|
|
|
|
|
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 Dropout:
Obviously, you don't read much.
"But you also have to understand Mao stopped the cultural revolution and let the Congress prosecute the gang of four."
Try reading the Private Life of Chairman Mao, written by Dr. Li about 8 years ago. Not only did Mao start the Cultural Revolution, he encouraged it as a way to seize power from the other "elders" who were trying to seize control from him. Mao used the Cultural Revolution as a way of purging those not in agreement with him. Jiang Xing isn't smart enough to start the CR on her own, much less carry it through. It had the blessing of your precious Chairman. Incidentally, the CR ended about the time your fearless leader died and coincidentally, Jiang Xi went out of power (can you put two and two together?). The Gang of Four was prosecuted after Mao died (it started when Jiang Xing was arrested about a month after Mao died), so your assertion that Mao let the People's Congress prosecute them is utterly false (not to mention moronic).
I suggest you try understanding a little more of Chinese history before you start mouthing off and citing examples from the past.
Annapolis-Harvard Law Grad
Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 00:56:57 (PDT)
AC,
Your comparison is wrong. You made comparisons between China and North Korea to validate North Korea's public policies--in light of Chinese progress. I have said that China and North Korea are clearly two different countries as North Korea simply did not do any sort of reforms to the degrees of China. Yes you are completely correct that China still has much communist economic principles--but China has changed policies in rhetoric and also in practice. North Korea has done neither.
But in your previous posting, you digress by stating that Mao made policies which clamped down on the Cultural Revolution--the man who gives poison to his people also gives the medicine. Well, this only bolster's my argument even further, as at least Mao clamped down on Cultural Revolution as you say, but what reforms has Kim Jong Il made? You can't answer, because there is none. Mao made his reforms way before Nixon approached China. (if we can call it reforms.) My point is simply that you can't compare China to North Korea, because North Korea has not acted in anyway as similiar to the PRC. That's a simple fact you consistently ignore to further your argument.
Also your analysis of China's fear of Open Door Policy is a half-truth. It is true that China is afraid of "gwai-los" taking over China. But what is also true is that China is also receptive to what the world has to offer. I mean, what you are doing is essentially the same thing as claiming America is against free trade, because George W promotes Steel tariffs. You are not looking at the big picture. China is opening up her market and is expanding trade, and has been making a tidy profit for some time now. You say that China have a good policy by making sure that foreign companies have to work in conjunction with Chinese companies for the purpose of technology transfer, etc (even though you don't put it in such way.) I agree with you wholy that at this stage of China's economic development that's a very good policy--what I've been trying to tell you is that it would be nice if North Korea would also adopt these policies, which they have not. You think the West singled out North Korea, but simply embraced China, ceteris paribus? I think not.
In regards to human rights, please tell me how U.S. made China worse off by publishing human rights reports concerning China. The advocation of human rights ultimately benefits Chinese people. You think most Americans really care? I don't think so--you are right that it is political. But then again what human activity shouldn't be considered political? we are social animals, we behave in political fashion. To say that something is political is synonymous with saying something is human. Unless you define the term "political" to mean something that is inherently evil--but you don't believe in good and evil.
AC, you are effectively saying that my accusations for North Korea is wrong, because North Korean human rights violation is not important. Also you are saying that North Korean economic policies are not a big deal. Also you are saying that North Korea professed military first policy, anti-freedom of speech, political imprisonment, etc etc should be all treated as minor issues. That in fact that I shouldn't be suspicious of Kim Jong Il in light of what he is doing to his people. Tell me AC, what kind of policy are you telling me, that we as a responsible society should implement? You seem to go on and on about how we should give no strings-attached money to Kim Jong Il. Is this what you are promoting or are you going to continue your digressions, and your occassional whimsical pot-shots at my argurments here and there, picking and choosing whatever might make you seem like you are "winning" an argument without advancing any of your ideas?
If your child is a drug dealer will you change his behavior by ignoring the fact that he deals drugs. Instead we will all wear hippie clothes and say, "drugs aren't bad". This seems to pretty much sum up your perspective on how we should deal with North Korea. Too bad in addition to selling opium to China, North Korea also engages in arms sale to truly shady characters, enforces a man-made famine, and on top of this creates human trafficking. I should trust Kim Jong Il though, because AC tells me it is the way to progress.
Ok AC, you convinced me.
ka
Monday, June 17, 2002 at 10:49:09 (PDT)
ka,
I'm not going to play "minority report" with Mao. I have no clue what could have happened....
But you also have to understand Mao stopped the cultural revolution and let the Congress prosecute the gang of four.
It was Jiang period, and it is still a command economy. The amount of forms to get through Shanghai Economic Zone, make NYC looks like the wild wild west.
As for WTO and PRC. China was fighting not to enter, because it needed to set up policies to protect their internal banking, automobile, and other industries from foriegn companies. That's why one of the points was that all foriegn companies need a Chinese company partnership before setting up shop. Chinese are suspicious of the Open Door Policies of the past. It not going to let foriegners come into China and do as they wish. Foriegner can only open shop in certain area with a partnership with Chinese companies. They are entirely in control over there.
Human rights and China. Well China got pissed at the USA and recently release a document stating the Human rights issues in the USA, did you know we have castration of multiple sex offenders? If you haven't noticed the UN did not list China as a human rights violator this year. But this is really a political play then anything else.
So let say the child is already a gangster. You think by being 200% suspicious of him will make him change his ways?
AC dropout
Sunday, June 16, 2002 at 13:47:02 (PDT)
NYhomeboy,
Then that sounds like Mike Tyson. He gave up after a while trying to convince people that he was well read and could be civil.
So he gave up and decided to play the heel, the ultimate thug, for the media.
Do we really want to make NK, the Mike Tyson of the world?
AC dropout
Sunday, June 16, 2002 at 13:33:55 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|