|
|
|
|
|
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, first you said, "I don't make the mistake that NK is China or vise versa. There are different milestones in their respective 20th century history that lead them to the destinations they have reached." I see clear indication from your postings that you compare NK and China in the same light. You have consistently advocated similiar policies to be implemented to NK by citing the economic devlopment of China. But as I have written before, China has reformed on it's own without western assistence unlike NK. Therefore using the same set of ideas for NK is simply meaningless.
I have said that a harsh stance on North Korea is not a neccesarily poor policy. I said something general and you have attacked it vigorously without looking at the details of North Korea, because quite frankly, you seem to have no interest in following up on current events pertaining to NK. You simply lack factual information, and when I present my facts, you simply deny all western news sources as being biased. That pretty much summed up your past argument.
You say I have pro US bias, and you are damn right I do. US is not starving north Korean people, but Kim Jong Il is. You have consistently failed to admit that it is US that is feeding the north korean people, despite the fact that Kim Jong Il choose to spend government budget on missiles, nuclear research, and arirang festival. Am I being biased? Yes. But I am a biased man who have developed his biased from the stark horrors Kim Jong Il is spreading. You on the otherhand, you are a foolish "balanced" viewed person, who has a "balanced" view, only because you choose to not do your homework on North Korean affairs. Having no knowledge of any details, you build up your "balanced" view of the world with the assumption that every state actor is "equal" in terms of morality. That in fact morality does not exist. You have turned my argument to focus on better public policy into a worthless dialogue concerning the legitimacy of your humanistic philosophical principles. What is clear to me, is that you argue for pleasure, to make yourself feel good about "winning" a debate, without really thinking about what it is that you want to promote in life. You have consistently digressed and ignored my arguments whenever you wanted to "win" an argument. If you want to "win" an argument, I suggest you choose a topic you know well. I suggest you stick to issues dealing with Taiwan.
Also with the question of the use of personal narratives, you still fail to define what you mean by good historical interpretations with good insightful view. Historical interpretation is always in the eyes of each individual making the interpretation. To gain a much more balanced view of the world, it's always better to read primary sources to get an unbiased, unfiltered material to make our own judgement. The kind of scholarly materials you advocate is secondary sources who use the primary sources to validate their own interpretation. Therefore, by it's very nature, secondary sources are good only so far in that it offers new insightful "interpretations" a reader might not have thought about while reading primary sources. But at the same time, secondary sources will have an added layer of bias put on by the writer.
This is why protestant leadership tells their concregation to study the bible(primary source) rather than focusing on secondary literature such as the Westminster confession, St.Augustine's Confessions, catechisms, etc. By the same token, an archeologiest will take more weight on academic literature that use primary sources such as personal narratives of an Egyption written in hydrogliephics(primary source), then someone who wrote about 1000b.c.e. Egyptian life based on a very insightful and indepth historical interpretation from the encyclopedia britannica.
Look, I havent' read Dr.Li's book either. But even without looking at his book, you have already made a judgement about it's credential simply because it attacks Mao. I think you are blatantly biased. You have consistently shown this sort of poor scholarship in everyone of your argument here. You use logic, but you consistently fail to use data.
North Korean people are yet again facing starvation. It makes me angry that you support forces in the world who actively go out of their way to make sure that they continue to starve. It's one thing if you give a practical solution, but you have failed at that. You don't want to admit that North Korean leader Kim Jung Il is the cause of suffering, and that China for whatever reason that beguiles me, decides to look the other way. You can defend them all you like, but I hope that at the very least, you have learned to use reason instead of preconceived biases, which you fail to admit.
I don't like Bush's mid-eastern policies. and I'm not confident that he has the academic background to understand the Korean situation as his father or Bill Clinton did. But then again, most of his foreign policies is run by Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell, I'm not worried sick. Despite what you say, Bush America continues to support KEDO and the WFP. And since you don't do your homework, I'll site one that was recently put out by Tongil Shinbo--a North Korean newspaper. According to Tongil Shinbo, South Korea should support North Korean military, as we are the same people, and that North Korean military protects all Koreans. It continues by saying that South Korea has a double standard in supporting the U.S. and not North. When a south korean reads this, what do you think the Southern response would be? and Why? AC, it's time for you to put on your thinking cap and think through with the facts that you have observed in the world, instead of your inherent bias against the U.S. and capitalism. when you reason without supporting evidences, that's what we call a religion. This is why I say that you seem to be more religious than I am.
ka
Wednesday, June 26, 2002 at 10:23:41 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|