 일본수상 Abe는 와싱턴으로 날아가 트럼프와 또다시 만나서 정상회담을 했었다.
일본의 속내는, 다알고 있다시피,북한으로부터 일본의 안보를 지키기위한 더 확고한 맹방으로서의 미국의 보호를 확고히 하는것을 확인차, 그외에 주목적은 납북된 일본인들의 송환을 북미회담시 강력히 주문해 줄것을 확인하기위해서 였을 것으로 이해된다. 이런 내치문제를 걱정하는 Abe와는 달리, 문통은 2번씩이나 정으니를 만났지만, KAL기 납북국민을 비롯한, 북한에 억류되여 있는 한국민들의 송환촉구를 했었다는 회담후의 소식은 없었다.
결국 아무런 결론도 없이 정상들이 얼굴보고, Wine잔들과 알맹이도 없는 대화를 나누기위해, 주최국인 캐나다는 VIP들의 경호와 장소제공을 위해 엄청난 예산을 투입했고, 각국정상들은 납세자들의 세금을 탕진하면서,최고급 자가용(?)을 이용하여 여행왔다가 별로 여행 재미도 못보고 되돌아 간 형상으로 끝났다.
이번 G-7 정상회담은, Trump 대통령과 북한의 김정은간에 처음 열리는 세기적 정상회담에 가려져, 뉴스미디아에서도 예년과는 다르게 축소된 것 같은 정도로 보도가 됐을 뿐이고, 전세계의 미디아들은 하루종일, 아니 계속해서 미북간 정상회담과 그결과에대한 추측성 기사로, 특히 CNN같은 경우는 싱가폴 시간으로 한밤중에, 이곳 북미는 한낯의 시간대를 의식하면서, 현지 중계를 끝없이 해대고 있었다.
President Trump and North Korean autocrat Kim Jong Un have arrived in Singapore ahead of the big show — an unprecedented meeting between Washington and Pyongyang's leaders that could, if things go well, pave the way for a historic rapprochement and the eventual end of the last major frozen conflict of the Cold War.
But while their Tuesday summit is this week's headline event, the opening act left many observers fearing the worst.
Trump's two-day stop in Quebec for a meeting with the leaders of the Group of Seven industrial nations was exactly the fiasco many feared. On Friday, Trump told reporters that Russia should be welcomed back into the group, which ejected Moscow after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. On Saturday evening, after leaving early to head to Singapore, Trump said he was pulling out of the summit's joint communique because of comments by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
 |
 |
A host of analysts argued that Trump's view of global trade (and posturing over Canada's own tariffs) was both misguided and ahistorical. "Right now, the level of tariffs on trade in goods around the world is lower than it has been for 150 years," said Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, to the Financial Times, "and that is due to the path of U.S. policy over the last 75 years."
A now iconic image, first circulated by aides of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, showed a tense scene in which world leaders confronted Trump. The tableau, likened to a Baroque painting, was hailed by Trump's allies and detractors alike.
 |
 |
“How is it possible to work this way if once you have agreed to something, two hours later the guy decides he doesn’t agree with what he agreed with?” said François Heisbourg, a former French presidential national security adviser, to The Post. “Is there any space for a multilateral order under these circumstances?”
Trump, of course, is not interested in talk of multilateralism. His decision to meet Kim in Singapore is almost entirely drawn from a desire for personal glory. Far more satisfying than a turgid annual summit and the lecturing of other leaders, it's an opportunity to make genuine history and, as Trump himself suggested, perhaps win a Nobel Prize.
In that vein, Trump has a lot in common with his counterpart from Pyongyang. "Thin-skinned alphas, both men are wedded to a go-it-alone leadership style, have a penchant for bombast and are determined to project dominance when they finally meet," wrote my colleague Philip Rucker.
Kim "constantly feels like he has to prove himself, and in that sense he’s going to do what no other North Korean leader has done, and that is command an audience with the president of the United States," said Victor Cha, a National Security Council official in the George W. Bush administration official and former nominee to be Trump’s ambassador in Seoul, to Rucker. "And for Trump, this is the only diplomacy that he’s doing in the whole world right now. Everywhere else he’s either walking out of agreements or sanctioning countries. ... This is Trump’s only chance to make a mark as a statesman.”
But this impulse, experts caution, is precisely what may undermine a lasting agreement. "This mix of reality TV antics and Trumpian disruption has characterized the entire run-up to the summit, generating endless TV talking-points, but little actual movement on the technical issues," noted Robert Kelly, a professor of international affairs at Pusan National University in South Korea. "Indeed, Trump’s bragging about how he had forced the North Koreans to agree to talks and the speculation about a Nobel almost certainly worsened the negotiations."
Many analysts believe the meeting will be heavy on theatrics and light on substance. The two sides may come up with a statement that includes both commitments to North Korean "denuclearization" and a process that could lead to a formal peace treaty with South Korea. But skepticism abounds over the possibility of monitoring North Korea's nuclear program — not to mention Pyongyang's willingness to follow through on its promises.
Of course, while Pyongyang is eager for economic relief and the end of sanctions, Kim may consider the summit itself the real coup. “This unprecedented meeting with the U.S. president will make Kim Jong Un feel very proud, having achieved something his father and grandfather didn’t,” said Joo Seong-ha, a North Korean defector turned Seoul-based commentator, to my colleague Anna Fifield.
