|
|
|
|
|
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.]
dss,
There a few points I would like to disagree with which you have pointed out. Granted there are many people in our government who believes in similar foriegn policies as the current Bush. His father and Reagan were strong advocates of non-appeasement. However, I believe their methods were not precieved as blunt nor as inedpt as the current Bush. Even though the media in the USA like to paint the current Bush to be a kindred spirit of Truman, I would like to point out Truman was a strong advocate for the development of the UN.
So perhaps non-appease is a solutions to current problems in Iraq and NK, however, Bush is not handling the situation properly to ensure the USA is not precieved as the "bully" and may one day cause a formation of a "coalition against the USA." The seeds of which are already beginning to germinate.
As for the 1994 agree and who violated it first is somewhat moot in my opinion. For prior to the 1998 reactivation of NK nuclear program, the USA already violated the agreement by delay development of the light water reactor and cut backs in fossil fuel shipments. Even by sending the 7th fleet to the area we currently have violated the treaty with NK that ended the first war. I don't even want to touch on the subject of spy satelites and spy planes that fly over NK, which at the very least violates the spirit of truce from our prior conflict.
So this issue should not be a finger pointing contest of who violated which line of which contract. It should really be an issue of what is out goal in NK. Is it to prevent them from exporting nuclear technology to the middle east. Or is it another forceful regime change.
For if it is another forceful regime change. It best be with the consent of all our asian allies. Because unlike Iraq oil. Which we have an abundant supply of from other sources. Asia provides us with the actual technology that runs our military. High tech parts from Japan, SK, China, and ROC is what makes our high tech military so high tech. As the hawks put it we have an "economic assymetry" on that battle front with asia.
Yes but when Bill bombed Iraq in Dessert Fox, which was the reason for the inspection team pulling out, it was with some consensus in the international community.
Bush's "premption" and "regime change" is something the world is totally against at this point.
Not to say securtiy of the USA in not a top priority. However, the methods in which Bush is currently using to achieve his goals, will be a foriegn policy nightmare for the next president to resolve.
AC Dropout
Sunday, February 23, 2003 at 09:29:16 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
dss,
"...the underlying cause of current Korean destabilization..."
It's not Bush's fault that North Korea is a screwed up nation. It's leader is a crazy son of a bitch.
"Do you consider Neville Chamberlain's offer of Czechloslovakia to Hitler in return for promised European "stability" a good deal?"
There's no comparison between N/S Korea and Hitler/Czechloslovakia. Kim Jong II isn't asking permission to storm into another country. He just wants to be left alone to continue his own totalitarian rule.
AC Dropout makes a lot of sense. If North and South Korea unite, it will mean the end of Kim Jong's power. Once the people of North Korea get a taste of free press, once they get a taste of free market enterprise, once they get to vote and make more personal decisions, once they taste democracy, they won't turn back. Clinton's Asian foreign policy took that into consideration. Bush's policy does not focus on the correct method to bring about North/South Korean unification.
"Your statement has no substance other than you don't like GWB."
Personally, I believe the guy is an idiot. I think he knows only what is told to him by his right-wing, conservative GOP advisors.
Geoff DB
GeoffDB02@aol.com
Saturday, February 22, 2003 at 18:17:28 (PST)
[172.172.67.134]
dss,
"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."
I have to humbly disagree. The current Bush Doctrines is summarized by the words "Preemption," is based on his father foriegn policies that ended in 1992. The same players who developed his father foriegn policies also wrote the current Bush Doctrines. Hence, eventhough 9-11 might have been a catalyst, it is not the source of Bush's foriegn policy.
Bush did not become evangelical and a conservative republican overnight you know.
The only sane member in his cabinet that believes in coalitions and multi-lateral action is Powell. But even he is losing ground in a cabinet full of hawks.
I think what you are truly ignoring is that Asia is coming of age from WWII. They are interested in pursuing self determination above all else now. This explains why SK is interested in unification with NK. Not to mention that the SK populace feel USA is impeding the unification process in the Koreas and is risking their stability.
In fact during a european opinion poll a majority of europeans felt Bush was the greatest risk to global stability at this point.
