|
|
|
|
|
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:
"There are about 3-10 asians each year who end up in at West Point, Naval Acedemy, or Air Force Acedemy from my old HS."
Please spin a better lie. If you are as worldly and experienced as you claim, with all those PhD credentials, then you must have gone to HS in the 80's because you must be in your 30's. Traditionally, there were about 25-35, but no more Asians in each Academy class. I find it that to believe that one high school produced so many (up to 10). Not possible, in fact. The academies rarely took more than 1 kid from each high school.
The numbers got higher in the 90's, but topped out around 50. Again, I find it hard to believe 1 high school produced so many. And if you had gone to high school in the 90's, you're still a youngster, barely even out of college. No wonder your elite friends are the analysts that we abuse here.
The simple fact that you have to resort to citing examples from high school shows how limited your world is. I haven't heard anyone mention "my high school" since the early 80's, when I was a plebe. You must really be fresh out of high school to have to rely on those experiences.
Try again in 15 years, son, after you have accomplished something more than "when I was in high school."
Annapolis-Harvard Law Grad
Saturday, June 22, 2002 at 20:11:25 (PDT)
You say you care about the welfare of Chinese people, this is very good. But everything that you support appears to me, harm Chinese people, including your assertion that China must look the other way as North Korea sells opium to Chinese people and create economic instability in Jinlin.
You say that freedom of speech is overexaggerated in U.S. I agree that it is considering, it is very difficult for me to obtain Osama Bin Laden's speeches and also North Korean television programming. This is indeed a cause of concern. But you greatly overexaggerate the extent of this problem. You make it seem like China and U.S. is equal in terms of censorship. You throw in Taiwan for some reason--as a point of comparison. My point was originally that China and U.S. have a lot in common. That both Chinese and Americans hold similiar values of freedom of speech. But you again use your favorite Digression tactic by changing subject and saying U.S. doesn't have a lot of freedom of speech. Well fine. I'll play by your themes. But you are still wrong. You are so paranoid about America, you simply don't measure america on the same scale you consider other nations, you are blatantly biased.
By the way, wasn't Kissenger, Nixon's righthand man?
You are the one who is making simplistic argument. yOu say, "But I'm pretty sure the first step to this road does not start with dialogues like "NK, You evil," and "USA, you bully." Are you saying this concerning my attack against NK bad policies or are you saying that in lieu of George W. Bush's comment? You are very unclear. What is clear, is you didn't really think out your argument. We actually do hold a lot in common. But your problem lies in that you rely on your high intelligence(i think you are intelligent person) to the degree that you see the world without looking at verified facts. You use logic, but you don't use empirical methods. You hold a double standard but you can't see it. This is what I Ching also does. I agree that we must engage North Korea. You admit that you can't figure out a better solution. But like you said concerning IMF policy makers, these people are just like you and me. These guys don't have magical solution to do what you want them to. The bottom line is that we offer North Korea unconditional talk and they STILL dont' come to the table.
AC, I really urge you to think about the detail before you attack someone's policy. Because when we reason things out, we arent' really in stark contrast to each other. The difference seems that Korean affairs isn't your main field of interest and that you hold certain preconceived biases about certain state actors. Dont' assume Korea is like China. Like I said, I prefer Clinton's approach to Bush--but only because Clinton was a better statesman, not because Bush is doing something that is so drastically differnet from Clinton. Yes yes yes, I'm a conservative that prefers Clinton over Bush.
also you said to Annapolis-Harvard Law Grad that "Personal narratives are interesting reference, but not historic interpretations." I disagree. Historians always use personal narratives as historic references all the time. I mean, how do you distinguish between the two? What's your definition of historic interpretation? I can't see the differnece and I don't think this is trivial at all. I mean, if we were to reject all personal narratives for purpose of historical research, we lose a vast bulk of human history. Diaries are in fact, the best source of historical information as it's from a verified first person perspective--and not a second hand source. I imagine what you mean by "historic references" is something that has footnotes in it. people didn't write footonotes in ancient times.
But whereas I agree with "Annapolis-Harvard Law Grad" I think it's poor taste to condemn you for having a name like "AC Dropout." Also it's poor taste to give oneself credibility over the internet based on his academic background. It's not like we can ask to see you or his transcripts or anything. On these postings, I feel that the clearer argument always shines through for somewhat intelligent readers. But I do feel that Annapolis-Harvard Law Grad has the stronger argument.
ka
Friday, June 21, 2002 at 11:52:43 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|