|
|
|
|
|
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.]
huu76
There are certain things that you apparently haven't thought about which is why many Koreans distrusts U.S.
First it was Teddy Roosevelt that made an agreement with Imperial Japan to recognize Japan's ownership of Korea in exchange for U.S. owndership of the Phillipines. (of course Phillippines would gain independence by successfully engaging U.S. in war, a little side history that Americans don't largely remmember.) From Korea's perspective U.S. was in cahoots with Hirohito until Hirohito attacked Pearl Harbor. This was a time you must remember, U.S. was an imperial power, and in fact, U.S. military was a segragationist institution. (something that communist nations rightfully pointed out about the follies of capitalist nations.)
Now essentially when Japan surrendered, the Soviets steamrolled into Korea. U.S. in order to stop the spread of communism, made an agreement that Soviet Union would stop at the 38th parallel and be a "custodian" for that part of the country. U.S. policy makers had very little knowledge of far east asian history or geography--which is why they made this blunder in the first place. The Russians tried to negotiate with Imperial Japanese to carve up Korea on the 38th parallel before, and they thought that U.S. was in effect making a deal with the Russians to divide up Korea.
Then U.S. announced that Korea was not within U.S. strategic spheare and essentially won't be defended. Which is why Kim Il Sung got Stalin's approval to steamroll into South Korea. It is only AFTER the invasion that U.S. planners change their minds. This failure not only killed the few U.S. military planners in Korea, but was catastrophic for all of Korea. Of course, I'm not blaming the U.S. for communist aggression, but it's clear from Korea's perspective that U.S. does not act in Korea's best interest, it obviously act in U.S. best interest.
After the Korean war, actually the North was leading the South. The North gained a lot of military and economic aid from Soviet Union and from China. At the time South Korean president Park Chung Hee decided to send the second largest contingent of military forces into Vietnam to aid the U.S. South Korea has no strategic interest in Vietnam what so ever. It's only reason for doing so was because of U.S. economic aid and military technology transfer agreements. But unlike U.S. veterans of vietnam war who receive a lot of government subsideis for their service, Korean veterans of the same war were essentailly screwed over--as S Korean government is a lot poorer.
South Korean per capita GDP is less then that of Thailand's. It spends an enormous amount of what little money it has on military defense. But South Korea also realizes that U.S. is sitting on South Korea for it's only reasons--reasons right now which are in alignment with South Korean interests--which makes the alliance work. But if conservative elements make innuendos that U.S. should make surgical strikes against NK to stop missile/nuclear weapons proliferation, what kind of response can you possibly expect from SK, when should a war reignite, half the population of Seoul will perish on the first day of battle? SK does not want a "desert storm" on the peninsula.
As for Pro/Anti American sentiments in Korea, this is largely the fault of Korean media, but also U.S. state department share blame for it's pathetic excuse for Public Relations.
SK does not want "big brother/little brother" type of vasselage relationship that China demanded from Korea--it was an "equal" relationship. Whatever that might mean, this accident fiasco could have been avoided if DoD puts as much emphasis on PR as it does on brute force.
ka
Thursday, December 26, 2002 at 08:27:08 (PST)
[168.103.180.35]
Talk about monopoly.....
U.S. Scorned for Foreign Arms Stand
by Linda Diebel
What's a definition of irony?
It's the United States — the world's largest weapons seller and heartiest participant in the international arms bazaar — complaining about North Korea shipping 15 Scud missiles to Yemen, according to peace activists.
For Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to call North Korea the "single largest proliferater'' of missile technology is, as they say, the pot calling the kettle black.
"I guess you've got to remember that irony is essentially dead in the United States,'' said Scott Lynch, from Washington-based Peace Action.
"But even so, this one has got to be seen as highly ironic. One could even move up to hypocritical.''
...
everyoneshouldhavenukes
Wednesday, December 25, 2002 at 01:34:20 (PST)
[43.232.36.210]
huu76,
"You ought to know by now that I'm not white"
You have hardly convinced me you are not white. You're probably up there in terms of twinkieness in my book.
"And yup, no conspiring between the North and China. China's too busy spreading world peace and giving out humanitarian aid."
You really must be clueless to international affair. When USA cuts donations to NK. PRC pick up whatever slack it can. It even looks the other way when illegal NK seek into China.
"If I were those girls, I'd be happy that at least my family got something."
Correction if you were those girls you'd be dead and I wouldn't be reading your nonsense.
AC Dropout
Tuesday, December 24, 2002 at 13:23:40 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
This Bush administration must be crazier than NK cult of personalities.
First we do a 180 and stop negotiations with NK and basically undo all of Clinton's 8 years of foriegn policy.
Now we are threatening NK with a two front war.
Is Bush planning to finance the war with NK and Iraq by himself. Because last I check the USA ran out of money, when Bush gave everyone their taxes back.
