|
|
|
|
|
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:
God you're an idiot. The diaries of his physician is actually a pretty good source of history, simply because your Chinese brothers are very prone to re-writting history for themselves...hence, any source coming out of the PRC written by PRC scholars is suspect.
Incidentally, it's not hard to look for a counter argument. You said it would have been easy for Mao to make Jiang Xi immune from prosecution. Yeah...it's easy to protect someone when you're dead, eh? Simple logic eludes you, my dimwitted Chinese friend.
No wonder with those thinking skills, you are the rare Asian who's dropped out.
What makes you think I'm a DWG? You find it hard to believe that there are Asians who went to Annapolis and Harvard Law? Sounds like you're not very confident in your own people...
Annapolis-Harvard Law Grad
Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 19:39:11 (PDT)
Hi AC, I just think that you hold a double standard when you compare the U.S. and China. You say this, "Human rights violation....by publishing a document and requesting other countries to adhere to your ethics is ridiculous." Are you telling me that Chinese people in general believe that the government has the right to trade in human organs? Or that the government has the right to supress dissident voices calling for political reforms? Are you telling me that Chinese standards of ethics is so different from American ethics, that it is wrong for Americans to point out mainland China's poor governance? I agree with you 100% that U.S. has indeed hypocrisy in what you point out--but the fact still stands that there is no freedom of speech in China. And you claim that Chinese people have a different notion of freedom, and therefore freedom of speech is not what the Chinese people want. I think you are wrong, fundamentally the Americans and the Chinese do hold similar values in manners of freedom of speech. It was Confucious who claimed that the people had an OBLIGATION to overthrow a bad government. This idea is not so far removed from the idea of freedom of speech. Also, I'm stealing ideas straight from Kim Dae Jung here, China was far more democratic in it's beaurecratic government then europe's feudal government. China does have a degree of democratic past. AC, China and U.S. is not so far different in it's ideas of morality--what you SHOULD be arguing is for China to publish it's own reports urging U.S. reforms. To be proactive, not passive. This is what I have been arguing about how China should approach the Korean diplomacy.
You talk about how China was "left alone" to develop. So you are telling me that we should "leave North Korea" to develop. If we study history, regimes like north korea can go on indefinitely. Feudal societies last for centuries. You are being overly optimistic that left to it's own devices, North Korea will reform like China. China had deng xiao ping. Does North Korea have any reformist? U.S. did not "leave alone" China, but actively engaged China to create a distance between China and the Soviet Union.
Ollie North did indeed do horrible things--such as giving weapons/drugs/money to disreputalbe groups. But doesn't it seem odd to you that good ol' Ollie would treat these shady characters as "normal" state actors?
I agree that we must focus on peace. But whereas you are right that we must try to engage North Korea, you have dodged all specifics and refuses to acknowledge the policy failures of the never ending "carrot" strategy. We need more than money to convince North Korea to reform. I would be optimistic like you if I saw a slow and steady pace of reforms. I have seen zero. You make no clear public policy suggestion. Please do not ignore human rights issues, because they are real issues. I would think that you should care more about your chinese compatriots then the Americans.
ka
Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 09:44:53 (PDT)
ka,
Human rights violation....by publishing a document and requesting other countries to adhere to your ethics is riduculous. Just like American will not stop castrating sex offenders and reduce the number of blacks sentenced to prisons in a double standard justice system. Neither will China stop public executions and the 1 child law. It is basically a political play. Just like China is off UN Human Rights offender list and USA has been warned by the UN that we are violating the right of the supposid POW in Cuba and middle eastern immigrants held by the INS without cause. At this rate the UN will list the USA as a human rights offender in 2003. These human right viloation list does not change the domestic policies of a country.
You're right China was left all alone after WWII. They were considered too radical to be dealt with by the west. Even USSR started distancing itself from the PRC. But in that period of allowing the society to involved undisturbed, could it come out the way it did.
Anyways there a invitation for a meeting between USA and N. Korea. We'll see how that turns out later this year if at all.
Oliver North...we did some pretty shady deals too in our past.
My opinion is we should approach a more normalized relationship with N. Korea, like we do with Israel. It doesn't matter if Israel was founded by terrorist activities, or if they behave like the next Nazi regime. We threat them as a normalized nation and reap the benefits.
AC Dropout
Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 09:07:09 (PDT)
Annapolis-Harvard Law Grad,
I'm gald you're literate in English. If a personal physician is your idea of a historian, I hate to see what you think would qualify as a lawyer (1800-injuries). However, the brunt of the cultural revolution ended in 1969 and stopped in 1974. Mao died in 1976.
I could recommend some nice Chinese history books for you to read to see the details of the Cultural revolution from 1966 -1976, but an illiterate DWG (Dumb White Guy) like yourself would probably fall asleep by the preface.
Sure I can put 1 and 1 together. In fact I can define the group or field in which this function is possible. I'm sure the theory of induction is lost on you.
One can also interpret history as Mao could have easily made Jiang Xi politically immune to the trials. But as history has shown that was not the case.
Don't burst a blood vessel looking for a counter-argument. You should spare what few brain cells you have left any unnecessary strain.
AC Dropout
Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 08:39:17 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|