The Wall Street Journal, November 28, 2013
“Concern Mounts in China’s Air-Defense Zone” By Jeremy Page, Jeyup S. Kwaak and Yumi Otagaki

---

중국의 갑작스런 일방적 방공식별구역 설치는 동아시아 정세를 혼란으로 몰아넣었다. 미국, 일본, 한국은 중국의 방공식별구역을 인정하지 않는다고 발표하며, 해당 지역으로 군 항공기를 운행하였다. 중국 또한 이에 질세라 항공기를 해당 지역에서 순찰하도록 했다. 중국은 타 국이 해당 지역을 침범할 경우 ‘방어적 긴급 조치’를 취할 것이라고 경고하였다. 그래도 최초의 강경한 자세와는 달리, 한미일 삼국의 강력한 반발에 힘입어 조금은 물러서는 듯한 태도를 보이는 것이 현재 상황이다. 그런데 중국은 내부 여론에 의해 완전히 물러서기도 힘든 상황에 처하고 말았다. 중국 여론은 완전한 Nativist적 성향을 띠고 있어서, 정부가 Realism으로 그 성향이 비슷함에도 불구하고 보다 급진적이다. 이들은 한국, 미국, 일본의 항공기가 해당 지역으로 들어왔을 때 왜 대응하지 않았는지 따져묻고 있다. 결과적으로 중국 정부는 국외적으로는 한미일로부터 압박을 받고, 국내적으로는 여론에 부응하지 못한다는 부담감을 가지게 되었다. 중국이 항공식별구역을 설정한 이유는 주변국가를 ‘길들이기’위함이었을 것이나, 쉽지 않은 방향으로 상황이 흘러가고 있다. 오히려 중국 스스로도 이 문제를 골칫거리로 여길 가능성이 커졌다. 이렇게 동북아시아의 갈등구조가 보다 심화되고 만 것이다.

중국은 2008년 미국의 경제위기 이후로 패권에 대한 야망을 숨김없이 드러내고 있다. Major Power보다는 Realism에 가까운 방식으로, 전 세계적 헤게모니는 아니더라도 적어도 동북아시아에서의 패권을 노리고 있다는 것은 명백하다. 이번의 일방적 방공식별구역 설치 또한 이런 맥락에서 벌어진 일이다. 중국은 그러나 중국의 의도와는 조금 달리, 기사에도 언급되었듯이 이번 행동으로 인해 국제관계에서 중국의 입지는 아무래도 조금 손해를 보았다고 생각된다. 중국이 분명히 미국에 비해 경제력의 측면에서는 어느정도 우위에 섰음에도 불구하고 국제관계에서, 심지어 영토 앞 영해에서도 세력확장이 어려운 이유는 무엇일까? 이는 먼저 일본이라는 강력한 미국의 우방국가와의 인접성에 기인한다. 만약 아프리카 쯤에 중국이 있었고, 지금과 같은 세력을 누린다고 생각해보자. 중국의 세력확장을 억제할만한 적당한 국가가 없을 시, 중국은 지금쯤 주변에 대해서는 패권을 분명히 장악했을 것이다. 그러나 일본이라는 경제력 세계 3위의 강력한 국가가 미국의 우방으로 인접함으로써, 중국을 지역에서 적절하게 견제하는 효과가 발생하고 있다. 그 다음 군사력의 측면에서 미국에 상대적으로 열세라는 것이 문제이다. 현대사회가 도래하여 자유주의적 관점에서 군사력뿐만 아니라, 아니 오히려 low politics가 중요해졌다고는 하지만, 영토적-군사적-안보적 직접 충돌에 있어서는 경제력보다는 군사력이 직접적 영향력을 행사하는 것으로 보인다. 중국의 군사력은 아직 미국의 1/4수준에 머물러 있으므로, 아직은 군사적 열세가 지역 패권의 획득을 저해하고 있다.

---

자료정리

After Changes, How Green Is The Times?
By MARGARET SULLIVAN
Published: November 23, 2013 72 Comments

EARLY this year, The Times came under heavy criticism from many readers who care deeply about news coverage about the environment — especially climate change.

