比較金正日與金正恩經濟與外交政策之影響因素

Abstract

金正日和金正恩任內同樣面對發展核武導致國際制裁與經濟衰退現象，然而兩人在外交與經濟政策上卻有顯著差異。在外交方面，金正日於核武試驗後，願意接受外交斡旋，甚至同意以六方會談方式協商，而金正恩卻仍無視國際反對，持續核武試射，直到2018年才有所轉變，同意元首外交與雙邊協商。而在經濟部分，金正日面對經濟衰退選擇深化改革措施等對外開放政策，到了2005年卻改採封閉政策，加強國家控制；金正恩則是一上任採取開放措施，在經濟衰退後，卻採取「自力更生」的封閉政策。究竟影響這兩位領導人政策走向變化的因素為何？本文以分析三層次—國際、國內和領導人—作為框架，比較導致兩人政策變化和其差異的因素。在國際層次方面，國際結構如中美權力變化、北韓與大國關係是主要觀察因素，與大國關係又分成與威權國家中國和俄羅斯，以及與美、日、韓的關係。國內層次則是從經濟表現來看，尤其是從糧食與能源面向探討經濟衰退對北韓領導人政策的影響。最後在個人層次則是從領導人特質與認知進行分析。 研究結果發現在外交及核武政策上，國際層次中影響北韓外策改變最鉅的因素是中國，不論是金正日或金正恩時期，當北韓與中國關係友好時，北韓會較願意參與外交協商。而領導人對於核武發展之戰略意義的認知不同，也是導致政策不同的主因，易言之，金正日把發展核武視為談判籌碼，金正恩則認為是平衡美國壓力的必要手段。在經濟政策上，本文提出北韓國內糧食生產量的穩定與否係金正日和金正恩面對國內經濟衰退分別採取開放與封閉不同走向的原因，另外則是領導人特質，金正日謹慎的態度與強調金日成路線，對比金正恩亟欲建立自己的領袖魅力與海外留學經驗等，造成金正日和金正恩對於對外貿易和國家發展的看法不同。

Both Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un faced international sanctions and economic recessions as a result of their nuclear weapons program. However, there were significant differences between the two leaders’ foreign and economic policies. In terms of foreign relations, Kim Jong-Il was much more receptive to diplomatic mediation, even agreeing to the six-party talks after conducting nuclear weapon tests. Kim Jong-un, on the other hand, continued testing in defiance of international opposition before changing his mind in 2018 when he decided to engage in head of state diplomacy and bilateral negotiations. In terms of economy, Kim Jong-il strengthened his reform measures and open policies in the face of an economic recession. However, in 2005, he then elected to close off the economy in order to consolidate state control. In contrast, Kim Jong-un adopted open policies once he took control, but switched to more closed policies and began promoting self-reliance after the recession. So, what were influential factors that made these two leaders change their policy direction? This thesis used three levels of factors ¬– international, domestic, and individual – as a framework for discussing the reasoning behind different policies and policy changes. At the international level, important factors were determined to be the United States-China power struggle and North Korea’s relationship with major powers. North Korea’s relationship with other nations was further sub-divided into their relationship with China and Russia and their relationship with the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Focus was placed on economic performance for domestic-level factors, particularly, assessing the recessions’ impact on policies through analyzing the state’s food and energy production. Lastly, the study examined factors at the individual level in regards to the characteristics of the leaders themselves and the public’s perception of them. The results of the study found that at the international level, China had the greatest influence on affecting North Korea’s foreign policies for both leaders. North Korea was more willing to engage in diplomatic negotiations when relations with China were friendly. The two leaders held differing opinions in regards to the strategic significance of nuclear weapons, which mostly explained their different policies. In other words, Kim Jong-il viewed nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to be used during negotiations, while Kim Jong-un saw them as necessary means for counterbalancing pressure from the United States. When it came to economic policy, the study found that the stability of food production in North Korea was the most decisive factor when it came to choosing open or closed policies in the face of domestic economic recessions. Finally, analysis of their individual leadership revealed that Kim Jong-il maintained a more cautious attitude, placing heavier emphasis on following in the footsteps of Kim Il-sung. In comparison, Kim Jong-un’s eagerness to build up his charismatic image as a leader and his experience studying overseas was what resulted in the two leaders having different views on foreign trade and national development.