|
|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES
Impact of Corean Unification
(Updated
Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:52:30 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 (Korean for those who prefer the colonial spelling) 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.]
I Ching,
The Clinton Administration had a very poor reputation on foreign policy and one that I suspect will grow even worse with the passage of time in the appropirate historical context. This is pretty much accepted by academics on both the left and the right. Please don't make me argue the point that Clinton was skilled at foreign affairs. It won't be a fair fight. I mentioned his proposed NK visit in his waning days as an example given the context of the discussion.
I won't argue, as many have, that Iraq, Al Quaeda and NK are all products of Clinton's inept foreign policy, but that's another story.
Fact: *Warren* Christopher (I got his name wrong last time) and Madeleine Albright were regarded as mere political appointees and ineffective leaders within their own diplomatic corps, nor did they command the respect from either our enemies or allies as does our current Secretary of State.
Defense Secretaries Les Aspin and William Cohen, to a lesser extent were inexperienced bumbling bureaucrats. Les Aspin was chiefly responsible for the micromanaging politically-based tactical decisions (denial of armor support) that casued 21 US servicemen to be killed and dragged through the streets of Somalia in 1993. He died of a heart atatck shortly after resigning in disgrace because of his role in this catastrophe. Les Aspin v. Don Rumsfeld?!? You're going to argue for Aspin or Albright over Rumsfeld and Powell?!?
Please do not make the common mistake, as do many Europeans, of popularity abroad with an effective foreign policy. Nixon, for example, was a master of foreign affairs and incredibly unpopular abroad; Kennedy who was loved abroad almost got us into WWIII when we arguably dominated the Soviets militarily, economically and politically more than at any other point during the cold war. Reagan is another example. Europeans universally hated him and mocked his "evil empire" quote, but he ended the cold war. Carter, the Nobel prize winner, and his impotent handling of the Iran hostage crisis? The list goes on and on.
GW Bush is facing challenges that Clinton never faced. By all accounts, he has risen to the challenge despite being continually underestimated by his opponents. This reputation as a "cowboy" or an inarticulate idiot only works to his advantage.
France and Germany have been outmaneuvered and are now considered the "unilaterals", not the US. Powell, the out of step dove, is now the administration's advocate for military action. Coincidence or by strategy? I don't know, but I would call the Bush administration's forign policy masterful, shrewd, calculated and ruthless. It's exactly what we need in a time of war.
My thoughts on Korea in the following post.
dss
Tuesday, February 18, 2003 at 09:58:17 (PST)
[208.165.224.68]
Ac Dropout,
I did not make the blanket statement that non-negotiation was the "proper tactic to handle countries with conflicting interest."
Please raise a specific issue for discussion and I would be happy to address it.
Food for thought WRT Cuba: who has more to lose from our current policy the US or Cuba?
dss
Tuesday, February 18, 2003 at 09:12:20 (PST)
[208.165.224.68]
dss,
If you think non-negotiating is a proper tactic to handle countries with conflicting interest. Might I point out Cuba.
AC Dropout
Tuesday, February 18, 2003 at 08:02:56 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
dss,
Thanks for your response. You seem to be a student of geopolitics like me, and you are obviously well read in that subject. Nonetheless, I disagree with your assessment as to why the Bush Administration does not wish to communicate directly with North Korea or why it does not wish to enter into a non-aggression treaty with North Korea. You ascribe this inaction to merely a problem of identifying who is the principal and to harmless negotiating techniques. Yet, each month that goes by, and with each nuclear bomb that North Korea builds, it will only raise the military and diplomatic cost of resolution by the billions of dollars as North Korea’s position strengthens exponentially. Thus, other countries and opposition members of Congress have demanded that the Bush Administration tackle the North Korea problem immediately. If anything, delay in negotiation has only moved North Korea and the U.S. further apart.
The Bush Administration is handling the North Korean crisis differently because of the Iraq factor. The Bush Administration is not interested in a diplomatic resolution of Iraq unless Saddam Hussein is completely removed from power and replaced by a U.S.-friendly leader. Although publicly the Bush Administration says it would rather not use military force, its forceful lobbying of the U.N., NATO for a military solution belies its true desire. It has even threatened to make the U.N. irrelevant by going unilaterally. Thus, a peaceful and amicable diplomatic solution to the North Korean crisis at this time would undercut the justification of its military agenda in Iraq, even when it is obvious to everyone else that North Korea is the more urgent case. Ultimately, the people who will pay the stiffest price for America’s singular obsession with the Middle East will be the Japanese people and the Americans living on the West Coast now that North Korea is rushing to advance work on nuclear technology and missiles.
