|
|
|
|
|
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)
I may be over simplifying but, I can't believe that China will ever truely feel threathen by a unified Koreas, or that if the unified Koreas did continue pro-American policies that it will think that it will materially be harmful to China.
I just saw a WABC - Nightline with Ted Koppel series on NKs refuges in China - last installment is this Monday. It's amazing, the level of suffering going on there, while SK is enjoying such prosperity. One of the mothers' left her baby in NK and felt that she had committed a "great sin" against the child. I kinda feel the same way, that the SK people are not doing as much as they can in terms of charity work to help the NKs.
I wonder how long it will take to decompress the NK people's mental state or "re-humanize" them afer a century of oppression/brain washing (first the Japanese then Communists) when re-unification finally happens. I hope no irreparable damage has been done.
NYhomeboy
Saturday, June 08, 2002 at 08:51:11 (PDT)
> analysis of Russian economic problem.
You are both are overlooking the fact that Russians went from being serfs to technology age in one leap. Russians are not known for their, shall we say - industrialness?
No amount of water will make a tree grow in sandy soil.
Also, during the Gorbachove to Yeltsin periods there were tremendous plunder/looting - I mean to the tune of say - paying pennies/worthless rubles for commodities like aluminum ore then flipping on world market for dollars. This went on for years and by ship loads.
NYhomeboy
Saturday, June 08, 2002 at 08:35:33 (PDT)
oh by the way AC,
you said that since 9/11, people sold off commodities like gold. Price of gold actually rose. When people are worried that banks will fail, or that the world is about to come to an end, people usually like holding commodities instead of paper. This too, is trivial economics.
ka
Friday, June 07, 2002 at 21:36:54 (PDT)
AC, first I thank you for really delving into your argument instead of giving me 1 sentence comebacks.
Now, I think it is improtant to discuss your misconception about what it is that I'm trying to promote. Regarding me you said, "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." My foremost goal, is in the livelihood of actual people--therefore an abstract concept such as unified nationhood comes second place to the most important goal--the continuation of human lives. Come on AC, don't you think any logical warm-hearted human being would be more concerned with whether or not children are being fed, rather than if their parent's get to vote for Kim Jong Il or Kim Dae Jung? (if the north could vote!) My attack on Kim Jong IL comes from the fact that clearly North Korea has shown poor governance which makes poorly run South Korea, look like a tight ship. What good is unification, like I said before, if North Korean people continue to face discrimination in the South after unification? Like you said yourself, many South Koreans are not going out of their ways to accept more North Korean refugees--frankly put South Koreans are scared of a mass migration of North Koreans. Does this mean that we should simply look the other way? So we should practice your so-called political-isolation. This still makes no sense to me. You said that small companies should go in before big ones--that is very very true. You are very right when you say South Koreans by and large are prohibited by law from engaging in business with the North.
But you have failed again to point out the realities of North Korea. Many Japanese Koreans (Zainichi) HAVE invested in Korea and have sold their belongings and went back to North KOrea to build a socialist paradise--these people truly believe in Kim Il Sung. So you think these North Koreans are doing really well? Japan, Russia, and China are also free to do business with North Korea. Why do foreign investors all run away from North Korea like the plague? You said you do business with devoloping countries--then I urge you to do your homework on what it would take for you to setup shop in Pyong Yang. It is not easy to run a business in North Korea, and what's more, it's lot more difficult to make any money in North Korea. But you keep on saying that U.S> and SOuth has failed to do their part. If Pyong Yang does not change their domestic laws like China did, in allowing private ownership, why would foreign business come in? WOULD YOU PUT MONEY THERE? Many Zainichi businessmen not only failed to make money (indeed they lost heavily), once they went to North Korea, they were barred from leaving. In fact, this is one of the reasons why Japan has ended food aid to North Korea--there are Japanese nationals in the North, who are barred from leaving the country.
Am I "demonizing" the North? So you think I do more good, if I do what you do, and ignore all these reports, and in fact that I should lobby and force these news agencies to stop printing these "biased" reports? So you belive that freedom of press is bad? Or since as you put it that you don't believe in bad and good, you think freedom of press is bad for U.S? Or it's bad for North Korea?
South Korea has been trying even before Kim Dae Jung administration to do EXACTLY what you have been suggesting. The problem is the North has not reciprocated on ANY points--except the token allowal of several hundred family visits.
You said that, "Morality is not really a negotiation point." I beg to differ. The very reason why Islamic nations hate America is precisely because they feel that we have caused evil in their country--alas Ayatollah Komeini calls America the Great Satan. America HAVE been playing power politics and look at what it has done for it? It has been a policy failure. AC, the vast majority of the world believes in the existence of God, and furthermore, the vast majority of humanity awknowledge the existence of good and evil. I think I'm far in tune with the rest of humanity on this.
