|
|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES
Impact of Corean Unification
(Updated
Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:52:41 PM)
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.]
North Korea lays down the gauntlet and demands three pre-conditions to negotiations with US:
A) US recognize North Korean sovereignty
B) US promises to never invade North Korea
C) US must not impose economic sanctions, otherwise, it's tantamount to a declaration of war.
I ask you folks, if these are their pre-conditions and if these pre-conditions would guarantee their status quo and keep US out of North Korea, then why the hell would we need to negotiate? In this scenario, there are only concessions available to the Bush administration. This would bind future presidential administrations to be more conciliatory.
George W. Bush now knows he's playing with the big boys. North Korea is NOT Iraq.
My fear is that North Korea will over-play their hand and cause Bush to be more forceful, reckless perhaps.
This will be devastating. If not a nuclear war, think about what it will do to global economics. Can you spell "massive layoffs", "global economic instability, breakdown".
I fear that Bush administration miscalculations in Asian foreign policy is getting us in way too deep.
North Korea wants South Korea to unite with them to fight US agression. Problem is, who in North Korea wants free trade, social justice, democratic values? I dunno.
Geoff DB
GeoffDB02@aol.com
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 at 21:48:31 (PST)
[172.190.108.198]
Ka,
I really enjoyed reading your post.
It's unfortunate NKs don't have an
outside window to the world to see
what they could become. Instead,
they get to consider Kim a
demigod. How messed up is that?
Civil War,
Losing Hawaii would hurt but it is still small relative to the US overall.
NMD should offer protection by 2015.
AC,
The only significant American military actions in Asia since WWII were in "reaction" to communist expansion (Vietnam, Corea). Other than that, name an Asian nation that has suffered
war under U.S. guard or been pre-emptively attacked.
There are 1.8 million Coreans facing off around the DMZ. As much as SK hates it, an attack on U.S. troops is
an attack on the United States.
A war would be won by the SK/Americans but at a high cost. Maybe someone should give thanks to America for keeping these guys from killing one another.
I-Ching,
Individualism seems to innovate much faster.
Geoff,
Democracy keeps Georgie from doing everything he wants. If he wants to win another election, he'll have to
listen to what the people want (even the loser lefties).
As an Aside,
The double standard between Iraq and NK is simple. With Iraq, the U.S. faces virtually no direct consequences (nuclear, casualties) from war.
With NK, America needs to worry about SK and Japanese civilians suffering nuclear retaliation.
Also, it's easier to crush one opponent at a time rather than fight two prolonged engagements. You win either way, but with very different costs.
huu76
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 at 18:52:47 (PST)
[65.95.203.109]
Geoff DB,
"John Edwards of North Carolina"
I saw that guy on TV. He looks more like a poster boy for Crest Toothpaste than a politician.
Lieberman...I really need to know where he stands on Isreal, before I will even consider him. Next you know we have a 3 front war on the world.
Well at least we're backing off NK and going through China for talks.
GOP jeez I hear their F*** up in Congress as well. There asking for 2/3 representation on various Senate committees even thought their majority is 51 to 49.
It really does look like the end of the world sometimes.
AC Dropout
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 at 15:39:24 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
ka,
I think you got it backwards.
Bush doesn't have any really foriegn policy in asia besides trying to contain China. SK is just part of the containment strategy in his mind.
If he really had any consideration to the Korean issue. He would have taken steps in Hollywood over the Die another day movie. He would have really evaluated the Clinton plan prior to doing a quick 180 once he got into office.
Bush wants to starve the NK people is a two fold strategy. One he hoping for the collapse of NK in general. Two the NK refugee that go to China puts a strain on China. And can also be used as a "human rights" issue in the media.
So you blame the failure of democracy and why Roh got into office. Please he is the leader of SK right now based on popular vote. Democracy is not a "well we really wanted that leader" government system.
As for religon in the Korean population. I don't see the significance. All the independent Korean church I see in NYC tell me this is more of an economic issue than spiritual one in Korea.
Also what make you dubious to China interest in the Koreas. Do you think China is more interested in Koreas as an economic partner or a first strike staging area to a political competitor?
