|
|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES
Impact of Corean Unification
t's been over a decade since the Iron Curtain came crashing down in Europe. The Bamboo Curtain is little more than a quaint phrase. Yet the Cold War remains very much alive on the Corean peninsula.
Across a 186-mile DMZ glare opposing armies collectively totaling 1.7 million. By all reckoning the Pyongyang regime should have become ideological roadkill following the collapse of communism. Instead, it remains an impregnable roadblock to the economic integration of East Asia, the world's fastest-growing region.
How can an economic nonentity be such a roadblock?
Consider its location at what should have been the crossroads of East Asia. With 56% of the peninsula's land mass, North Corea separates on one side the world's greatest market and labor pool (China) and the biggest reserve of natural resources (Sibera) from, on the other, two of the world's leading technological and manufacturing nations (Japan and South Corea).
But for Pyongyang's intransigence Seoul would already be linked by railroads and superhighways to Beijing, Moscow, Berlin, Paris and London. All those cities would also be linked to Tokyo via a bridge across the 126-mile strait dividing Shimonoseki from Pusan. The savings in shipping cost and time alone could amount to tens of billions of dollars a year. Such a trans-Eurasian land link would accelerate the cultural and economic integration of not only East Asia, but the world. In the process, the Corean peninsula would shed the burden of financing the world's most heavily fortified frontier and become the center of the global economy.
That's the vision dancing before the eyes of farsighted statesmen and business leaders pushing for the political leaps of faith needed to keep Pyongyang taking its unsteady baby steps toward opening North Corea.
But skeptics and pessimists abound. Even a loose confederation with the North would only burden and destabilize South Corea's economy and political system, they argue. For decades to come the impact on the global economy would be entirely negative as investors and customers begin shunning the uncertainties, denying capital and trading partners to hundreds of world-class Corean manufacturers. The ultimate result, argue the naysayers, would be to throw a monkey wrench into an alignment that has allowed three decades of strong growth for East Asia.
What is the likely impact of Corean unification?
This interactive article is closed to new input.
Discussions posted during the past year remain available for browsing.
CONTACT US
|
ADVERTISING INFO
© 1996-2013 Asian Media Group Inc
No part of the contents of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission.
|
|
|
|
WHAT YOU SAY
[This page is closed to new input. --Ed.]
(Updated
Wednesday, Jan 22, 2025, 06:38:55 AM)
NYhomeboy, thank you for your intelligent counterpoints. It gladdens my heart to finally discuss these issues with someone who have done their homework.
Even though I consider myself rightwinged, I still think that a pragmatic approach to North Korea is far superior to an idealistic approach--which is the reason why I support the Sunshine policy, because sunshine policy is the pragmatic approach. If we talked about the appalling human rights conditions of North Korea, we must pressure China, and furthermore take leadership position in absorbing the Northern refugees(which South has clearly shown in it's unwillingness to do so.)
I think what is truly scary is the fact that Kim Jong Il might act like a child, but he is also a child with nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. With an adult, we can expect rational behavior, the question remains whether or not Kim Jong Il will unleash his "last card" in case of severe internal instability--the logic goes that Kim Jong Il might opt to use his "last option" rather than go down easy. This is why I advocate the "expedient" choice of propping up his regime to see if North Korea will reform on itself. Of course at some point, when this method fails, we might as well choose a hardliner stance. Afterall, we must find a policy which will coax the North into behaving in such a way to save as many people's lives as possible.
I think that China has already distanced itself from North Korea, as Kim Jong Il have said before that China has "abandoned" true socialism. In fact China shares so much more in common with South Korea. I agree with you that there are domestic reasons why Chinese leaders cannot sever a tie with a country that has been doing far more harm to China than good. I hope we can somehow excelerate the process of South Korean-Chinese relationship. This is what is actually happening afterall.
AC--
South Korea is not positioned for offense. When I mean that North is forward deployed, I mean that the most of it's troops are on the DMZ, with it's own artillery pieces very much in the front. (South do have troops in the back to stop North's guerilla tactics.) If North was defensively positioned, they would have some troops along the coast in case of a landed U.S. coastal invasion, as well as North would keep it's artillery back, so that it won't be destroyed within minutes of counter bombardment from South Korea. South on the other hand, has less infantry, less tanks, less fighters, and even though it is richer. Those artillery pieces are aiming straight to Seoul with the clear intention of putting fear into Seoul, just as much as China's missile exercizes during Taiwanese election times. Please observe the details.
