|
|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES
Impact of Corean Unification
(Updated
Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:53:25 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.]
dss,
You wrote, "I agree that funadmentalist Christians wield a significant amount of political power, particularly in the curent administration....much the same as ambulance chasing lawyers, Hollywood movie stars, Buddhist monks, labor unions and Chinese "businessmen" wielded significant influence in the former administration. If we are now a "theocracy", I hate to imagine what we were in the 90's?'
America was a "Democrat"cy. ^_^ At least, a wide spectrum of society were represented.
It is quite apparent to me that you are a die-hard Republican singing praise to Nixon, Reagan, and Bush but only criticism to Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton. You must be one of those loonies who believe in the Rapture, thinking one day you will be magically lifted into the air, your voice on Goldsea suddenly absent. Right?
I Ching
Thursday, February 20, 2003 at 22:50:45 (PST)
[209.232.19.78]
dss,
Was it Clinton or Bush who made the provocative "axis of evil" remark about NK? Did NK start removing spent nuclear rods during Clinton's administration or during the current Bush administration? Was it Bush or Clinton who said we would not negotiate, then changed it to "we will talk, but not negotiate"?
Sounds like you're falling for GOP BS 101: When all else fails, blame Clinton.
We actually don't disagree that the US will, eventually, need to start direct negotiations with North Korea.
I brought up the Cuban missile crisis, because it was a direct nuclear threat against the United States by Cuba and the USSR.
In this present scenario, who is the "USSR" role player? North Korea Who is the "Cuba" role player? North Korea. North Korea has the nuclear capability in their homeland (or shall I say, fatherland) and they also are doing all the manipulating. So, you see, Bush has the USSR and Cuba threat all rolled up into one.
Diplomatically speaking, it was horrendous geopolitics for him to make a standing threat against another nation months and months beforehand without consulting our allies or the United Nations. At the time, NK was not in breach, according to the UN nuclear monitoring officials (can't remember their exact name).
It was even worst geopolitics for him to make this threat without consulting South Korea or Japan.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take too kindly to someone calling me the axis of evil. In fact, I might get really pissed off and try to protect myself.
"Carter/Clinton/Albright ignored 50 years of diplomatic history with NK and chose to take Kim Jong Il 'at his word' to abide by the 94 Nuclear treaty."
What else were they supposed to do, go in and bomb the country? The UN was been monitoring NK's nuclear activity until Kim Jong II recently kicked them out. We also have satelites monitoring their troop and weapons positions.
"The reduced 'friction' with NK that you credit to the Clinton Adnministration sprang from the fact that NK got exactly what it wanted: a period of 'reduced friction' to develop a nuclear bomb and receipt of food and fuel from the US."
Not according to the UN monitors. It wasn't until recently that they re-started their nuclear facilities. However, yes, I'm sure the food and fuel that we gave them went straight to NK troops.
"We may have to deal with NK directly, agreed. As I stated before, direct negotiations are something NK wants, so we should extrat the maximum leverage from Kim in return for it..."
What the US needs to do is assign a special US envoy to negotiate directly with NK along with Japan, South Korea, China and Russia, to discontinue their clandestine, reckless behavior and immediately discontinue their nuclear weapons assembly.
We need to offer viable alternatives, clear ultimatums and let them know in no uncertain terms that the international community will not allow them to become a greater nuclear threat in the Korean peninsula.
We need someone to deal with North Korea with the same masterful political, diplomatic skills that JFK applied during the Cuban missile crisis.
Kim Jong II is a ruthless, evil tyrant who must be confronted directly and made aware of the consequences if he doesn't settle down and submit to unconditional, unrestricted UN monitoring.
It may very well turn out that the US will need to take conventional military action in order to wipe out NK's nuclear capability. That will not be pretty.
If the US confronts NK militarily, we will most certainly win, but at what cost.
dss, George W. Bush got us in this mess; Not Bill Clinton.
Geoff DB
GeoffDB02@aol.com
Thursday, February 20, 2003 at 21:58:32 (PST)
[172.192.152.214]
dss,
I think there is a fundimental goal shift between Clinton and Bush.
Clinton was trying to achieve the unificiation of the Koreas. He is a believer in the 3rd way and political engagement of all sides. Even though you might disagree with his goal. At the very least he elevated the credibility of the USA as an "honest broker" of sorts on the world stage.
Bush is definitely not trying to achieve that goal. He is a believer of a highly polarized world and unilateral action. Or more specifically US blunt leadership on the world stage. There have been very specific actions the Bush administration has taken to further discredit the USA "honest broker" image on the world stage.
Whether you think unification or seperation of the Koreas is a greater risk to USA security is another issue.
However, to debate whether Bush's approach or Clinton's approach is more effective is somewhat moot. Since it is obvious both were trying to achieve different goals in the region.
If you are looking for different views on the matter you should frequent Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Russian news sources. I'm pretty sure they offer views on that matter that would be pretty unpopular to the majority of conservative republicans in the USA. Since they are not very interested in USA projection of military into the region.
