|
|
|
|
|
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)
> Kim Jong Il might opt to use his "last option" rather than go down easy.
I don't think the ruling class believes the propaganda that they feed to the masses - they will not committ suicide by using the military option - Koreans are practical after all.
> I agree with you that African nations should be relieved of their debts.
There should be restructuring but not complete right off. If not then, call it for what it is - charity.
NYhomeboy
Thursday, June 06, 2002 at 05:40:09 (PDT)
ka,
If a country screws up because of their own internal economic policies that one thing.
But if a country get into more economic trouble because they adhered to bad advise as a precondition of getting an IMF loan. That's is quite another issue. Then to add insult to injury, the IMF in these instances will always state something to the effect the country in question was unable to meet their commitment to IMF reforms.
"I have never denied that IMF is a political tool."
I didn't said you denied it. You just nicely left it out, to let a laymen think that the IMF is just like your corner bank to get a personal loan. The reality of the IMF is quite different.
I'm informed enough to understand the one-sided nature of your views. I feel sorry to the laymen who think they are a plausible view to the situation at hand.
AC Dropout
Wednesday, June 05, 2002 at 13:47:39 (PDT)
ka,
"Therefore, I seek to convince others of my political views, and hope others like me will make appropriate political decisions during election time."
What are you talking about? Korea is not even an item on anyone's platform in the USA. Unless you're trying to convince the kids enrolled in American school in Korea.
You're posting to the wrong board if that is your purpose.
"This is why I like democracy and freedom of speech"
That nice. In a democracy final responsibilty lies in the populace. Following that logic, don't you see the populace would rather keep the Korea's apart forever and label our non-allies as evil. N. Korea starvation and plight is a direct result of the will of people in democratic S. Korea and USA.
AC Dropout
Wednesday, June 05, 2002 at 12:20:27 (PDT)
AC, you are completely right when you say that when one side hardens, the other tends to do so. I mean even in our own debates, I think that just by discussing, we are being more "radicalized." But the question at hand is what if we "soften" but the other side "hardens" instead? Some people call this "appeasement" and blame this policy as the cause of WWII. Now it seems to me that South Korea is "appeasing" while North Korea looks, smells, and acts in many ways, like your good ol' friend Adolf Hitler.
Sunshine approach should be tried as South has never done this before. The north should be capitalizing these friendly times, but very little real progress have been made by the north. AC, you are effectively saying that we should forever ignore the atrocious human rights violation of North Korea. This might be easier for you to accept, since I personally feel kinship with North Korean people. Should South Korea and the U.S. give money to Kim Jong Il FOREVER? I think this pretty much sums up your policy suggestion. I think that sunshine policy should be tried to signal to North Korea that South is indeed interested in lasting peace. And furthermore, it pushes South Korea into the moral highground--(something you care very little about, but I think people in the world do care about.) If south continues to give money to North, when North makes no progress, then that money, some people will call it a ransom--Kim Jong Il is holding 20 million of his own people as well as 40 million of South Korean people as hostages of an all out warfare. I think this is the big issue here. In the past 50 years, U.S. never launched a military provocation other than surveillance operations. You must know of Pavlov's dogs--North Korea must suredly be aware that U.S. is deathly afraid of getting involved in a foreign war. You say "relaxed" stance will create a "relaxed" reaction. Well I'm waiting for that sign from North Korea, but Kim Jong Il has still failed to visit South Korea as he promised. (you keep ignoring the South initiated Sunshine policy.) Instead, since the death of Kim Il Sung, the north has increased military budget and has strengthened military political structure. It has been months and North has given virtually no hints of progress--and you keep blinding yourself to the finer details.
Yes, companies are forever looking for cheaper labor. But you have not read my previous posts. If America goes into North Korea to "exploit" cheap labor, AC, you will jump up and down and say America is evil. (because you are a marxist) You still fail to explain to me why in the world GE would setup shop in North Korea, when they can do the same in China, where the government protects property rights of GE as well as the fact that general population of china has a higher level of technical expertise.
