|
|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES
Impact of Corean Unification
(Updated
Wednesday, Jan 22, 2025, 04:38:55 AM)
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.]
AC,
Even though Rick Yune died, he was portrayed as an Asian that could kick ass. Last I checked, no wars or natural disasters have occurred. Why boycott a movie because of some lunatic with too much time on his hands? I say boycott it because the story itself kind of sucked.
Do the people of S. Corea know that Pyongyang takes orders from Beijing and the instant American forces leave, the tanks will come rolling over the DMZ?
Until China and North Corea concede their systems don't work, there will never be a peaceful resolution. The best Corea can hope for is the status quo (wealthy South and decrepid North).
huu76
Sunday, December 22, 2002 at 23:42:48 (PST)
[65.95.195.80]
huu76,
And of course you know better than the typical South Korean. I guess that's why they voted for Pres Roh this time around.
I didn't know the white boys like you even know where Korea was let alone spell it with a C.
If the USA didn't conspire to separation N and S Korea after WWII, this event would have never of happened.
$150,000 what a dumbass...You know how quickly I burn through money like that. How the F*** can you say someone's daughter is only worth $150,000. What a racist dumbass comment.
No wonder the SK voted in an Anti-USA President. With insensitive views like that, who needs the USA.
Children this is what happens when your brain's on drugs.
AC Dropout
Sunday, December 22, 2002 at 13:59:51 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
I believe with the win of Roh Moo-hyun as the new President of South Korea. The country will most likely they to distance themselves from Washington.
Officially on paper the the relationship between ROK and USA will remain the same. But I believe this president will try to find a more realistic approach to the NK problem.
Hawkish views like that of Washingtion and his presidential rival Lee Hoi-chang are obviously just going to end up in more conflict. The people of South Korea know that.
AC Dropout
Saturday, December 21, 2002 at 14:16:37 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
None of this is really relevant but...
Are S. Coreans really that stupid in thinking that American servicemen have nothing better to do than to run over Coran girls with their tanks? Granted they should have been put in stocks for a year or so, but the families were compensated $150,000US, each. That's better than most insurance policies in America and more than most Coreans will make in 15+ years.
If it was something like what happened in Okinawa, then they have a legit reason to be upset.
Now that S. Corea wants to talk, talk, talk...and talk some more with N. Corea (maybe it was Bill Clinton that just go elected?), they're going to fall economically. Why? Because the North will extort money and food from them every year by threatening another war. Then again, maybe they won't payout, depending whether or not they go running to those Americans they so love to hate.
huu76
Saturday, December 21, 2002 at 06:46:28 (PST)
[207.164.88.163]
When Cha In Pyo turned down the typical "yellow peril" villain role of 007, a lot of Koreans applauded his action. Afterall, hollywood came to him at the height of the sunshine policy. Right now Rick Yune is the prodigal son of Korea.
It's too bad that hollywood must trivialize the plight of real people--and it's really sad when I see a lot of Korean people becoming angry about this movie not so much for reasons like this, but rather because they feel that they are being "looked down" upon with images of Korean farmer still farming by medieval agricultural methods.
Man, I remember watching Fast and the Furious hoping that Rick Yune's character finally kills off Vin Diesel (or whatever his name was). I wonder if he will ever get a decent role.
ka
Monday, December 16, 2002 at 12:50:54 (PST)
[168.103.180.35]
What I find disturbing recently in the media is the James Bond flick Die Another Day.
The plot is basically the NK are selling arms to South Africa.
Originally the part of Colonel Moon, played by Rick Yune, was suppose to be played by a South Korea actor, Cha In-pyo. Of course he refused the part because he felt the movie distorted the realities of N. and S. Korea.
Hollywood showed a lot of sensitivity to the USA in the aftermath of 9/11. Cut scenes in Spiderman the movie, delayed release date of movie dealing with wars, cancelled project.
But in light of recent events on the Korean Peninsula. Hollywood has done nothing....
Boycott the film in my opinion
AC Dropout
Sunday, December 15, 2002 at 07:56:00 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
Hi NYGobbleboy,
I think Kim Jong Il and the N. Korean leadership won't do anything even though they realize that the way they are heading, they might all die by implosion.
