이승만 대통령의 반공과 통일정책에서의 상징성

서지정보

ㆍ발행기관 : 한국보훈학회 ㆍ수록지정보 : 한국보훈논총 / 10권 / 2호
ㆍ저자명 : 유영옥

목차

요 약
1. 서 론
2 . 반공과 통일정책을 분석하기 위한 이론적 배경
3. 이승만의 통치 이념과 반공주의에서의 상징성
4. 통일정책에 있어 상징 작용 분석
5. 결 론
참 고 문 헌

한국어 초록

본고는 제1공화국에서의 반공과 통일정책에 있어서 상징성이 어떻게 나타나고 있는가를 분석한 논문이다. 반공과 통일정책은 ‘통일’ 자체가 상징적 의미를 강하게 지니고 있을 뿐만 아니라 정책과정에서 분단 상황의 인식, 북한에 대한 인식, 통일정책기조, 대북제의 및 선언, 통일관련 정부조직의 위상, 통일정책의 효과 등에서 상징적 요소를 내포하고 있음을 발견 할 수 있으며, 그러한 상징적 요소에 대한 의미 있는 해석을 필요로 하였다.
구체적인 분석을 통해서 얻을 수 있는 결론은 반공과 통일정책 형성의 전제가 되는 문제정의, 그에 따른 정책내용, 그리고 그러한 정책의 결과에 있어서 통일과 관련된 상징이 주로 부정적인 측면에서 작용해 왔던 것을 알 수 있었다. 특히 제1공화국의 반공과 통일정책은 정부 독점적 정책추진과 하향식의 제한된 통일 논의로 말미암아 국민들로부터 정부가 통일문제를 정권유지에 이용하고 있다는 비판을 받게 되었다고 풀이 할 수 있겠다. 그 첫 번째 사례는 이승만 대통령의 ‘무력북진 통일론’으로서, 그는 이것이 실현불가능하다는 것을 잘 알면서도 가부장적 독재의 지속을 위해 반공이데올로기를 앞세워 이에 반대하는 국내정치세력을 거세·탄압하는 데 이용했다는 비판이다.
이처럼 분단과 통일의 명분과 상징을 국내정치의 수단으로 이용함으로써 통일을 향한 실질적인 진전이 이루어질 수 없었다. 물론 반공과 통일문제는 남북한 양측 모두의 과제이기 때문에 남한 측만의 대북인식과 정책의 전환만으로는 해결이 불가능하고 북한 측도 대남 인식과 정책의 전환이 필요한 상황이지만 그들은 공산화 통일을 성취하기 위하여 남침을 한 것이었다. 이러한 상황에서 당시 이승만 정권은 반공과 통일정책에 대한 상징적 언어를 사용함으로써 정권통치의 극대화를 이루려고 했다.

영어 초록

This paper is about how symbolism in anticommunismand unification policy of President Seungman Lee, the first republic, is demonstrated. ‘Unification’ itself in anticommunism and policy has strong symbolic meaning and also, there are symbolic elements in policy processes such as recognition of current division situation and North Korea, keynoteof unification policy, proposal to North Korea and declaration, status of governmentorganization related to unification, and effects of unification policy. As a result, useful interpretation on the symbolic
elements is needed. Through concrete analysis, we can get conclusionthat problem definition which is premise in creation of anticommunism and unification policy, the contents of the policy, symbolism related unification resulted from the consequence have been working in a negative aspect. Especially, anticommunism and unification policy in the first public can be interpreted as criticismfrom the people that the government abused matter of unification in staying in power due to promotion of the government’s monopolistic policy and downwardly limited unification. As the first case, there was ‘forceful unification toward North Korea’ of the first president, Seungman Lee. Although he recognized this method is unrealizable, he gave priority to anticommunism ideology, so that he suppressed domestic political forces that are against this ideology. Consequently, practical advance toward the unification cannot be achieved because justification and symbolism of division and unification are used as a means of national politics. Certainly, because matters of anticommunism and unification are the task of both South and North Korea, only South Korea’s recognition toward North Korea and change of policy are not working in solving this situation. So, North Korea also should recognize South Korea and change policy, but they attacked South Korea in order to achieve the communist unification. In that situation, Seugnman Lee government tried to maximize rule of government by
using symbolic language regarding anticommunism and unification policy. This paper is about how symbolism in anticommunismand unification policy of President Seungman Lee, the first republic, is demonstrated. ‘Unification’ itself in anticommunism and policy has strong symbolic meaning and also, there are symbolic elements in policy processes such as recognition of current division situation and North Korea, keynoteof unification policy, proposal to North Korea and declaration, status of governmentorganization related to unification, and effects of unification policy. As a result, useful interpretation on the symbolic
elements is needed. Through concrete analysis, we can get conclusionthat problem definition which is premise in creation of anticommunism and unification policy, the contents of the policy, symbolism related unification resulted from the consequence have been working in a negative aspect. Especially, anticommunism and unification policy in the first public can be interpreted as criticismfrom the people that the government abused matter of unification in staying in power due to promotion of the government’s monopolistic policy and downwardly limited unification. As the first case, there was ‘forceful unification toward North Korea’ of the first president, Seungman Lee. Although he recognized this method is unrealizable, he gave priority to anticommunism ideology, so that he suppressed domestic political forces that are against this ideology. Consequently, practical advance toward the unification cannot be achieved because justification and symbolism of division and unification are used as a means of national politics. Certainly, because matters of anticommunism and unification are the task of both South and North Korea, only South Korea’s recognition toward North Korea and change of policy are not working in solving this situation. So, North Korea also should recognize South Korea and change policy, but they attacked South Korea in order to achieve the communist unification. In that situation, Seugnman Lee government tried to maximize rule of government by
using symbolic language regarding anticommunism and unification policy.

참고 자료

없음