The Wall Street Journal, November 28, 2013
“South Korea Announces Expansion of Its Air Defense Zone” By CHOE SANG-HUN

---

모두 알다시피, 한국은 방공구역을 이어도를 포함하는 영역으로 확대 발표했다. 이는 중국의 방공구역과 겹치는 영역이다. 이어도는 현재 한국에 의해 실제로 통치되는 지역으로, 해양과학기지가 세워져있다. 그 주변에 가스 및 천연자원이 많으리라고 예상되기 때문에, 중국이 이를 계속 노릴 가능성을 배제할 수 없다. 중국과 군사적 충돌도 일어날지 모르는 상황이다. 사실 이전까지는 이어도 상공은 일본의 방공구역 내부였다. 그런데 이번에 중국이 식별구역을 확장 발표하면서, 국내적 여론에서 소요가 일어나자 한국 또한 방공구역을 뒤늦게 선포한 꼴이다. 중국과의 전략적 협력관계를 주창해온 정부 입장에서, 이번일이 어떻게 풀릴 지는 모르는 일이다.

마지막 뉴스과제를 하기 위해서 한국에 관련된 문제를 선정해 보았다. 한국의 방공구역 확대는 사실 그 자체로 중요하다기 보다 포함되어 있는 맥락이 중요하다. 중국의 항공식별구역 선포와 이에 따른 미국의 대응이 그것이다. 이러한 상황은 전형적으로 윤영관 교수님이 저서에서 지적하신 ‘중국의 팽창과 미국의 억제’의 충돌 상황이다. 사실 시진핑 정부 수립이후 중국이 이전보다는 보다 유화적인 자세를 취할 것이라는 것이 지배적인 예상이었으나, 갑작스럽게 중국은 항공식별구역을 선포하여 동아시아를 긴장에 빠뜨렸다. 미국도 이에 물러서지 않았다. 압도적인 군사력과 아직까지는 압도적인 헤게모니 장악을 이용하여, 해당 구역으로 전투기를 급파하였다. 중국은 이를 그냥 방조할 수밖에 없었다. 이에 연이어 일본또한 해당 지역에 얼쩡거리는 상황이다.

중국은 이번 일을 계기로 별로 이득을 보지 못하였다. 어찌보면 즉흥적으로 벌린 일 같기도 하다. 미국의 이정도의 강경한 반응을 예상하지 못했다면 가능한 일이지만, 그렇다고 생각하기도 힘들다. 즉 이는 중국의 중앙집권체제가 흔들리고 있음을 보여준다. 경제가 성장함에 따라 사회에 많은 행위자들이 발생하게되고, 이는 중앙집권을 흔드는 계기가 된다. 중국이 미국을 단숨에 제치고 패권국의 지위를 단기간 내에 차지하리라고 단언하기 힘든 것도 이런 이유 때문이다. 이번 사건과 같이 내부 여론에 떠밀린 듯한 과격한 행보는, 중국의 해게모니 장악을 늦출뿐더러, 헤게모니 전환의 연착륙 과정에 먹구름을 드리울 것이다.

이런 상황에서 한국은 어떻게 해야할까? 중국이 앞으로도 과격한 행동을 할 가능성을 배제할 수 없다. 이런상황에서 이어도로까지 방공구역을 설정한 행동이 잘한 것인지는 의문이다. 겹치는 영역은 결국 갈등의 씨앗이 될 것이다. 우리나라는 미, 중 어느 한 쪽을 선택할 수도 없는 중첩외교가 필요한데, 여론에 떠밀려 중국과 명백한 갈등 요소를 만들어 놓는 것이 과연 현명한 선택인지는 의문이다. 강경한 외교도 좋지만, 실리를 철저히 따지고 계산해야지만 동아시아의 혼란스러운 국제관계에서 그 위치를 보전할 수 있을 것이다.

---

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.”