AC Dropout
Thursday, February 20, 2003 at 16:15:36 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
dss,
I think you miss the point about Clinton's political engagement policy. The main point of the policy with the Koreas was not to prevent or deter their nuclear development, but to instead begin the process of SK and NK unification. Since it is almost impossible to prevent another country to develop in whatever manner they see fit.
Even Isreal has nuclear capability these days. And Japan is serious debating whether or not to develop their own nuclear arsenal.
His view was that once unification was achieved the nuclear weapon issue would be an internal issue for the Koreas to resolve.
However, drastically moving away from that position has seriously effected the stability of the Koreas. Since it has prompted Japan to reconsider their own military development.
Since as many international observers have been stating over the past few weeks. The credibility of the USA as an honest broker is in serious jeopardy in the world stage.
We might as well go back to or isolationist practices of the early 20th century if this keeps up.
AC Dropout
Thursday, February 20, 2003 at 10:24:48 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
Geoff,
1. The simple reason for "dramatically changing ones stance in foriegn policy" is the 9/11 attacks...but NOT for the largely irrelevant reason that you will inevitably try to refute. This applies to our general foreign policy.
2. Specifically WRT to Korea, contemporaenous with this change in policy has been a general destabilization in Korea. Agreed. However, you incredulously attribute this to Bush's "policy blunder with his "axis of evil"". Your statement has no substance other than you don't like GWB. Let me take a guess. Are you seriously advocating Clinton's period of "stability" and US inaction in return for Kim's promise not to develop a nuclear weapons was a *good* deal? With 20/20 hindsight that was glaringly obvious to everyone at the time, with the rather signifacnt exception of the Clinton administration, we now know Kim was developing nukes during your period of "stability" even though he "promised" not to. Do you consider Neville Chamberlain's offer of Czechloslovakia to Hitler in return for promised European "stability" a good deal?
This dramatic change in policy stems from the fact that now the US is forced to confront a country that is capable of launching a nuclear strike against the west coast of the US! Of course this has resulted in a "dramatic policy shift". We are now no longer ignoring the fact that NK has nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the former policy was to ignore the issue and allow the underlying situation to deteriorate. Yet, you would somehow advocate the former?
Do you think the underlying cause of current Korean destabilization is a result of A)Bush's current "confrontational" policy; B)Kim's development, posession and willingness to use nuclear weapons in violation of the 1994 treaty; C) Clinton's non-confrontational policy of "politcal enagagement" that ignored the growing threat and gave Kim the opportunity to develop nukes? Out of these three general causes, you have chosen Bush's foreign policy. Are there others I am missing? Please enlighten me. Your logic escapes me.
Are you offended by Bush's blunt, non-diplomatic prose? Is it offensive? perhaps. Are there issues WRT the current SOFA agreement in Korea. Yes. Should the presence of US troops in Korea be re-evaluated? Yes.
I still haven't heard a convincing argument articulating oppostition to Bush's fundamental policy in Korea, despite the seemingly vast opposition in "popular" culture or among the young. If the US policy is so inherently wrong, why can't somebody demonstrate the logic to me?
dss
Thursday, February 20, 2003 at 10:21:04 (PST)
[208.165.224.68]
Geoff,
Some of the examples you cite lack relevance to your advocated positions; however, they are useful to illustrate analagous historical situations that support current Bush policies.
JFK negotiated durectly with Kruschev and Stalin, not with Castro. True. In fact an excellent example of the Soviet's understandable, yet failed attempt to use Cuban agency to further their agenda. Negotiating with Castro would have given legitamcy to Castro and equal footing vis a vis the US. This would have been a disasterous diplomatic precedent. We would have none of it and negotiated directly with the Soviets from a position of stregth by massing troops in Florida. Kruschev eventually backed down and pulled the nukes out of Cuba.
Whether we *loathe* an adversary is not relevant, whether we *trust* an adversary is very relevant. This is a lesson Clinton, hopefully, has learned the hard way.
Carter/Clinton/Albright ignored 50 years of diplomatic history with NK and chose to take Kim Jong Il "at his word" to abide by the 94 Nuclear treaty. The reduced "friction" with NK that you credit to the Clinton Adnministration sprang from the fact that NK got exactly what it wanted: a period of "reduced friction" to develop a nuclear bomb and receipt of food and fuel from the US. All the Clinton administration asked from NK in return was a "promise" not to develop a bomb during this period of so-called reduced "friction".
Guess what? Kim lied. Gee, who would have thought the guy was capable of lying? He completely ignored the treaty and spent the period of realtive peace and quiet developing nukes. The promise we got in return for food, fuel and reduced vigilence wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Clinton got played like a piano by a third rate country. You tell me who's politics work.
Now Bush has to deal with the same situation Clinton did in 94, with the "tiny" difference that NK now has at least 2 nuclear devices, the US has less options, and a potentially catastrophic threat to US mainaland. That period of "reduced friction' was sure worth it, huh?
