|
|
|
|
|
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)
AC, you have pinned the blame of the fall of productivity and rise of unemployement of Russia on the IMF. I suspect that you do not know how to balance your checking account.
Look at your elementary analysis of Russian economic problem. Why did the Russian government need the service of the IMF? Becuase they have been over spending for years, and they could no longer borrow money to refinance their debts. In other words, the Russian treasury was depleted of resources. Had the IMF not intervened, how the heck would Russian government pay it's workers? Russian government HAD no money to pay period. You are so blind to the fact that Russia was becoming bankrupt. You think without IMF Russia wouldn't be screwed? So you are saying that Russian central bankers were full of morons and they didn't know what they were doing? No, it was Marxists like you who said, "Russia musts continue to keep it's programs of over spending." Central Bankers could not maintain any sensible privatization programs as old communist hardliners blocked every attempt for the Russian government to cut spending. AC, first you must understand money don't grow on trees. Russia DID print money and there was hyper inflation--this was NOT IMF recommendation--that was Communist economic policy. Yes, those figures make sense, the IMF never said that the Russian economy would be "miraculously" cured, instead it simply stated what it needs to do in order for IMF to lend money to Russia. Why would IMF "lend" money when Russia does not implement any policy that makes the other nations think Russian government can ever pay back? Russian government apparently felt that refinancing under IMF terms was favorable to doing no business with IMF. Until of course, it reneged, and had to face the fact it could no longer obtain foreign capital.
Unsound theory? So AC, you must think it's an awsome theory for the government to nationalize all industry, direct every member to engage in specific professions, and that it would be a great idea to print a lot of money when things are bad. This sounds just like North Korea, I think you must really be impressed with their economy.
Where have I left out that IMF is a political tool? I have wrote specifically that IMF often makes political demands. You are not reading my posts and you blame me for not writing something.
AC, you think Korea is not a political item in the US? So that's why the very first thing a U.S. president does each year after election is to visit the DMZ and rally U.S. troops? Just because the general population does not think about these things, does not mean policy makers are also ignorent of the issues. It is therefore all the more reason to disseminate these information; because frankly, I don't think your defeatist attitude about how to make a difference is very constructive. I'm writing on the wrong post? Jezus, AC, look at the title of this thread!
AC, I don't see your logic at all. Why is S.Korea/US being blamed for North Korean starvation? Because S.Korea/US "wants" to keep North separated? What are you saying? I'm sorry like I said, I didn't really study philosophy in college.
AC, South Koreans have something to LOSE. What does South Korea have to gain by invading North Korea but having to payoff bad debts North Korea borrowed, rebuilding North Korean economy, and at the same time juggling internal stability? North Korea on the otherhand has much to gain by invading South.
Look I agree with you if you said, "the west shouldn't only be giving loans, west should increase direct subsidized aid." Like NYhomeboy is saying. THAT is a valid point. But so far you have not said anything about how to improve the IMF, you only said that IMF is bad--in context of how IMF and the free market society is bad--but you fail to examine consequences of a IMFless world. Why can't you be more creative and come up with a much more concrete policy alternative? Are you suggesting that we get rid of IMF? Are you suggesting that IMF should be altered? Are you saying that IMF is proof that market economy is bad? Even now I have no idea what you mean.
Now if the West gave greater amount of money to the developing world--something I favour--I think that it makes sense that the aid is tied to beneficial economic policy. This is something AC, you despise, because you say that we only give eurocentric economic demands. But I don't understand what you mean when you say a better system. I mean on what basis do you determine if something is being Eurocentric and others more inlined with native economic system? Please answer me, because I'm all ears. Are you essentially saying that we should give no strings attached straight out cash to anyone that ask for it? Like I said, this sort of aid might be doing more harm to countries in Africa. We must be looking at things on a detailed case by case scenario without just lumping everyone together--afterall, every nation, as you profess is unique.
ka
Thursday, June 06, 2002 at 08:31:32 (PDT)
ka,
"like your good ol' friend Adolf Hitler"
Adolf Hitler could have only existed because of the hard line the Allies took against Germany in WWI. Destroying German economy to a point, that the populace could accept a person as Hilter as their "fearless" leader. If the allies took a softer stance with German after WWI, I doubt a person like Hilter would have come to power.
So know it is S. Korean turn to learn from European history. But then again last time I check the Korean history books, they are not better than Japan when I come to twisting or ignoring history.
"atrocious human rights violation of North Korea."
No more than we are asking the N. to forgive their atrocious human right violation to their own populace. People aren't demonstrating in the streets of S. Korea for their health you know. If you keep focusing on that issue you lose sight of your goal which is unification, I believe.
"If America goes into North Korea to "exploit" cheap labor, AC, you will jump up and down and say America is evil"
You really don't know me. I started in HK and ROC looking for Cheap labor, then as their economy rose, I look in Southern Africa and China. Trust me once China economy rises I will be at the next developing nation looking for cheap labor. People like me don't give a rats ass about other countries internal affairs. Only the American consumers care about these trival issues. Which I might oblige if it effects my bottom line too much.
You don't understand how big business find developing nations for manufacturing. They are not the pioneers. It is usually the smaller companies that try first. In the case of China it was the oversea Chinese business people who said "Hey I got family in China, let's try openning a factory there, labors cheap." Enough of them suceeded that larger companies took notice and to be competitive did the same thing. Then there was enough money being made to change China internal policies on foreign investment. Then the Fortune 500 companies came.
That is the prognosis I suggest for S. Korea to develop N. Korea. A few oversea Korean businesses need to take that first risk instead of taking them in China or South America.
"South Korea into the moral highground"
That is not realistic principle for leadership. Morality is not really a negotiation point. It will only polarize the populace in S. away from the N. which will have an adverse effect on leadership in terms of unification.
"U.S. never launched a military provocation other than surveillance operations"
Mind if I take pictures of you the next time you take a shower? You operate on some very strange definitions. I guess that spy plane incident and bugging of the China Prime 747 are all just benign actions.
It is obvious from a military point of view the S. has the upper hand. Hence, based on your moral highground argument. It is the S. that should relax their stance first. I mean a true relaxation, like a timetable for USA troop withdrawl. 15 years, 20 years, 50 years whatever. If S. Korea offered that with their Sunshine policy, I sure you will see a positive reaction from N. Korea. Right now the Sunshine policy is only in the let's have a cup of tea stage. Nothing groundbreaking in terms of politics yet.
Give me a break Chase bank does not lecture me when I get an open ended loan personal loan. It doesn't make me sign an agreement to have sex only once a week, so they know I'm productive enough to pay them back. It doesn't make me sign an agreement to say okay X amount can be spent on a car, Y amount can be used to pay these creditors, and Z amount can be used for your kids. Have you ever seen an IMF precondition and commitment form? You must be naive to think you can pass off the IMF as the regular mortage bank. If the IMF was a mortage bank, they would require all homeowners to convert to their ethics and subscribe to their spending habits, prior to lending people money.
Have you met the people in the World Bank or IMF? They're not genius either. Their just normal people in suits doing their jobs. And like normal people they are effected by "how" things are said, instead of "what" is being said sometimes.
Now you are going off track but since you want answers.
"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?"
Because USD is a stable currency on this planet. Remember a lot of affluent people sold off the USD after 9/11 to go into commodities like gold, oil, and diamond. What does this got to do with Korea?
"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?"
When did I say this? If you read my other post on other part of this site. I personally don't subscribe to good and evil. I stated that by vilifying N. Korea, you will radicalized the North. Hence, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy on USA part.
AC Dropout
Thursday, June 06, 2002 at 08:18:43 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|