In order for Kim Jong Il to make changes, he has to discredit his father's policies or make ANOTHER convoluted reasoning which bridge old world Juche thought into whatever new ideology he wants to supplant it with. Of course, at the very least he could say, "We have not been practicing True Socialism." But then that would still be admitting past failures. And Kim Jong Il has been attributed to have divine qualities in North Korea, I can't see him as admitting past mistakes. afterall, he has never done in the past, why would he now? Even when he admitted N. Korea kidnapped Japanese nationals, he denied all personal responsibility.
AFter 50 years of brainwashing, many NK people, even though they are not stupid, will inevitably hold certain Socialist ideals. They might disagree with the deification of kim jong il, if they are true socialists. but they might become angry when NK tries to completely destroy price controls and commodity distribution. They will say, "not only has Kim Jong Il failed to create a socialist utopia, he has betrayed socialism!" This might be more dangerous to him, since it is he who purposefully bred extremist socialsim in N. Korea.
I think you are right on the dot when you say, "I guess they have right to be insecure. A suicidal man pointing a gun to his own head might not want to let go of that gun, b/c its the last thing he got to hold on to."
Everyday I see Kim Jong Il digging a hole for himself. It's like he dug so far in, only way to get out is by digging through to the other side.
I don't think Kim Jong Il sees himself as a man, but he sees himself as "korea"--like Louis XIV. In every NK replies, he always says "NK has a right to keep this since US has them, etc etc" But he never once says, "NK is working on it's human rights problem." I think when he sees statistical figures about how many NKoreans are dying by famine, he sees it as a number--and he only sees how to make Korea "Strong". and he also cares very greatly about Korea's national image--like as if he and Korea is one. I mean he willfully sacrifices starving people saying, "Korea can feed itself, and muddle through even if she is hungry." He clearly cares about his personal image more than thousands who die.
I hope he dies real soon. Unfortunately that might make matters even worse. :(
Well, they will always bash U.S. because that's what keeps them in power. "remember what happened when we were weak? white wankers tried to colonize us like South Korea where women gets raped daily by Yankee goons and the beggars on the street starve by capitalist oppressors. Trust us, we are so much better off then S. Korea."
too bad so many korean kids these days get teary eyed thinking about Wee Dae Han Su Ryung Nim.
ka
Friday, December 13, 2002 at 11:52:28 (PST)
[168.103.180.35]
I wonder what would happen if NK "just says No" to their fixation on getting the last lick from the USA.
Let say that they begin now to move towards a market economy and political system. Wouldn't the wealth they creat in the next ten years be exponentially more than any handouts or compensation (mo political correct term) they are now demanding from J and USA? And who knows when the compensation will come?
It seems they are able to think only or affect geo-strategy in straight-line terms. I mean that, if they have come to an obstacle (e.g. US's absolute refusal to take them seriously) - they become fixated on that obstacle. When instead they can go around it, ignor it - they ignor so many other paths.
Does it seem possible that the Nk ruling elites actually believe the propaganda cr*p they generate to the world - i.e. the evil empire is out to get them? Or, is it that they have missed the school for past 50 years and are genuinely ignorant SOBs?
I guess they have right to be insecure. A suicidal man pointing a gun to his own head might not want to let go of that gun, b/c its the last thing he got to hold on to.
NYgobbletoallboy
Wednesday, November 27, 2002 at 22:16:18 (PST)
[24.90.59.127]
Kimchidevil,
From time to time, I hear the voice of "American puppeteering" is the sole reason that Korea is in trouble. They call me naive.
You seem to forget that it was Jimmy Carter's administration that wanted to remove all U.S. troops in Korea. Guess who didn't want them to leave? You are right that U.S. started to support Saddam Hussein when the Ayatollah overthrought the Shah. There are however two very big reasons why things are very different for Korea and Iran: 1: there is no oil in Korea. 2: Islamic fundamentalism does not exist in Korea. From a security point of view, Korea is a liability not an asset to the United States. The whitehouse and the pentagon are indeed arrogant in it's ability to unilaterally demand actions to be made by the South Korean government/military. These demands are assuaged by South Korean government for the simple reason 1 million North Korean soldiers are pointing artillery towards Seoul.