YOu said, " guess that spy plane incident and bugging of the China Prime 747 are all just benign actions."
I said clearly that the ONLY provocations were from SURVEILLANCE operations. Think about this AC. Let's say both North and South engage in NO surveillances. You think this promotes greater peace? No, it creates greater instability as each side does not know what the otherside is up to. If North Korea knows exactly how much more stronger the Southern situation is, it has no incentive to launch an attack. For the same reason that it's far better for the U.S. to know that North Korea is not developing nuclear weapons, which might trigger a pre-emptive attack. What you fail to point out is that North on the otherhand has carried out terrorist activities. And you still fail to impressive upon me that South is offensively deployed. If victory is certain, why haven't the South invaded? For the reasons I wrote before.
Your charge against the IMF still makes no sense to me. The IMF does NOT tell you how to behave in your own bedroom. You still failed to explain to me what the IMF SHOULD be doing and on WHAT BASIS they should give out loans and at WHAT RATE OF INTEREST. You give me no details, because I'm inclined to believe that you do not know. You say that IMF demands are ridiculous. So what are you suggesting? IMF should simply as you write, "tone down?" What does this mean? Give me details.
When I said, "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?" I was pointing out the fact that in the past(and even now) U.S> gives vast amount of money to unsavory people. I'm pointing out the fact that despite giving these screwups money, their country is not improving, but worsening--this is one of the main reason why there is a lot of anti-americanism. Now, if we give money to kim Jong Il to prevent him from starting a war, how is this any differnent from the wrong policy decisions like the ones above? I'm saying we should be doing what is right--what is pragmatic foremost.
AC, you still fail to explain to me the role of 30,000 troops. 30,000 troops is not enough to launch an invasion against 1 million troops. If you believe that, then you must seriously be naive. If U.S. wanted to engage in an offensive war, they would HAVE to convince the South. 30,000 troops attacking by themselves without Southern support means 30,000 bodybags for American mothers. On the otherhand, if U.S. gets rid of 30,000 troops, it signals North Koreans that U.S. no longer will support SOuth Korea in a military engagement. Some people might see this as an open invitation.
Am I radicalizing here? No, all my policy suggestions were pretty much mainstream. But because I point out the failings of command economy, you call me a radical. What, command economy is honky dory? If you like it so much, why don't you live there? I guess you must be living there, for you to write like that.
yes, there would be no Adolf Hiter, if the west took a softer stance during the Versailles Treaty. Which is what they did after WWII, which is why we had Bretton Woods agreement. The West has learned it's lesson from Adolf Hitler, but it seems to be that YOU have failed to learn from history.
ka
Friday, June 07, 2002 at 21:30:39 (PDT)
"I suspect that you do not know how to balance your checking account."
I don't, that's why I hire accountants. I don't think you know about running a multi-national organization, but what's that got to do with what we are talking about...Korea.
If the IMF provided the proper solution as they did in 1998 instead of playing with other theories for almost 4 years. Russia would have recovered faster. Just read the policies IMF and US treasury suggested, like i recommended.
We don't vote on the issue of the DMZ. Because we, as a populace, are happy with status quo in Korea. What you might view as USA leaders and policy makers have total discretion on the matter in Korea, is in reality our approval of their actions. Or we are a populace of USA enjoy watching the suffering in N. Korea.
The final responsibility of a democratic society lies in masses. Hence, any resulting effects of actions of a democractic society falls on the individuals in that society. That is the appeal of democracy. So in the final analysis most historian will agree with me that we caused the downfall of N. Korea and starvation due to our harsh political stance. You want the fame; you risk getting blame.
If S. Korea had nothing to gain, why the sunshine policy.
People get it all mixed up when it comes to military conquest. If N. invaded S. it would gain nothing. When you invade a foriegn country the only thing of any worth is commodities (i.e. gold, diamond, oil, etc.). S. Korea value is based on it huge export and manufacturing businesses. Those will disappear if the N. invade.
Whao...IMF has nothing to do with seperation of Korea. IMF has to resolve its issue of being a philanthropist or businessman. The IMF really needs to re-examine its role and how it parses their advise in the world. Countries who turn the IMF are desperate. Sometimes they have met their role. And sometimes they are political tools. It needs to be a consistent banker to the world.
As for monetary aid. Look at U2 singer Bono. He wants the 1st world nation to write off the debt of the 3rd world nations. I don't have answers to how the world economy should operate. But I do see international incidents where some countries were screwed over. Those lessons should be learned well to make sure it doesn't happen again.
AC Dropout
Friday, June 07, 2002 at 10:14:55 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|