As for Iran, it is actually more of a democracy than the U.S., which is a “republic” in which the President is elected by representatives in an electoral college. The founding father of the U.S. specifically did not want the U.S. to be a democracy to be ruled by the “tyranny of the majority.”
And nowadays, the U.S. looks like a theocracy, “one nation under God”, the Moral Majority in power, and being the most fundamentalist Christian nation on the planet, sending out armies and armies of missionaries to conquer the world for Jesus.
And if you think the Clinton Administration’s foreign policy as “amateurish,” what do you make of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy?
I Ching
Tuesday, February 18, 2003 at 06:04:11 (PST)
[199.183.33.142]
I Ching,
The conventional wisdom on Korean negotiations is as follows: The impact of any strategic agreement with North Korea will affect South Korea more than the United States. Therefore, the South Koreans should be the principal party negotiating with the North.
Recall the uproar in South Korea when Clinton was contemplating visiting Kim Il Sung in his final days as President in his bid for the Nobel prize. This would have completely disintermediated the SK from negotiations regarding the country's own destiny. (Visting a dictator like that on his home turf would have been the biggest boneheaded move of the Clinton administration. In 8 years of amateurish foregin policy under those diplomatic giants, Madeleine Albright and William Chistopher, that's saying something.)
*Realpolitik* dictates that you should always have an agent (South Korea, Chna, the Russians)negotiate on your behalf and maintain distance from the quid pro quo, nit picking back and forth of the actual discussions. The "principal" (the US here)is free to reject or accept terms after they have been fought over. This is a very basic negotiating technique that applies to contract negotiations or buying a car.
A direct communication line from Pyongyang to Washington puts NK on equal footing with the US. The US, for obvious reasons, doesn't want nor view NK as its equal. NK obviously does.
The United States gains nothing currently from a non-aggression pact. Nothing of verifyable substance has been offered by NK in return. A non aggression pact absent a very large concession by NK would be playing into the North's hands.
There may be a time that he US would enter into such an agreement, but to agree to it now would be a clear sign of weakness or desperation on behalf the US which the North would exploit further.
Finally, Iran is a repressive theocracy, not a democracy, and is hardly an open or free society. Its' leaders, yes, are elected.
The Iranian government sponsors terrorism throughout the world, principally against Israel, but has also attacked citizens of the United States. There have not been *recent* attacks against the United States; however, the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in which more than 300 US servicemen were killed and the earlier bombing of the US emabassy in Lebanon
were conducted by the Iranian government. This is an historical fact. The US chose to pursue its vengeance against Iran at the time through...you guessed it...Iraq, who was at war with Iran at the time.
Nevertheless, it is the same government that is in power today as was in power in the 80's. Oh, there's the hostage taking in '78 by Iranian students who now hold signifcant positions in its government.
dss
Friday, February 14, 2003 at 12:30:14 (PST)
[208.165.224.68]
Can anyone provide me a good explanation as to why the U.S. will not speak directly with North Korea? Or why the U.S. cannot sign a non-aggression treaty with North Korea? Or why Iran, a working democracy and non-communist is one of the three members of the "Axis of Evil?"
I Ching
Friday, February 14, 2003 at 09:58:04 (PST)
[209.232.17.193]
KA,
The report tried to paint the youth of SK as hippies peace loving flag burners. I found the report sadly bias and full of yellow journalism.
AC Dropout
Wednesday, February 12, 2003 at 11:58:35 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
Geoff DB,
Don't know what Kim will do. Most of SK youth believe that he will not attack at this time.
AC Dropout
Wednesday, February 12, 2003 at 11:56:56 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
Kim Jong Il is an idiot. He begged the UK to try to convince the US to open a dialogue with NK, and the UK said No Way. Today the UN has moved the issue to the Security Council as NK is in violation of international laws. They should have done this a long time ago. Il blames the US entirely, and says that NK has to talk with the US alone, when the people that should really step in and handle the situation are Japan, China and South Korea- the ones within missile range of NK. Maybe he is bluffing, maybe not. I wouldn't put it past him to invade South Korea. And the famine continues in his country, and it is entirely his fault.
war with NK not Iraq
Wednesday, February 12, 2003 at 10:21:42 (PST)
[207.183.118.60]
AC Dropout,
I dunno! Hillary and Bill together may not be enough to get this NK jam untangled.
