|
|
|
|
|
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,
"But I feel morally compelled to respond to you, lest the uninformed readers may stray from the flock"
So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. - John 10:16
But I fear you are 'the one (the false prophet) who come in sheep's clothing' -Matthew 7:15
I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me - John 10:14
So you see absolute morality is on my side.
Been awhile since I need to recite book and verse. It is a good mental exercise. hahaha
AC Dropout
Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 09:19:37 (PDT)
ka,
You really want me the delve further in modern Korean history. You know I associate with some Korean Americans that are very interested in "alternative" history of S. Korea. Books written by political prisoners and so forth. I always take those information with a grain of salt, because they were written by political prisioners (not happy people).
But come on S Korea was under a virtual despotic dicator under Syngman Rhee Administration. Granted it was right after the WWII and thing were rough in Asia back then. Not to mention fearless leader Kim Dae Jung have lived through exiled and attempts on his life.
I only pointed out the irony of the S. Korean ROE because it needs US approval for any change.
Of course people in China believed in Mao vision at the time. That's why the cultural revolution occurred. Sure in hindsight, people are like hmmm...that wasn't very productive. But that's in hindsight.
I'm sure in hindsight people in S. Korea think the Syngman Rhee Administration were not all that they were cracked up to be either. But at the time they thought Syngman Rhee Administration did a good job.
Yes North Koreans are starving and the recent retraction of aid to N Korea from S Korea and USA will not assuage the situation. Did they ever figure out who shot first with USA spy satellites and U2 spy planes?
To be honest the only way to end the sea incursion is for S. Korea and N. Korea to agree on a border in the waters. Because right now they are disputed territories. No amount changes in ROE can reduce the risk of the next incursion. Only when the two states come together and agree on that border in the water will there be the first step towards peace.
AC Dropout
Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 07:32:26 (PDT)
The naval incursion of North Korea to divert attention from the World Cup success of South Korea is yet another in a long list of incredibly childish and stupid acts of a government that is an embarassment to all Koreans as well as all of mankind. One could only hope that that regime could one day look objectively at itself and see the utter failure that it's choice of policies has become; all they have to do is look south a few miles to see conclusive proof of that. Instead they stubbornly proceed to create one of the few generations of children anywhere on the planet, that will be smaller adults than their parents. But they have a strong military! Way to go Kim Jong Il, you piece of s***. Combine that with the fact that in some provinces of China there is significant amounts of incestual relationships being formed due to a shortage of females brought on by the governments incentives against having daughters, which is resulting in genetic denigration, and you have sufficient evidence of widespread stupidity for we Asians not to get too cocky about our high national IQ's.
Naki
Monday, July 15, 2002 at 17:46:27 (PDT)
AC, not responding to your posting for a week has given me a stress free week of bliss. But I feel morally compelled to respond to you, lest the uninformed readers may stray from the flock. :)
I agree with you that we could certainly have a better president then George W. But your lack of interest in Korean affairs makes you hold some seriously distorted view of North and South Korea. For example, you claim to study the biography of some of the world's leaders--please extend that research to include Kim Jong Il and Kim Dae Jung. Please tell me which of these two leaders are more likely to institute a military policy that might result in military hostility. Furthermore, you have denied out right that Kim Dae Jung has drafted the renewed ROE of South Korean navy. I find this to be rather repulsive and condescending. You are essentially saying that South Korea is a puppet state of U.S. That South Korea has no national sovereignty. This is patently false, because you fail to study modern Korean history.
Iran-Contra was certainly morally bankrupt. But you are very twisted if you think man-made famine that wipes out over a million north korean is on the same moral plane as Iran-Contra.
AC, I suggest you take a sampling and ask how many Chinese people belive in the Cultural Revolution, 5 year forward, and other Mao inspired projects.
You are really good at maintaining a mental block on North KOrea. I don't know if it is ignorance or you just don't like to delve into issues which you hate to think about, because it makes it appear that you are "losing" an argument.
North Koreans are starving. Whereas I can respect your political appeal for moderate peaceful engagement to North KOrea, your absolutely skewed and twisted factual knowledge combined with an obvious bent for distrust for every western news sources seriously hinders your argument.
Certainly ROTC-Harvard grad is being rather childish in some of the attacks he makes on you. But considering how you choose to ignore issues, digress on arguments, and create facts to support arguments, I can totally understand why he/she would be driven to such childish tactics.
But to be fair, I do notice that you make strong arguments in other postings unrelated to Korea.
ka
Monday, July 15, 2002 at 11:38:41 (PDT)
KM, 25,
Although the real development of the naval incursion will probably not be know for a long time to come. I am also sadden by the polarization that has occurred over this incident. However, in the grand scheme of thing it is in line with the Bush administration stance on the war on terror and alienating of the axis of evil. I just hope our domestic economy can survive another 2 years of Bush administrations debacles in foriegn policy.
One of the inherent risk of a democratic government, you never know what fool will be elected into office until it is too late.
PS - Happy Birthday. I knew you when you were KM, 24 :)
AC Dropout
Wednesday, July 10, 2002 at 12:30:00 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|