You said, "That's like saying do I need to get my hands dirty, when I have the resources not to." I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Are you trying to say that South Korea shouldn't feel scared of North Korea, and in fact should give as much money to North Korea ask for, because South Korea can afford it? What are you saying?
AC, I fail to see your chess analogy. Those 30,000 troops are puny in comparison to the 1 million strong North Korean troops. The reason why they are there is to remind the North Korean military that there are 970,000 just like them sitting at home and ready to join their comrades if North invades. Those 30,000 isn't there to tell China that there are 970,000 U.S. troops back home in case China invades. This isn't chess. If those 30,000 marines reach Tumen river, I can't change them for Queens, instead what I get is a nuclear holocaust. I don't see your chess analogy at all.
Yes, loan sharking is horrible. But you again fail to state what your improved policy might be like. You already stated several times IMF is bad. What are you suggesting? That we should abandon IMF, relieve debts, and only give direct subsidies? You only know how to complain, but you don't give any sensible public policy initiatives. You talk so big about IMF and Russia--so please explain to me how IMF screwed over Russia. I'm so curious how your Marxist economic worldview puts this in perspective. I have never denied that IMF is a political tool. What I'm suggesting to you is that IMF is a neccessary evil. Afterall, allowing these countries to restructure their loans is far superior to ignoring them. AC, you forget something very important. These countries can always declare moratorium. They choose not to because they have real consequences which it seems you never thought about.
Loan sharking is evil, and I agree with you that African nations should be relieved of their debts--but you should consider what kind of negative consequences that will have on African countries. Namely that their credit might still be harmed and that it keeps Africa in a state of dependency to the West. IMF on the otherhand, is neccessary as Worldbank is neccessary. In the real world where rich countries are tight fisted, the developing world needs way to get capital in times of financial crisis.
You have a very valid point that the modern economics is full of theories and needs to be "proven." The funny thing is, I think there are far more overwhelmingly stronger evidence that the marxist economics has been a failure. I think you must be a religious man, because your arguments reminds me of what I heard a Christian say once, "God exists, believe me, because you can't prove that he does not exist."
ka
Tuesday, June 04, 2002 at 13:22:22 (PDT)
ka,
First off would N. Korea take such polarized action if for the half a century USA and their allies have taken their polarized stance? You must understand that in symbiotic relationship both sides will react to one another. You take a hard stance the other side will take a hard stance. You take a relax stance the other side will take a relax stance.
Of course N. Korea has no economy. It's been trying to keep pace with 30,000 USA troops stationed on its boarder for the past 50 years. That is what their whole economy has been driven towards. Unlike S. Korea, N. Korea does not their national defense subsidized.
As the standard of living rises throughout China and parts of asia. Companies will be forever looking for stable places for cheap labor. Africa, Middle East, and N. Korea could be potential future cheap labor sources. That a fact of global economy.
Doesn't matter what Kim Jong Il does. From a business point of veiw as long as he keeps the country stable and labor cheap for 20-40 years business will come to exploit it. But how can he do this with USA, the biggest influence on the planet, keep saying that N. Korea is evil.
Remember one reason why China was able to overcome some of their stigma because overseas chinese were willing to do business directly in China through HK and ROC in its early days. This showed larger businesses that openning factories were possible. These businesses also moderated the hard liner in Beijing.
My recommendation to oversea Koreans is to do the same in N. Korea. The Arirang Tours in N. Korea is one example of trade. But S. Korean are more interested in investing in China than N. Korea these days. I'm not sure why. I'm sure labor in N. Korea is cheaper than China now a days. Room and Board is probably all you need now to find workers.
"my little econ lesson"
Yes, little and trival and intuitive are the best adjective to your describe your posting.
Depends what terms the loans come with. If they come with a political message or unsound economic advise from acedemic leaders, countries are better off without them. There are other ways to raise funds on a national level if countries think in advance and prepare properly.
If you are not familar with the initimate details of the IMF or WTO or World Bank process. A lot of time the spent are with expert presenting cases or countercase in closed meetings. So if your the USA, you make a call to the top business school or top economic department. Pay the top professor to come to the meeting to make your case. Not to mention PowerPoint presentation. That really wakes them up.
Now if you are a small shit of a country you can just imagine how unimpressive the board will be when a case is presented on plain black and white xerox with spelling errors.
AC Dropout
Tuesday, June 04, 2002 at 10:56:38 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|