USA has shown her cards in Asia, and they all seem to point to arm conflict. China on the other hand seems more determined than ever to be focus on economic development for the whole asian region.
AC Dropout
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 at 10:55:10 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
AC, you wrote,
"America is in decline because it is trying to redefine colonialism in 21st century terms."
It is a simple fact to claim that over the long run, virtually all nations in the world will become nuclear. Atomic weapons technology has been with us for over 5 decades now--and much of the science and engineering know-how to build these things are readily available right here on the internet. You probably know this, but all a fission bomb is, is nuclear isotope enriched uranium sphere, encased around your conventional explosive. Put this on top of a tube filled with flammable expellant, and you got a poor man's answer to the US 7th fleet--to put things into perspective, the maintenance cost of one US aircraft carrier is equal to the entire budget allocated to the South Korean navy. And, as you know South Korean military receives a hefty amount of resources on a per capita basis then many other nations in the world.
It's not so much that the US is in "decline" as you put it, it is simply that the rest of the world is "catching up."
You say that the US is trying to redefine colonialism, but I find this rather comical coming from an unabashed defender of CCP's colonization policy of Tibet. US was invited onto S Korean soil. So since when did the Dali Lama invite the People's Army into the Himalayas?
I find it disturbing that you stay completely mute when CCP returns NK refugees back to NK, where they will find a certain and horrible end--but when US threathens Saddam Hussein to stop the development of WMD, you call US an imperialist power. The next time Xinjiang extremist blow up a public bus in Beijing, you certainly won't find much sympathy from me. Afterall, the uighur freedom-fighters should be commended for their glorious battle against all oppressive imperialist powers.
ka
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 at 10:22:41 (PST)
[168.103.180.35]
AC Dropout,
"Who are the Democratic candidates in 2 years."?
Lots of wannabees. My vote in 2004 is going to John Edwards of North Carolina. He will carry all the states that Gore carried in 2000, plus a few Southern ones.
Civil War,
"You see what happens when Asain people fight each other. We see a clear example in North and South Korea."
Yea, I see. North Korea lets her people starve and freeze while its army gets food. South Korea and China have opened up to global economics. That's a good reason for them to not stick up for North Korea right now.
One positive thing I will say about North Korea. Their troops march very well. I like their stride :)
Seriously, my point is simple, if North Korea makes social, political and economic change, then there would be good reasons for South Korea to stand with North Korea. Bush had his eyes set dead red on North Korea (axis of evil) and they damn well knew it. They made their move while US troops were on their way to Iraq. That's why they got him by the balls. Totally off guard.
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shooting off his mouth about being able to fight two wars at once. Give me a break! The only thing missing from Rumsfeld's threat was whether he could do all this with one hand tied behind his back.
Well, we see who's backing down now - George Bush.
I tell you this, GOP Asian Pacific foreign policy is arrogance, threats, miscalculations, double talk and more double talk.
We will talk, but not negotiate? Ha! Remind me never to ask for George W. Bush's definition of sexual relations.
If North and South Korea do ever decide to unify, Lord help us to have an intelligent president in the White House.
Geoff DB
GeoffDB02@aol.com
Tuesday, January 14, 2003 at 22:16:41 (PST)
[172.190.65.21]
Bertrand Russell once said that the trouble with the world is that all the smart people aren't sure if they are right and all the stupid people are cock-sure they are right. Maybe I too am guilty of this, but it certainly seems most of you are also guilty.
Today on January 14, 2003, I see Kim Jong Il playing nuclear "p***ing" game with George W, and it's just possible that pretty soon, they will p*** all over themselves.
There are certain repeating misconceptions that I keep seeing on this thread that I want to address. Some of you, I Ching and AC keep on mentioning how "Christianized" Korea is. This only tells me that you have never been to Korea. Korea in fact, is only about 33% Christian. There are probably more Buddhist in Korea then Christians. If you live in the United States, then it would be true to say most KA tends to be Christian. Furthermore, a big bulk of SK population is atheist/agnostic--but as an american academic once said, if you scratch the skin of a korean, below you will find a shaman. What is certainly true is that ther are a lot of evangelical christians in SK of the pentecostal types who often make loud noise about the apocalypse. This is probably the reason why some of you are thinking that most of Korea is Christian--precisely because Buddhist monks usually don't do this--although a small minority of them do get into fist-fights that catch public's attention. And as for money-crazed SK image--this image very well reminds me of the image of the average Shanghainese. SK people in the countryside are also very "level-headed."
