|
|
|
|
|
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)
J Lee,
uhmmm. okay I'm not too sure if that's how eugenics works. But we will have to wait and see what this imbalance will do.
But on a brighter note...NK has publicly express its regret for the recent sea incursion. Hopefully, this is the right step to a more productive dialogue.
AC Dropout
Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 08:32:23 (PDT)
Because of the predominance of male births in China, isn't there a problem with men kidnapping women in different areas of the country? How do you address this problem or is it considered a small problem in general?
KM, 25
Wednesday, July 24, 2002 at 22:46:59 (PDT)
Korean unification holds bright prospects for regional security and trade. The Korean governments, both highly tense since the naval clash this month, are still strong at work to keep the 'sunshine policy' running smoothly.
North Korea, whether considered an irrational player in the realm of international relations or not, is reforming their strategies in the hopes of increasing positive gains for their people. Kim Jong-il wants a strong country, and he knows that the only way for it is through unification. Thus, through much 'skepticism', Korean Re-Unification holds high possiblility for a positive outcome.
Andrew Savini, Pac-Forum CSIS
ALSavini@aol.com
Wednesday, July 24, 2002 at 14:21:32 (PDT)
AC--
it is true that U.S. is hypocritical about arms sales. But far as the Korean situation is concerened, I can't help but think that U.S. arms sale to South Korea is genuinely good, while North Korean missile sales to Pakistan is genuinely bad. Why? The weapon in question is long range missle and nuclear weapons technology. U.S. never sells these to other countries for obvious reasons. U.S. sells various advanced conventional weaponry. and I think that living here, you get a real bias that only U.S. gets angry about foreign arms sales. China and Russia also sells a LOT of weapons to other nations. And you can sure bet that they complain viciously when U.S. sells weapons. But you think U.S. is hypocrite number one. I don't think so. I think the question we should be asking is to who we are selling the weapons to and what weapons we are selling. I think that I'm being seriously objective when I say, besides weapons sales to Israel, U.S. made right decisions in selling weapon systems in the most recent history.
AC, something you don't think about: most weapons that african guerillas use are AK-47s not M-16s. Why? Who's selling them? was the sale good for Africa? South Korea was also free to purchase Sukoi fighters rather than F-15. They chose to purchase F-15. But how come North Korea wasn't jumping up and down and complaining to Russia that they were selling Sukoi fighters to South KOrea? Why don't we hear any complaints that Russia is trying to sell South Korea Kilo class submarines? and helicopters? and artillery? and conventional assault rifles?
Why? I think you are simply angry at U.S. being on the "moral high horse." which I can understand. But you lack objective view, because you think U.S. is the only country that institutes policies aimed at stopping arms sales for it's enemies, while China and Russia blindly does absolutely nothing when U.S. does the same. Hypocrisy goes both ways here.
I'm not sure if you want America to be this World's Super Policman who does the "right" thing, or if you prefer America to shut up and just be like everyone else. But there are real consequences when America does either. Whether America does one or the other, I'm sure you will damn America no matter what, because you seem to have a rabid bias against American foreign policy.
ka
Wednesday, July 24, 2002 at 13:25:21 (PDT)
ACD,
I don't know man...personally I never would have interpreted Naki's statement regarding Korea's WC success as winning the whole tournament. I have to disagree that the use of "success" in sports usually means winning the championship. I think it is also often used in the context of a whole team's season. For example, the New Jersey Nets had a successful season. They didn't win the NBA Finals...but many sportswriters would consider their season "successful". Like you say, it is used in a subjective sense...
I wonder how many people thought the same way you did...
To put the "Speed Skating Victory Dance" in context...
Speed skating is a pretty popular sport in Korea. You know why? Because there are a lot of good Korean competitors. This makes Koreans no different than any other people. Kim Dong-Hwan, who was disqualified, is very well-known in Korea. To make an analogy that most Americans might understand...compare the event to U.S. basketball team loss to the Soviet Union in the 50's or 60's. The end of the game was controversial and a questionable call was made. As far as I know, none of the members of that U.S. team has accepted their silver medals and have stated in their wills that their family shall not receive their medals either. Its not hard for anyone in either case to feel cheated...
KM, 25
Wednesday, July 24, 2002 at 12:57:12 (PDT)
ka,
America is the biggest hypocrite when it comes to arms sales. It like only we can sell arms. If China or USSR tries to sell arms, USA censures them or imposes sanctions on the companies in other countries.
So in effect only American interest can have arms. That makes very little sense in a global community.
If NK needs the trade, let them sell their arms.
AC Dropout
Wednesday, July 24, 2002 at 12:18:07 (PDT)
Naki,
I agree with AC Dropout. A one-child policy will actually improve the genetic pool in China greatly in a couple of generations. Since most Chinese families prefer a son over a daughter if permitted to have only one child, the result is that there are 11 males for every 10 female babies. That means about 10% of Chinese male will not be able to find a spouse, that is the males with the least attributes based on personality, looks, intelligence or wealth. Within twenty-five years, China will have 40 million males who cannot marry. That's more than twice the population of North Korea! Those who cannot get married will most likely end up emigrating to other countries in great numbers or end up joining the military with a nothing to lose mentality. These Chinese rejects will make the West tremble.
J Lee
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 at 22:09:16 (PDT)
NYhomboy,
In what regards. Conning the masses out of their hard earn money; or sleeping with various members of the congregation.
AC Dropout
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 at 13:39:42 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|