No matter what happens, the outcome could be dangerous. After the debacle at the G-7, experts fear Trump may be desperate for a real victory. And in the rush to champion a successful deal, he could consider concessions to Kim that would only strengthen a nuclear-armed dictatorship.
And if things simply fall apart, we're in for a period of rapidly spiking tensions in Northeast Asia. "If there is no statement of intentions to move toward a peace treaty, if there's no statement from the North Korean side on denuclearization," argued Ryan Hass of the Brookings Institution in a briefing to reporters last week, "we're going to find ourselves in a very hollow summit and I think that quickly we'll move into ... finger-pointing about whose fault it was."
At least on this count, Trump's erstwhile allies in the West can certainly relate.
“A European diplomat who was present added that, within the confines of the meeting, Mr Trump ‘very publicly tried to humiliate Trudeau’ but also ‘had quite a bit to say to Macron and [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel — and to a lesser extent, [British prime minister Theresa] May.’ The diplomat added that the communiqué’s commitment to a ‘rules-based international order’ would have been stronger if it had been known that the US would not be involved: ‘That was a shock. It was negotiated in order get them on board and then they pulled.’… "[Officials] admitted that Mr Trump showed no sign of listening to allies’ arguments on the central topic of trade. Instead he portrayed America as the victim of predatory foreign practices. ‘We’re like the piggy bank that everybody’s robbing,’ Mr Trump complained. EU representatives wielded forests of statistics in a bid to persuade the US president of the mutual benefits of open trade. Economists challenge Mr Trump’s contention that the US is hard done by from the trade deals it has forged. WTO statistics show the EU’s average trade-weighted tariff was 3 per cent in 2015, compared with 3.1 per cent in Canada and 2.4 per cent for the US.” • My colleagues in Europe report on the cracks emerging among the rest of the G-7’s “united front” as Trump tests European solidarity over Russia and other issues: “Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who arrived in Quebec less than a week after the swearing-in ceremony for his new populist government, took Trump’s side. "He said on Twitter that Russia’s return to the group was ‘in the interests of everybody.’ He softened his stance in other remarks, telling reporters that Italy is not seeking sanctions to be removed ‘overnight.’ "With virtually no political profile before arriving in Quebec, Conte is a little-known academic chosen as a compromise representative of two insurgent parties now governing Italy. But he seemed to make an impression on Trump, who wrote on Twitter that Conte would soon visit the White House. ‘He will do a great job — the people of Italy got it right!’ Trump wrote. "Political analysts in Rome were skeptical of Conte cozying up too much to Trump. "‘Conte went too far ahead with Trump,’ said Roberto D’Alimonte, a political science professor at LUISS Guido Carli, a university in Rome. ‘And then he backtracked a little and realized he was out of step with our natural partners.’ "In a front-page analysis story Sunday, one of Italy’s major dailies, the center-left La Repubblica, said of Conte that ‘every move made by the premier has been conceived so as to break the European front and attempt to build an anti-EU axis with Trump.’” • And my colleague Anna Fifield explores the North Korean perspective: “When Kim Jong Un succeeded his father more than six years ago, he inherited a totalitarian state known mainly for its brutal repression, widespread malnutrition and bellicose propaganda department. "Kim, then just 27, had no leadership qualifications other than being born into the cult established by his grandfather after World War II with the backing of China and the Soviet Union. Many analysts, in Washington and Seoul, thought North Korea’s days were numbered. "But Kim has not just survived — he has arguably thrived. He has presided over astonishing advances in nuclear and missile technology and had potential rivals for power killed, including his uncle and his half brother. And this year, he has embarked on a charm offensive that has global leaders — from China, South Korea, Japan, Syria and Russia — seeking to meet him… "The North Korean leader is following a plan he laid out early in his tenure. "In 2013, he announced a ‘dual-track’ policy to advance both the nuclear program and the economy, a shift from the ‘military first’ approach of his father.” • The Atlantic’s Uri Friedman reports from the DMZ on the legacy of an infamous incident that saw North Korean troops brutally murder two U.S. soldiers with the blunt ends of their axe heads: “When the axe attack occurred, in 1976, Kim Jong Un hadn’t yet been born. The New York Times was, at the time, describing Donald Trump as a rising, Robert Redford-esque real-estate promoter with ‘flair’ and ‘dazzling white teeth.’ As for Moon Jae In, the current president of South Korea, he was serving as a corporal in a special-forces brigade that would later help avenge the murders by carrying out the most elaborate and dangerous tree-cutting operation in history—an act that brought the United States and North Korea closer to all-out conflict than they have been at any other time since the end of the Korean War. Moon ‘experienced what being on the brink of a war was actually like,’ the South Korean president’s office told me. Moon, who went on high alert but didn’t directly participate in the operation, has said that his patriotism and convictions about how to ensure South Korea’s security were forged at this very moment… "The incident is also a reminder that whiplash—the sudden lurching from dialogue to belligerence and back again—is a defining feature of the Korean conflict that long predates the Trump-Kim era. The events of 1976 were among dozens of moments over the years in which ‘we were a razor’s edge from one misperception or one bad judgment’ plunging the peninsula into hostilities, the Korea scholar Van Jackson told me.” |
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/163ed38c60735550
No comments:
Post a Comment