I thought running a .com company was nuts and fundamentally unsound. Bush is taking us into WWIII at this rate.
AC Dropout
Tuesday, December 24, 2002 at 09:17:00 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
AC,
The 500,000+ S.K. infantry, that's who'd need the Americans.
You ought to know by now that I'm not white.
I see N.K. took away the IAEC cameras giving the impression they've got some nukes in the oven. I wonder how long before S.K. blinks and gives them a big payoff, the kind only Western countries can afford to pay.
And yup, no conspiring between the North and China. China's too busy spreading world peace and giving out humanitarian aid. Ha, ha, haw.
By the way, we're talking about U.S. dollars, not the crap N.K. uses.
S.K. probably doesn't want to give credit to the U.S. for making them what they are. Is it an Asian trait to bite the hand that feeds? It's starting to look like it.
If I were those girls, I'd be happy that at least my family got something.
huu76
Monday, December 23, 2002 at 22:06:04 (PST)
[65.95.201.46]
huu76,
As much as I detest China's endorsement of Kim Jong Il, I must disagree that China has a large control over Kim Jong Il. I mean, we are talking about the same guy who called the PRC betrayers of the socialist cause when Den Xiao Ping opened up. This same guy would try to hire Yang Bin, and PRC would arrest him. Kim Jong Il for the most part, seems very independent--and he really is being honest(for once) when he talks about the importance of national sovereignty(his evil rule). I think it's self-evident that he takes no crap from Americans, Chinese, Russians, Japanese, S. Koreans, and even his own fellow countrymen.
Also it is true that there has been a very big anti-U.S. movement in Korea recently based largely on prejudice. But the fact that it had such a large sway in the mainstream population point out a certain cultural differences between Korea and U.S. Most Korean people that I talk to usually say it's practical to maintain the alliance--many agree that it was an accident--many of them do get angry, because they feel that U.S. leadership has not addressed this issue. This essentially opens up the role of SOFA and the fact that Pentagon has essentially complete commmand of South Korean military in a case of war. Korean people being proud people, feels that this is tantamount to vasslage and seek to change this relationship. Lee Hoi Chang said that the U.S.-Korean alliance is not a matter of being pro or anti american, but is a realistic and a pragmatic solution to what will inevitably result in a severe economic strain for S. Korea. Historically Korea remained independent by allying itself with the "right" ally. Today's young people,
however, have no first hand experience of war or communist guerrillas raiding the chicken coop(literally speaking). S Korea has made tremendous progress, and therefore, believe that they should take a much more independent role in determining it's relationship with N Korea. But there are still conservative elements(i.e. me and older koreans) who believe that the time is not yet ripe for S Korea to take that step.
Also many people assume that Roh would fundamentally change the nature of U.S.-Korean alliance, and this may well be true--but people must also remember that Kim Dae Jung also use to say many radical things, but he didn't make any fundamental changes with the alliance. A lot of these politicians talk tough, but then fall in line right after winning the election. Will Roh be any different? Who knows?
If dropping a bomb over Kim Jong Il solved the problems, then S Korea would have lobbied Washington to do that looong time ago. Unfortunately, from Korea's perspective, it's in her best interest to pay off the blackmail to Kim Jong Il as long as the price he demand is low enough. (Seoul is in artillary range of N Korea) and of course from U.S.' perspective, it's in her best interest to nuke the s&*t out of NK missile/nuke facilities before they become operational. (putting Washington within nuke range of N Korea) Kim Jong Il is using this different priorities between S Korea/U.S. in a bid to severe the SK/US alliance--something NK tried to accomplish in the past 5 decades.
I think that the best SK/US option is to do what they were doing since Clinton--buy time until Kim Jong Il dies a natural death and hope for the best. It's in NK best interest to have nuke/missile technology no matter what. there really is no realistic way to stop them from doing this.
Stopping grain/fuel deliveries to NK means many people will die by hunger or by the cold. This is a simple fact. What is also true is that China provides grain and fuel to NK to keep it from falling apart. If we stop these aid to NK, then China will increase a certain percentage of that shortfall. At this point, I think we are better off making China pay this off, until China realizes that it's not in her best interest to support a loon like Kim Jong Il. Only then China will realize that it's best interest is to join the alliance and to send NK refugees to SK.
NK has made it very clear that it wants the attention from US. We need to make a clear statement that when both carrots and sticks fail to make any kind of impact on NK's behavior, we have no reason to continue the old style diplomacy. It is NK turn to show the alliance that the sunshine policy was working.
ka
Monday, December 23, 2002 at 11:36:03 (PST)
[168.103.180.35]
huu76,
"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?"
Of course not. That's why the world need a super secret agent like yourself, Secret Squirrel with your trusty decoder ring.
AC Dropout
Monday, December 23, 2002 at 10:05:29 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|