It's the GOP who got us in this mess and I'm afraid we'll have to rely on them to get us out.
Hey, the Democrats sayed home in 2002 cause voters were disenchanted. History has proven over and over, when the Democrats stay home, Republicans win.
North Korean president Kim Jong is afraid that the US will ruin his totalitarian regime and prevent him from persecuting his enemies. He's bound to unleash hell on South Korea and US military forces.
Geoff DB
GeoffDB02@aol.com
Tuesday, February 11, 2003 at 22:09:00 (PST)
[172.190.164.167]
I Ching
well I American is definately not God's nation.
I read the posts but am confused anyone care to enlighten me on what we are dicussing. I know its about Christianity.
I am a Christian BTW.
Thanks
SOG
Tuesday, February 11, 2003 at 11:33:28 (PST)
[128.193.4.98]
Did anyone catch Sunday's 60 minutes "Yankee Go Home Episode"?
I think the group of young Coreans who were supposedly representing the poplular anti-American perspective came off looking rather unimpressive and quite frankly, flippant and immature. I think there are some legitimate arguments to be made for altering the SOFA and the underlying US - ROK relationship. Some of these were effectively articulated by the foreign minister-elect. However, the students' absolute lack of historical context or understanding of *realpolitik* is truly disturbing from both a visceral/emotional basis and a strategic perspective.
The incredulous statements by the students and the reports of attacks, both physical and verbal, on GI's will not only undoubtably cast Coreans as ingrates, but more importantly, geopolitically vapid.
I'd be interested to hear what other forum members who viewed the episode thought of the report, particularly those who empathize with the students' perspective. Bob Simon, the reporter, is known for a fairly liberal bias in his reporting. Was this an accurate portrayal of the situation?
KA
Tuesday, February 11, 2003 at 11:11:13 (PST)
[208.165.224.68]
ka,
The majority of the population of every European nation is still religious, and mainly Christian, although not to the extreme extent of the Americans, many of who are into faith healing. President Bush leads his Cabinet in a prayer in every meeting! American and British Christians, especially the Evangelical ones, differ significantly from Christians in continental Europe in that most of them believe in the Rapture and dispensational pre-millennial Tribulation version of Christianity that was invented by an English Christian cult in 1830. Since then this cultic belief has become mainstream, and common amongst Korean-Americans, (in the same way that Mormonism is no longer considered a cult,) by the popular works of Hal Lindsey, Billy Graham, Tim LaHaye, and Jerry B. Jenkins portraying America as God’s nation. How the relatively backwoods Southern preacher Billy Graham became so popular is another story. Hence, much of continental Europe is not on board with the U.S. and Britain on the invasion of Iraq because of this cultic religious difference. To President Bush, the invasion of Iraq is a religious mandate from God to protect Israel that takes precedence to the North Korean nuclear and missile problem, which otherwise is a much greater threat to world peace.
I Ching
Monday, February 10, 2003 at 22:58:33 (PST)
[206.217.6.182]
gweilo,
"Hello! Where do you think China learned just about EVERYTHING?"
Your handle suits your perfectly. Only a gweilo would make such a dumb comment. Let's forget most of modern scientific discoveries go back to China prior to industrailization. Here is an very simple illustration of Asian basic education.
Notice every child immigrant from asia is able to rock the pants off USA standardized exams. A majority of asian immigrants in the USA are from China. These are children that only had a partial education in asia.
I've been to China and action against terrorist is necessary in ones own country. Look to how we deal with Arab American now. However, Rodney King and a host of other civil police brutality issue do not occur on such a huge scale in China. I've never heard of a report of a broom stick been shoved up a prisoners arse in China, just for fun. As it was done in NYC. I've never heard of a Chinese citizen being detained or beaten because he looked darker than the white majority else.
Look to USA involvement in Indoneasia, Philippines, Vietnam, NK, South America for cold war antics.
You just don't follow international policies. China has never been a instigator in foreign policy after the 20th century. You should look to USSR and USA to take the credit for all that good stuff.
AC Dropout
Monday, February 10, 2003 at 11:28:36 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|