|
|
|
|
|
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)
KM 25,
Actually, South Korea has the most extreme male-female ratio disparity, even worse than China's. In South Korea, there are 111 baby boys born to every 100 baby girls, whereas in China there are 109 baby boys born to every 100 baby girls. http://www.bartleby.com/151/a27.html That partly explains why so many South Korean men are going to China to find a spouse.
J Lee
Saturday, July 27, 2002 at 16:18:19 (PDT)
AC,
oh, I think you are rather stretching the definition too far about the use of the word "successful." The BBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, as well as english daily Korea Times, People's Daily(China), and other english written journals all wrote about the "successful" Korean soccer team. I think that most people deem south Korean performance to be a success considering how absolutely pitiful it faired in previous competition--which I think is what most people think. Afterall, the better analogy to the World Series is the final game of the World Cup tournament, that has more than 2 teams participating in it.
I was rather appalled with Ahn Jung Hwan. I mean people in Korea got upset at Italy for bad mouthing them for referee mistake. What Ahn Jung Hwan did is no different.
ka
Friday, July 26, 2002 at 12:03:33 (PDT)
AC, I think you are being unfair. Every nation on earth routinely bars companies from doing business with them if they deem them to be harmful. To give you an example, communist countries for a long time barred capitalists companies from doing business with them (coca cola, mcdonalds, etc) if they thought that it would weaken the socialist ideology.
Now U.S. sanctioned 6 Chinese companies for selling weapons systems to unsavory nations. But you say this is wrong. Tell me then, on what basis do China bar American companies from doing business in China? Or if Hyundai and Daewoo produces missiles and nuclear warheads on contract with South Korean government, and the North Korean government decides to put a sanction on Hyundai, would you still say, North Korea is "basically saying our laws supercede international laws."
It actually does not supercede international laws, because every nation want to have the right to sanction companies deemed harmful to itself. Only time when we talk about violating international laws, is if we believe that the sanction is purely to violate free trade principles established by organizations such as the WTO--in order to unfairly destroy foreign producers businesses for example.
So would you say that if Mitsubishi produced advanced anti-tank anti-aircraft missiles and sold them to anti-chinese governments in central asia who happens to support uigur separatists in xinjiang, would you say, "China has no right to sanction Mitsubishi, because that would violate international laws." No. Because international laws isn't even a factor in this. To be honest, I don't know anything about International laws, but I can't think of which organization or set of legal documents which would claim that a nation has absolutely no right to bar EVERY business from doing business in their nation.
I belive what you meant to say is that, U.S. being so much more powerful then other nations, have a responsibility to make sure that it's economic sanctions are just. But using your legalistic standards, I think it's unfair that China does not allow U.S. or South Korean companies from going into China without government approval. Because U.S. is so much more powerful then other countries, people are usually angry when it takes actions, because it's actions are felt around the world. But what about EU or Japan?
I agree, UN or some other international coalition should be the world's policemen. But since you haven't been keeping track of other nations responses, the EU does not like to do anything related to military maneuvers and neither does Japan. U.S. has been complaining to them to increase their military spending for years. U.S. wanted european members of NATO take take charge of Bosnia. But once again, U.S. wound up doing everything. What about China? China has no force projection capability. If China wanted to stop Indonesian government from persecuting the East Timorese, how would they get there? When push comes to shove the U.S. is always winds up footing the bills and sending the soldiers. But AC, it seems you want U.S. to pay for everythng, and american soldiers to die for everyone, but their forces should be commanded by the UN? I think that's horribly unfair.
Going back to East Timor, liberals have crapped on Kissenger for abandoning East Timor. I wonder what you prefer. For U.S. to have sat around nothing(which is what it did) or U.S. rallying the world to create an international Policeman to take action. I guess since you claim to be an "isolationist" i guess U.S. did the right thing by letting the timorese go through hell.
ka
Friday, July 26, 2002 at 11:56:39 (PDT)
AC Dropout,
The idea that an imbalance in the ratio between male and female will lead to better genes is not new. Professor Xiong of China wrote a paper on this. http://www.pop.org/reports/china.html The harsh reality is that tens of millions of Chinese males will never be able to marry in China, most of them are the ones lacking the attributes desired by a woman. What will these millions do? In the last ten years, millions of Chinese have moved into the Russian Far East and elsewhere like Burma, Philippines, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Europe, and the Americas, most of them illegally. For better or worse, these millions of Chinese rejects will reorder the world in which we live. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/stratfor000716.html.html
J Lee
Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 16:24:04 (PDT)
KM, 25,
There are reports of kidnapping of wives. But that has been a problem even before the male birth rate issue.
In context, if the Net's win 10 games a season it is considered sucessful. But in proper context of the World Cup, if stated the Mets were sucessful in the World Series. The natural assumption is that the Mets won.
I will assume there must have been another person who saw it the way I did...
"Speed Skating Victory Dance" - I was laughing and cheering when I saw that. Most players just run around shirtless and do a flip or pretend to be a plane. Leave it to SK to have the team do a hommage to the Speed Skating athletes.
AC Dropout
Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 14:04:33 (PDT)
ka,
I don't care if countries critises each other for selling arms. That comes with the terroritory.
I do complain when the USA starts sanctioning 6 chemical companies in China due to trade with Iran and Iraq, and a bus company in China the sell buses to Iraq.
It forwards a political aggenda that is not internationally recognized. Those sanctions are based on our domestic policies.
So we are basically saying our laws supercede international laws. This will become a very dangerous concept as globalization is occuring.
Our current foriegn policy sucks, it one of key reason for our poor economic performance. It is too high profile and will end in open conflict. Which sucks for the economy.
Of course we don't complain if SK gets USSR technology. We (USA) can take a peak at it.
If we are going to have Policemen, they should be coming from the UN or some international coalition.
AC Dropout
Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 13:57:28 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|