|
|
|
|
|
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
> My personal belief is that we should also take measures to support North Korea’s admission into international organizations.
This to me is a form of sunshine policy...to engage NK as much as possible without seeming to do so - I agree they shoudl be encouraged to come out of their shell. NK is a extremely shy girl that wants a date but refuses all direct invitations b/c of face. US should allow SK to direct the policy toward Korea.
NYhomeboy
Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 20:12:40 (PDT)
AC, you are going to attribute the failure of Sunshine policy on Bush's election? So then why were there no progress before Bush? AC, Bill Clinton decided to cancel his trip to North Korea at the end of administration for a reason. Bush is not so fundamentally different from Clintonian policies.
US is exaggerating the "dangers" of North Korea? Have you been avoiding reading news coming from north korea again?
It is quite true that North Korea does not have the military capability to launch on U.S. It does however, have the capability to make South Korea into paupers over night. Furthermore, North Korea is the biggest proliferator of missile technology as well as nuclear technology. North Korea isn't a threat? Maybe it isn't for Libya, Syria, and Pakistan. I'm not advocating the NMD. I'm simply denying your assertion that North Korea would change with your "carrot and more carrot" approach diplomacy.
Yes, U.S., South Korea, as well as China and Japan are all scared of 20 million refugees flooding into all over asia. Which is why U.S. has offered PLENTY. Food, oil, nuclear technology, hard currency, etc. Furthermore, for North Korean transparency, U.S. offers lifting of U.S. embargo. Furthermore, U.S. has spelled out to North Korea that continuation of weapons development will result in a pre-emptive attack by the U.S. on North Korea.
AC, I agree that we must "engage." That IS what we are doing right now. What I'm against is, is your suggestion that we should simply give give give, make no demands, and give some more. All of this while, turning our heads to human rights violations. I think your policy suggestion is horrible, that ultimately it fails to give Kim Jong Il any reason to change his behavior. A big stick is what we need.
Both South Korea and the United States HAVE been working hard to include North Korea into international organizations. But you keep on forgetting some details. To be included into the WTO, member nations must abide by the rules of WTO--China has complied and now is a member. North Korea has not. So you are saying that U.S. and S. Korea should bend the rules for North Korea? Your arguments are seriously misleading. It makes it seem like South Korea and the United States are working hard to "bar" them. That is exactly opposite of reality. The reality is that the North Korea chooses to ignore these organizations and not to join them. North Korea is also a member of the United Nations. It is South Korea that has spearheaded North Korea's opening up to the world.
Real business world details, you are not talking about, is that North Korea does not protect private property. In fact, it has shown time and time again, that it is willing to change/bend/break contractual agreement whenever it suits them. In an international economic framework, WHAT member of the WTO would want to do business with North Korea? Or are you going to continue to say such detail is minor and my analysis trivial. That stubbornly giving giving giving, will sooner or later convince Kim Jong Il that honoring past agreements is a good thing?
Again, AC, you fail to impress upon me what possible good it would do to give membership of WTO to North Korea, when North Korea has repeatedly shown it it's unwillingness to abide by international standards in commerce let alone in human rights.
Free society did not fail me, just because I'm not rich. If I thought Communism was so much better, maybe I'll move to North Korea. But it seems to me that free society has been good to you AC, I don't know why you can't see that. You said, "Wealth is mostly based on individual desire and not the political or economic infracstructure society imposes on you." I see, that's why North Koreans are starving, because they lack the desire to feed themselves.
And I also see that China took off, because Deng Xiao Ping was such a good public speaker that he all the sudden, instilled upon Chinese people that working hard is good for them.
Your quote pretty much sums up Marxist idealism. I truly wish it was true. Unfortunately, it is false.
ka
Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 12:39:05 (PDT)
ka,
"But the fact still remains that Kim Dae Jung's sunshine policy as of right now, stands as a rather awkward failure."
That is because the sunshine policy was critised by Pres. Bush when he came to office in 2001. Then Pres. Bush erroneously claimed DPRK violated "agreements" with USA.
Not to mention the fact Pres. Bush decided to label North Korea the "axis of evil." Of course Kim Dae Jung's sunshine policy doesn't have a chance at this time.
One of the key issues is that the USA is over inflating the risk of the DPRK. DPRK cannot attack USA. North Korea’s missile program serves an economic and deterrent purpose rather than a serious offensive function.
The other issue is the DMZ is not there to separate N. S. Korea per say. It is a relic of the Cold War and the containment of USSR and China. What are we containing there now? N. Korean assylum seekers.
USA wants North Korea to change its behavior but offers few inducements. Washington threatens North Korea with overheated rhetoric but does not spell out the consequences.
"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."
If that is the goal then we must engage N. Korea as a normalized nation, instead of a demonized dictatorship. How can you elavate a society, and insist on calling it evil.
My personal belief is that we should also take measures to support North Korea’s admission into international organizations.
North Korea wants to participate in the World Bank, the ASEAN Regional Forum, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. It has accepted training in disarmament from the United Nations and will be permitting a second nutrition survey conducted by the World Food Program and UNICEF. By continuing to block North Korea’s entry into institutions such as the World Bank, the Bush administration is turning its axis-of-evil rhetoric into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"I'm not a rich man"
So free society has failed you. There is the flaw in your argument from the very beginning. You are not rich in a democratic society. You probably would not be rich in a communist society.
I, on the hand, have become rich in both a democractic and communist society. Wealth is mostly based on individual desire and not the political or economic infracstructure society imposes on you.
"Money does not grow on trees."
I beg to differ, when money is based on Gov't backing, not only does it grow on trees, it is also in the water. It was where ever the government wants it to be.
AC Dropout
Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 09:29:11 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|