In January, The Times dismantled its “pod” of reporters and editors devoted to that subject. And in March, it discontinued its Green blog, a daily destination for environmental news.

Times editors emphasized that they were not abandoning the subject — just taking it out of its silo and integrating it into many areas of coverage. The changes were made for both cost-cutting and strategic reasons, they said, and the blog did not have high readership. Readers and outside critics weren’t buying it. They scoffed at the idea that less would somehow translate into not only more, but also better.

So what has happened since? And where does the situation stand now? I talked to Times journalists and outside observers who are close readers of The Times’s environment coverage — including former Vice President Al Gore, a leading voice and a former newspaper journalist himself. And with the help of a news assistant, Jonah Bromwich, my office did its own analysis.

Some observations:

• The quantity of climate change coverage decreased. Maxwell T. Boykoff, who tracks media coverage of the environment at the University of Colorado, said that from April to September of last year, The Times’s print edition published 362 articles in which climate change featured prominently. In the same six months this year, that number dropped significantly — by about a third — to 242 articles. However, he warned: “It’s complicated. We can be lulled into thinking that more coverage is better; that’s not always true.” And the amount of news coverage, of course, often corresponds to particular events or controversies. (Overall U.S. news coverage of climate change has plummeted, he said, after peaks in 2007 and 2009.)

• Beyond quantity, the amount of deep, enterprising coverage of climate change in The Times appears to have dropped, too. In that six-month period this year, there were only three front-page stories in which climate change was the main focus, compared with nine the year before. All three were written by the excellent science reporter Justin Gillis, and two of three were pegged to a specific global warming milestone (the other had to do with President Obama’s policy on the environment). With fewer reporters and no coordinating editor, what was missing was the number and variety of fresh angles from the previous year — such as a September article on what is being revealed beneath that Arctic ice melting at a record pace.

• The Times, which has published many groundbreaking series on the environment, has not had such a series since Mr. Gillis’s “Temperature Rising” ended in January. Such series not only provide especially deep reporting, but their presence also shows the subject is a high priority. “The Times is the thought leader and the agenda-setter, both globally and in the United States,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale University’s Project on Climate Change Communication. “What it does matters tremendously, especially on this topic whose impact is invisible.”

• The Green blog, which Dr. Leiserowitz called “an invaluable and trusted place,” has not been replaced, nor has the approximately $40,000-a-year worth of freelance reporting for the blog that extended the sweep and scope of environmental coverage.

Despite all this, many observers, including Mr. Gore, praised the strengths of The Times’s environmental journalism, including Mr. Gillis’s work. They applauded The Times’s recent hiring of Coral Davenport, an outstanding Washington-based environmental reporter, to cover the Environmental Protection Agency. (The Times lost a major E.P.A.-related scoop on coal-fired power plants to The Wall Street Journal in September after its longtime beat reporter John Broder moved to a new post.) Two other well-respected reporters, John Schwartz and Michael Wines, have begun covering environmental issues. And with the integration of the former International Herald Tribune as the International New York Times, all Times readers are seeing expanded worldwide offerings on this subject, both in news and opinion.

Nonetheless, some observers worry.

“This subject requires a champion because it doesn’t really generate its own news pegs,” said Daniel R. Fagin, a longtime Newsday environmental reporter, now a New York University professor and author. “It’s not a news beat; it’s an ooze beat.”

The Times’s top editors addressed that recently. Perhaps recognizing that the topic had become fragmented, if not rudderless, they appointed a science desk editor, Mary Ann Giordano, to coordinate environmental coverage, in addition to other duties. She is putting together a list of enterprise articles and looking for holes in coverage, and said that a new series was in the works.

“There are so many tentacles to this subject and a lot of big topics we need to delve into,” she said. “And someone needs to keep track.”

While there may be disagreement on how to proceed, there should be no dispute about the importance of The Times’s role or the crucial nature of the subject.

“Simply assuming that this is an interesting controversy that we should check in on occasionally is not correct. The survival of human civilization is at risk,” Mr. Gore said. “The news media should be making this existential crisis the No. 1 topic they cover.”