|
|
|
|
|
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/ p.p.s.s.
Again you digress. I said that the reason why there are anti-americanism in the world--I pointed out how America gives money to unsavory characters. You pointed out how America shows favoritism. That is ALSO true, but you still "dodged" my original question by ignoring the previous question. Should we give money to people who commit murders? Should the U.S. government given money to Nazi government hoping that whey might have toned down during wwii? should the u.s. government given money to Pol Pot hoping he toned down? maybe if we gave money to Jeffrey Dahlmer he would have toned down. Maybe you are right AC, if you gave 50,000 bucks, I too will tone down and becomea Marxist like you.
ka
Monday, June 10, 2002 at 11:23:58 (PDT)
AC=
one more thing, you said that I'm all over the place with current events--
I feel that I give you more concrete examples and I explain myself more fully than you.
I feel that while I backup my theories with facts, you backup your theories with more theories. Am I being too immature by asking for more details?
ka
Monday, June 10, 2002 at 11:14:39 (PDT)
AC, when you say that we should coax North Korea to change by friendly policies, I have been in agreement with you. But the fact still remains that Kim Dae Jung's sunshine policy as of right now, stands as a rather awkward failure. AC, there is very little parallism between the growth of mainland China and the hope for North Korea. You said, China was able to be where it is today, because enterprising Chinese diaspora made it possible. What I have been saying is that ever since the rise of Deng Xiao Ping, Chinese leadership changed "allowing" Chinese diaspora to make wealth-generation in China possible. Sunshine policy is very good in this respects--like I said it creates a gesture of good will towards the north. But you despise my "carrot and stick" approach, and you instead prefer "carrot and more carrots" approach. Carrots have yielded no progress, and yet it still have values which I talked about. I'm not saying we should drive north Korea into a corener--you are putting words into my mouth, because I advocate the use of "soft-hard" approach. I don't think this is the way to achieve peace.
What "hardness" have U.S./South Korea caused on the North? military buildup? economic sanctions? both, the North has equally caused on south/U.S., and please note that it is the south that have been begging Kim Jong Il to make contract with us. It has been the allies who have been given food, oil, technical expertise in KEDO, medical aid, the list goes on and on. What has Kim Jong Il done? He has allowed several hundred old people meet before they die. But this fact, this very fact is meaningless to you, because despite your attacks on my "theories", you belive that your "theories" of never ending "carrots" will eventually cause Kim Jong Il's government to feed North Koreans. I don't have your faith based on what I observe from North Korea.
You said that U.S. is severely harsh on North Korea. There are certain realities which you consistently ignore, because you look towards the far future saying, "these things can change only if... south and U.S. soften." China is rich without South Korean/U.S. assitence. What is it that you are saying?
You want South Korea and United STates to give unconditional aid to North Korea. You want United States to unconditionally remove troops and South Korea to unconditionally reduce forces. you want the U.S. and South Korea to look the other way hoping North to change.
I'm not pushing them "HARD". When have I ever advocated stopping food aid or KEDO? You call me "hard" because you think that the U.S. media should play journalism of "integrity" and give "balanced" view of North Korea. AC, why don't you take 30 seconds of your life and visit a North Korean website. Their own website will give you an unfavorable view of their own country if you read with any bit of intelligence. You think most journalist at Washington Post and New York Times are anywhere near as conservative as me?
Unification is not the primary goal. My primary goal is that North Korean people can live in a certain level of human decency. You say that the best way to that goal is by doing whatever kim Jong Il asks for. I strongly disagree; I think that you believe most western news you read about N. Korea to be fabrications. (or maybe you don't read them)
Again you say concerning the IMF, "It should not be a political tool. It should lend money to countries who need infusion of capital without sign some pre-condition." Indeed you humor me. You are effectively saying that we should give money to whoever ask for it without asking what it's for and how it's used. All this without incurring interest. In otherwords, you are saying IMF should give money to whoever that asks for it. If that's your solution, then even then the IMF isn't your enemy. Your true enemy, the true solution to your dilemma, is for rich countries to simply give more money. To make you happy I'll go read those IMF recommendations.
You think if the West got rid of the IMF they will increase their aid to the poor? You think the developing world are better off in an IMF world? I'm not saying IMF is perfect or even "good". I said it before, I'll say it again. It is better to have IMF then no IMF--without IMF 3rd world coutries become even more vulnerable/not less to rich peoples' political demands.
Here you are finally seem to come to the conclusion that IMF should be fixed, not axed. That's very good. But you used IMF as an example to point out how capitalism is just as bad as communism. My stance hasn't changed one bit. I have no reason to adhere to your religion of communism.
The thing is AC, I don't mind you taking a "soft" stance on North Korea. I have to agree with you. It is when you advocate centralized economy that I get so upset. I'm not a rich man, and therefore, if anything I get to be on the side of the "proletariat." but your recommendation will lead us to doom. Money does not grow on trees. You keep insisting that we implement certain policies which goes into direct conflict with sensible budget balancing.
You said that North Korea had no reason to invade south as South has no commodities of value but only human capital. This is very true. but the weakness of your argument lies in that, I see North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, deliberately destroying human capital daily. I have no reason to believe that he shares your enlightened view.
P.S. I apologize for my accusation about Cash/Commoditeis part of your posting, as I admit I didn't fully read those sentences.
ka
Monday, June 10, 2002 at 11:08:37 (PDT)
Hua,
China is not afraid of Korea. It is afraid of the 30,000 USA troops in Korea and how they will be resolved after unification.
AC Dropout
Monday, June 10, 2002 at 10:16:40 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|