As you know, there are no significant mineral resources that Americans can "exploit" from South Korea. South Korea is however, an important economic partner--but the U.S. economy certainly wouldn't sink without trade with South Korea. Look at trade figures yourself--on the otherhand South Korea would certainly be in big trouble if she lost U.S. as a market.
But you want to talk about 2 girls who were unfortunately killed by a tank. You say they are guilty of murder. Really? Did two U.S. soliers wanted to drive over Korean civillian in a GTA2 style? Were they drunk? Were they not paying attention to the road? Was it an accident? What is at question here is SOFA, not the crime/innocense of the 2 U.S. soldiers, because you have already condemned them to be guilty--being distrustful of the U.S. military legal system(with good reason.) I mean do you know what the facts are? U.S. military along with South Korean military regularly conducts military exercizes--which incidentally frightens the bejezus out of North Korea. During this exercize 2 U.S. soldiers drove over 2 school girls. These are facts. What is questionable is your insistence that they are "guilty" and the U.S. military is covering up. Guilty? What proof do you have? You say U.S. government is covering up the fact that they are homicidal maniacs? That they were driving drunk? What is your basis that 2 men drove over 2 girls with the intent to kill, or with criminal negligence? I tell you, that you make your judgement due to your overtly strong nationalism, or your strong suspicions towards U.S. military. Had a drunk south korean taxi driver plowed into 2 girls, you wouldn't be burning any flags. Of course, they wouldn't fall under U.S. military jurisdiction.
But then again, how many U.S. soldiers do you really see around Seoul? There are only 38,000 in Korea--vast majority of who do not really go into the Korean general population.
Am I naive? What about you, who don't pay attention to details? Are you really being fair? What is questionable here is SOFA, an agreement where U.S. military men are under U.S. jurisdiction when they commit crimes in Korea.
You said, "Stalin ain't around to start another korean war, and the soviets stopped meddling with corean affairs a long time ago. Isn't it about time the US did the same? I believe the first step toward reunification is for the US to leave corea, once and for all. If anything, have the UN station troops there, as was originally intended." You are calling me naive? The "originally intended" UN trooops were almost unanimously U.S. soldiers. Stalin is dead, but Kim Jong Il is still alive. Certainly U.S. should leave the region, but tell me, how should they do this? Should they just say, "Hey Kim Dae Jung, we are leaving in February, good bye." and pack up and leave? Or do you want Pentagon to say, "We are gong to remove 10,000 troops each year starting from now, and 38,000 U.S. troops will be gone in 4 years." Don't make me laugh. 38,000 troops is a small token of threat to North Korea. You seriously think 38,000 U.S. military servicemen could even seize 600,000 South Korean servicemen to topple south korean government in a hostile territory?
You think that the PRC and the Russian fereration and the Japanese aren't "meddling" in Korean affairs? BS! Please read the news. Yang Bin was arrested in China and Russia just made a statement with the Japanese that they too are oppose to a nuclear North Korea. Those 3 countries simply lack the power to influence North Korea the way U.S. can.
You still think I'm naive? The experience of vietnam looms still fresh even today, and the U.S. failure to implement positive policies in Iran is reminder to us of what can happen when we do screw up--namely in the way of Osama Bin Laden.
Cold War may be over. Clinton administration offered 1994 agreements as several offeres to talk. South KOrean president gave several concession to the North Korean government. How has Kim Jong Il responded? Give me a break, will you say allowing 4-5 Japanese kidnap victims to return to Japan is proof that times are changing in Pyong Yang? This gordian knot will not be loosened until Kim Jong Il is cut.
The U.S. indeed has a lot of responsibility. But you are a fool if you are blindsighted by the real culprit of the Korean dilemma. Korea's survival depends on the pragmatic choice, not the choice of vindictive nationalist blind pride--thas is the path of north korea which you are heading.
ka
Wednesday, November 27, 2002 at 10:31:48 (PST)
[168.103.180.35]
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|