|
|
|
|
|
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)
ka,
If you wish really wish to take this conversation to the academic rigor the conversation would go something like this.
As proposed by Huntington and other social scientist of modern history, the Korean conflict is once again a reflection of a conflict in "core value." As they proposed institutions of any icon status on the globe can be broken down to "core values" and "processes." As they define it iconic organizations have the ability to preserve their "core values” while adapting their "processes" to changing times, hence perpetuating the organizations through the ages. However, as we examine various case studies of organizations at the nations and international level that fall within the definition of iconic, we come the realization that no single "core value" is universal or necessary for the perpetual survival of an organization. This is the fundamental reason why "good and evil" is usually left out of these high level academic discourses.
Since we have a very rudimentary high-level definition of the organization like USA, North Korea, South Korea and China. Let us proceed to define and examine organization reaction to conflict and confrontations. All organization are reactive to perceived threats is pretty much a given to be accepted as truth. However, when there are two opposing organizations this will feed into an every escalating conflict until the ultimate demise of one side.
Let us examine a very simple case study parasitic bacterium vs. humans. Since in this case both side only have one core value of survival we can focus on processes very easily. As humans introduced antibiotics to the conflict, bacteria initially are at a disadvantage. However, as time goes on they have resistance. This prompt human to radicalize treatment in both dosage and developed other forms of antibiotic. This results over time into a multi-resistant super bacterium. We have since then been change our strategy to deal with brachium in moderation in hope that natural mutations will make brachium less resistant.
Now you have one of the highest-level paradigms I'm willing to provide to discuss this case on a board. Anymore and I would be giving you a list of required reading. The reason why the discussion has to first exist on this level is because if you just focus on the details it is almost senseless. Both sides of the conflict have committed offensives. It is more like point keeping, not solution building.
Now to simplistically go over the radical elements that polarized this conflict. Macarthur and Truman ignorance to China reaction, even being forewarned by China about pressing pass the 38th parallel. Which is the reason why USA calls it the "Korean Conflict" this way we can say we never lost a war. You should hear the bs when I question vets about Vietnam.
In recent days Bush and Cheney are also polarizing elements in N. Korea conflict. With their personal contacts in the weapons industry (Cheney and his wife were on the board of weapon industry companies). They have moved forward with TMD (the ultimate bullet proof vest) disregarding international treaties USA have signed and ratified. In addition, they wish to resurrect the old "Star Wars" program. We have broken our own international treaties about nuclear weapons in space, and have deemed all of space to be USA territory. We are moving forward with nuclear power particle beam satellites systems as a first offensive to the world.
With forces like that military radicalization of nations not aligned with the USA will continue. China, Pakistan, and India are the first in the pledge to escalate their arsenals. What other nations are next to follow suit are to be seen.
You want to dive down to details. But the further you dive the more you will realize USA is not an innocent bystander in the conflict. You state USA feeds N Korea. I state that is insignificant to the damage the USA lead sanction have done to the country. It is similar to USA domestic policy; blacks and Native American are one of the largest welfare receiving ethnic groups. But who put them in that condition. You keep wanting to believe it is all Kim Jung Il's fault, that the USA and S. Korea are innocent in this whole affair. That is naive. I don't remember the USA or S. Korea being the largest donors to N. Korea all throughout history.
You want to state N. Korea military is forward deployed. Well not as forward deployed as USA spy satellites, the 7th fleet, the bases on Japan, Philippine, and S. Korea. That is a massive amount in terms of projection of power on our part. Now you can add the TMD and the newly resurrected Space Defense Program to the list.
You want to go with USA claim that N. Korea is the producer of weapons of mass destructions. The international community doesn't even believe N. Korea is capable of some of USA claims. Hell the world knows Israel is nuclear capable and has not declared it, but we aren't doing squat about that.
Where is S. Korean voice for the refugee and pledging assistance to N. Korea? I understand we want to help, but not if it makes us poor also. I guess toppling the existing government will cause instant abundance and stability to come to N. Korea.
AC Dropout
Thursday, June 27, 2002 at 11:48:20 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|