Russia on the otherhand is doing what you propose--doing trade with North Korea. But you see, you weren't looking at the details again. North Korea as a way to pay back their Russian loan obligations, are using their people as gulag workers in Siberia. If this is how North Korea treats it's laborers in Russia, what in your wildest imaginations do you think it'll be different for the U.S.A? Hmm..
you said regarding my 'little econ lessons', "Yes, little and trival and intuitive are the best adjective to your describe your posting." Indeed. It should be intuitive, but I think you still have not paid attention. I don't know why you are not paying attention to these "trivial" details.
you said taht if IMF gives an unsound advice, that it's better not to have them. It's true--developing world's leaders can always reject the terms of IMF as some do. It's a business. So how is IMF being unfair? So if you go to Chase tommorrow to borrow 100,000 bucks and they turn you down, will you start going off on how "unfair" life is and how "usurers" are evil? If I had a house to mortgage and a good credit history and borrow 200,000, will you go off on how "unfair" capitalism is? give me a break.
I think you have a poor ideas about the central bankers of your so-called "shit little countries." These guys are not stupid, and often they are trained in the West anyway. (very few are professed socialists, as that's a good way to scare off foreign investors.) IMF is not going to be so impressed by "powerpoint" users as suredly as the U.S. business people are more interested in the profit margin then the use of unstable Microsoft products. You still haven't given me one specific about what the IMF does. You are just going on and on about how IMF "could" screw over little countries. But you really are tuning yourself out on details--this is why marxism fails, because command economists often ignore constructive criticisms on a smaller scale. They are always chasing after "big" idealism, accomplishing nothing on a day to day basis.
The rise of Chinese economy was accomplished on the most part, by mainland Chinese themselves. Of course capital and technical expertise from the Chinese diaspora is important, but the main reason is that the Chinese government has changed economic policies. In the 1980's China allowed private ownership. Afterall, why in the world would Hong Kong and Taiwan invest in China if China simply "nationalized" whatever Hong Kong/Taiwan invested in? It is the hard work and economic reformation of mainland Chinese people that is making China rich. For the same reason, no matter how much money we through at North Korea, the result will be appalling. Why do you think there are a lot of Asian/African/South American military dictators with huge amounts of offshore secret accounts with U.S. dollars, when their own country is so poor? You say because U.S.A. is evil and support evil leaders--if you take this position, don't you think U.S. should give no money to Kim Jong Il?
Without further ado, some details please.
ka
Wednesday, June 05, 2002 at 10:40:30 (PDT)
Spare me the elementary military analysis of N. and S. Korea. S. Korea is the weaker of the two forces military. They are all petrified with fear the the N. will come swooping down on day. Oh please....
Don't worry about Taiwan. They been missle testing recently also. It was speculated in the beginning that ROC shot down its own 747 recently.
"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."
That is because we operate on different levels. When I need something done. I think in terms of resources, man hours, timetable, management teams, etc. When you need something done, I suspect you think of how much time you need.
"I fail to see your chess analogy"
Chess for dummies, lesson one. Run through every possible military situation in your head. Is there a situation where the end result will have 30,000 USA troops stationed on the border of China and former N. Korea. That is the situation China fears.
"You talk so big about IMF and Russia--so please explain to me how IMF screwed over Russia"
Look up US Treasury and IMF transitional policies for USSR prior to 1998. 40% loss in productive capacity in a few years, based on IMF recommendation not to incite inflation.
By August 1998, they decided to recommend the Keynesian hypotheses. Since you pride yourself on econ the results were unnovel.
That is the destruction of unsound theories in the real world.
I gave up God by 13. Why be a loyal dog on Earth, when I can me one of the leaders. But don't worry on my death bed I will ask for final redemption, and be taken to heaven like all the other good Christians. That's if I don't reach nirvana first and become the next Budda.
AC Dropout
Wednesday, June 05, 2002 at 10:21:36 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|