We may have to deal with NK directly, agreed. As I stated before, direct negotiations are something NK wants, so we should extrat the maximum leverage from Kim in return for it, but hopefully we won't do as poor a job as those diplomatic giants, Carter, Clinton and Albright did back in 94. This is basic negotiation 101.
I am eager to have an intelligent discussion regarding the current administration's policies in NE Asia/Korea. I am desperately trying to understand the current SK administration's logic which has not been well-articulated or well-publicized in the western press. Just please spare me the emotional, slogan-based Bush bashing arguments that won't stand up to a reasoned discussion.
dss
Wednesday, February 19, 2003 at 09:12:52 (PST)
[208.165.224.68]
dss,
No one doubts that the it is sometimes appropriate to negotiate at arms length. However, dramatically changing ones stance in foriegn policy will cause destabilization the world over.
The destabilization of both the Middle East and Koreas can be attributed to our 180 degree changes of our foriegn policy in Isreal and NK. To play a blind eye to the simple factor of Clinton's political engagement of these idealogical competitors, which for the most part lead to some stability, is somewhat ludicris.
Do you see any reconciliation between palistine and isreal in sight. Or unification of the Koreas for that matter. Under Clinton's honest broker policies at least the leaders of these nations talked under friendly terms.
Bush's foriegn policy blunder with his "axis of evil" (a speech writers dream I might add) is really the source of the conflicts you see before us.
As for mentioning Cuba. It was just to point out political isolation of a country will not remove nor change the idealogy of a nation. The peanut farmer with Nobel Peace Prize ambitions has a point, if you want to change a nation you must engage it politically.
AC Dropout
Wednesday, February 19, 2003 at 09:02:30 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
dss,
We had less friction with North Korea and China under Clinton's administration. Under Bush, we're on the verge of military conflict with North Korea and South Korea will be the first to get hit.
You tell me who's politics work.
Keep in mind, it's not the responsibility of the US president to make sure North Korea treats her citizens fairly. As much as I deplore the government of North Korea and it's brutal militaristic and political strategies, we need to allow Asians to solve Asian issues.
As far as negotiating with North Korea directly, I don't see how we can avoid it.
Truman, FDR and Kennedy negotiated directly with foreign governments/leaders who they distrusted and loathed (Stalin, Kruschev). What if JFK followed your reasoning during the Cuban missile crisis? We certainly wouldn't be here discussing this topic.
Geoff DB
GeoffDB02@aol.com
Tuesday, February 18, 2003 at 15:54:50 (PST)
[172.194.83.117]
I Ching,
I agree that funadmentalist Christians wield a significant amount of political power, particularly in the curent administration....much the same as ambulance chasing lawyers, Hollywood movie stars, Buddhist monks, labor unions and Chinese "businessmen" wielded significant influence in the former administration. If we are now a "theocracy", I hate to imagine what we were in the 90's?
With regard to Korea, I explained, at your request, the rather basic negotiating tactic of agency and the neogitating leverage provided by inaccessability. Far from being "harmless techniques", they are powerful diplomatic tools aimed at achieving a peaceful resolution. It is when these techniques fail that other, less peaceful options become more and more necessary.
I am in complete agreement that NK's nuclear capability is an imminent and growing threat to the security of the US and its allies. I further concur that many countries are demanding an immediate response and resolution, chief among them North Korea.
The Bush Administration is handling the North Korean crisis "differently" than Iraq for the simple reason that they are DIFFERENT SITUATIONS, not because of some intertwined, tortured, conspiracy UN resolution theory or because attention to one situation detracts from attention to the another.
As mentioned above, both countries present imminent and potentially catastrophic threats to the United States. Agreed. However, military action in Iraq and NK will have vastly different consequences. Therefore, basic judgement, prudence, sanity and intelligence deems that the specific facts and circumstances of each case should be taken into account before military action, diplomacy, economic sanctions or some combination are applied and in what manner. Your illogical "one-size-fits-all" policy on military action strikes me as inane.
Different situations? A couple of facts:
Last war with Iraq: 100 hours, Republican Guard surrenders to news crew, 200 GIs killed, wide open terrain, threat to allies and large population centers - limited.
Last war with NK: 2.5 years, fanatical adversary, 37,000 GIs killed; mountainous and rugged terrain, Seoul 10 miles from the DMZ.
In Iraq, we still have a viable military option. In NK, it is too late. Diplomacy, economic and political isolation are our only options, arguably a weaker position than vis a vis Iraq.
The Bush Administration is, in fact, interested in a multilateral, diplomatic resolution of Iraq as evidenced by its sponsorship of UN resolution 1441, ratified UNANIMOUSLY by the Security Council, despite the fact that Iraq broke 13, count 'em 13, other UN resolutions and the Gulf War peace treaty over the past 12 years. The US, for the record also has the backing of 16 of 19 NATO members. Unilateralists, Germany and France, are forcing the U.N. into irrelevance by not supporting resolutions they have previously approved. We call this a "debating society".
dss
Tuesday, February 18, 2003 at 10:57:46 (PST)
[208.165.224.68]
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|