군사시설 입지를 둘러싼 갈등과 해결방안

Abstract

The Korean War ended in cease-fire and Korea now is the only divided nation in the world. National defence and security became vital and the military got granted a special status. In the result, most of military facilities have located without close evaluation and consent of the local community in the name of national security. However, public demands for assurance of the property rights and land utilization have rapidly increased as Korean society passed through democratization in the 1980s, the introduction of local autonomy system in the 1990’s and enforcement of regional balance development policy in the 2000’s. Especially local autonomy system was the decisive factor in the rapid growth of the conflicts caused by military facilities between the military authorities and local communities. Conflicts between military authorities and local communities have negative effects on both sides. They might hinder regional development; incur unnecessary social and economic expenses; spread the NIMBY syndrome in the society and ultimately weaken military strength. Thus the early settlements and continual management of the military-local community conflicts are desirable for both sides and cooperation and furthermore, friendly relations between the community and military is the essential requirements for national security. In this respect, this study aims to answer several questions as below: What kinds of community-military conflict cases are there and what are the causing factors? What kinds of conflict management strategies were implemented to mediate stake-holders? How did the strategies of conflict management affect the settlement process? What is the key factor which determines the success or failure of community-military conflict settlement? What would be the desirable suggestions for resolving conflicts caused from military facilities? To answer above questions, this study examines conflict cases caused from military facilities which are military airfields and ammunition storages, for the reason that these specific military facilities easily cause community-military conflicts. This case study helped to analyze various types and characteristics of community-military conflicts: stake-holders, input factors, resolution strategies and development phase of the conflicts. In the cases adopted in this study, military facilities were located in the outskirts of city and not considered as unpleasant installations at the time they were installed. As the city became industrialized and urbanized, however, the center of city reached the military installation, which inevitably caused a conflict between the military and local community. The case study shows several common factors in successful settlement of the conflicts: the local elites’ participation for conflict mediation; the military’s forward-looking attitude; regional residents’ voluntary participation; proper procedures of information disclosure; and multilateral meeting which plays the role of control tower. On the other hand, conflict left behind in some cases due to the absence of cooperation and communication; poor action plan towards the conflicts in the early stage; fragmented approaches to cognition and solution of the conflicts; and lack of scientific and objective management on the community-military conflicts. The analysis results showed some solutions to those community-military conflicts. Above all, this study suggests institutional proposals as followed. First, the process of conflict management should be systematized in case of occurring conflict to solve the problem effectively. This study proposes such as ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) and conflict adjustment expert certification system that have been used in developed countries. Second, the military authorities ought to assign professional manpower to deal with the conflicts. Running an expert-pool can be one of the ways of it. Third, a public-private joint organization which is field-based and inclusive should be formed to manage conflicts. Fourth, building an overarching communication system to accept opinions from local residents, civic groups, local council etc is crucial for resolving the conflict. The communication system should guarantee stake-holders’ online and offline participations. Fifth, the authorities should come up with a plan for minimizing the military’s negative effects towards the local community preferentially, not just relocate the facility to another region. Finally, this study suggests operational proposals which military authorities and the government needs to adopt for the constructive relationship. First, a comprehensive consultative group should be formed. It helps the military and local community jointly predict and manage the potential conflict factors. Second, information related to the conflict and stake-holders’ interests must be released unless it threatens the security. The military authorities should open related information from the early stages of the conflict and keep reflecting the opinion on the disclosed information to build mutual trust and minimize the conflict. Third, the military facility must be a part of the local community. For this, the military needs to extend the range of its activities in the local community. Fourth, once it is decided to relocate the facility, the new location must be utilized efficiently. That is, the military should try to get the maximum effectiveness with a minimum of land using. Fifth, clarifying stake-holders’ practical benefits during conflict management is important since the demands of both sides might become obscure as the conflict is prolonged. Sixth, it is necessary to take an objective and scientific approach in evaluating the extent of the damage and compensation. The government needs to approach the conflicts between the military and local community with the national level rather than regard them as regional problems. To minimize the conflict caused from the military facilities, ‘what everyone wants’ should be exactly clarified. In the case of relocation of a military unit, it is needed to establish long term plan which secures land and budget so that any kind of disadvantage to the local community could be prevented in advance.