Another misconception about SK: It is completely true that anti-american sentiment have been rising in SK. But the greater percentage of SK population still wants US troops to remain in SK--as of now. It is true that the younger people want Korea to take a much more bolder stance and therefore want to be "weaned" off from US--but until few months ago, virtually everyone in Korea thought taht the conservative Lee was going to win the election, not Roh. (including myself) This election had the lowest voter turn out in SK history--and many well young and naive people voted for Roh while many older peole sat at home and watched tv.
Now that I cleared these two repeating issues--- some of you wrote that it is in SK best interest for US troops to leave SK. Certainly this should happen in the future. But consider this fact. Let's say US-SK relationship becomes so bad that they break off diplomatic relations. (highly unlikely, but this is an imaginary world) NK continues to develope weapons of mass destruction and missiles. With no troops in East Asia, US can take surgical strikes against North Korea at will. Who's to stop the US 7th fleet? Noone. What can Kim Jong Il possibly do to retaliate? Send Nodong-2 missiles towards Hawaii? It still doesn't have the guidance system and pay-load capacity to seriously challange US RIGHT now. US military planners are probably considering taking a pre-emptive action to ensure further research cannot continue. IF US did NOT care about triggering a 2nd Korean war, they may do this--AND they might secretly be glad, as it is more likely SK will win the ensuing war--a government US would favor over Kim Jong Il, even if relationship sours.
But if US troops is sitting in east asia, it is a message to the people living in the area, that US is willing to sacrifice her own citizens for THEIR sake--this has been the basis of SK-US trust for the past 50 years, and is the sole reason why SK allow Pentagon to take control of SK army in case of war.
But let's just say US says, "ahh who cares if Kim Jong Il makes nukes and missiles, we'll just become isolationist"--then US pulls out of east asia. Will China really be jumping up and down in joy when she finds that Kim Jong Il sold a thermo-nuclear device to a Saudi national, who sold the device to an Afghan warlord, who sold the device to Xinjiang separatist? Or would China really want to have nuclear kim jong il as her neighbor? Or a nuclear Japan as a neighbor, who became nuclear, precisely because of NK? There are some seriously naive people who keep on writing about NK "right" to bear nuclear arms, like dumb americans who rant on and on about the 2nd amendment.
Korea must take the pragmatic path--the path that ensures you know the famous axiom, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. All these people writing about the "white men" disrepecting asia and NK right to have nukes... these people are all fascists. If you really cared about East Asians and Asian Unity--you'd better be speaking out for the NK people who are starving and dying because of Kim Jong Il's mismanagement.
George W Bush spoke with complete truth and I must confess my admiration for a man who does not hold back his utter contempt for Kim Jong Il--a man who does not is either clueless, lying, or crazy. But despite his heavy handed approach, he has "backed" off and seems to take a Clintonian solution afterall. I can only feel disppointed that he fails to make the critical choice AFTER having antagonized everyone==only to go back to doing the Clintonian solution. It seems to me that he does not have any plans or strategy for NK, and it is only a hindsight in relation to his policy in the middle east.
This winter, it is only inevitable that more NK people will die by the cold and by hunger. Even if Bush changed policy now, by the time more oil and grain arrive in NK port, many children, pregnant women, etc would have died. Let it be clear that US has no OBLIGATION whatsoever to give even a dime to Kim Jong Il--
Kim Jong Il doesn't DESERVE grain or oil, just as much as NK people do not DESERVE to die by hunger and exposure. Unfortunately, it seems like we will inevitably reward Kim JOng Il, for the sake of millions he hold hostage.
I wonder how long it would get through your thick heads who your enemies really are?
ka
Tuesday, January 14, 2003 at 09:11:05 (PST)
[168.103.180.35]
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|