On Bush's intellectual level, Spiderman says "With great power comes great responsibility." Too bad Bush doesn't see it that way. He must rid the world of evil-doers at all cost. And divide the world into the "us" and "them." Little does he realize there are more of "them" than there are of "us."
PS - All nations will get nukes sometime in the future. Trying to impede the proliferation of nukes, is like trying to stop the proliferation of hand guns or gasoline cars. The economics, politics, and individual desires are too great for these tools for any government body to ban.
AC Dropout
Friday, February 21, 2003 at 10:06:53 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
Geoff,
Your earlier posts tout the success of Clinton's policies and the place the cause of the current crisis on the Bush administration:
"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."
I am willing to discuss the merits of Bush's Korean policy given the hand he was dealt. You, however, have raised the tenuous claim that the current policy of non-appeasement, given a vastly increased threat, is somehow the cause of current friction rather than the root cause of inaction by the previous administration that was in power for a period of 8 years. Yet, I am engaging in Clinton-
bashing?
"When all else fails, blame Clinton". Answer the question Geoff: 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?
With regard to NK's compliance with the 1994 treaty, you wrote: "At the time, NK was not in breach, according to the UN nuclear monitoring officials (can't remember their exact name)."
With regard to the period of 'reduced friction' that gave NK the opportunity to develop a nuke, you wrote: "Not according to the UN monitors. It wasn't until recently that they re-started their nuclear facilities."
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on intellect, Geoff, but your post appears to claim that NK wasn't in breach of the 94 treaty until very recently and they didn't have a nuke until GWB prompted them by his axis of evil speach. NK then flipped a switch and now they have a bomb.
Geoff, I am not trying to be insulting, but you are seriously misinformed. NK has posessed nuclear weapons for at least the past two years. It takes a considerable amount of time (years) and effort (processing of spent fuel rods) to develop these weapons. Yes, their development and existence went UNDISCOVERED by the UN inspectors. So yes, we didn't KNOW for sure they were in breach until KJI recently announced that he had nukes and the CIA confirmed it, although he had been developing the nukes in violation for a period of years. The restart of their nuclear reactors is for the purpose of developing ADDITIONAL nuclear weapons for their own use or sale to another country/ terror group. NK had nukes probably before GWB even took office, given the six additional years the 94 treaty bought him.
You also wrote
"What else were they supposed to do, go in and bomb the country? "
You mean like Israel did in 1981 to the Iraqi nuclear plant built by the French. Thank God they did.
Or, by the way like "Bill and Hillary" did to Iraq in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 where Bill bombed Iraq for two weeks after non-compliance with the UN inspections?
Go do a little bit more reasearch first before you make uninformed claims like: "George W. Bush got us in this mess; Not Bill Clinton."
Oh, one final note:
"We need someone to deal with North Korea with the same masterful political, diplomatic skills that JFK applied during the Cuban missile crisis."
Do you think Kruschev would have even dared to put nukes in Cuba if Nixon was president?
Do you think Iran would have released the hostages if Carter was re-elected instead of releasing them an hour after Reagan was sworn in?
dss
Friday, February 21, 2003 at 09:46:56 (PST)
[208.165.224.68]
AC Dropout,
I agree with your observations. Yes, I believe one of Clinton's major goals was the reunification of Korea. This is not currently one of GW Bush's major goals. At the top of GWB's list is security of the American people and by extension, the security of our allies in NE Asia: ROK, ROC and Japan. Reunification and "honest broker" status have obviously taken a back seat given the current political and military situation.
We now know that Clinton's efforts to seek reunification and his deperate bid for the Nobel Peace prize was at the expense of the future security of the US and our allies. Bush now has to deal with the current situation where NK is now a direct threat to our mainland. Bush does not have the luxury of pursuing reunification given a nuclear NK and the current post-9/11 geopolitical siutation.
I disagree with your final conclusion that the Bush administration is heading towards isolationism. Based on current events, we are headed 180 degrees the other way.
dss
Friday, February 21, 2003 at 08:43:08 (PST)
[208.165.224.68]
I Ching,
The relevance or logic of your last post was completely escaped me.
Here's a little help. My previous post was a SARCASTIC listing of those special interest groups that wielded influence in the Clinton administration. As a matter of political reality, every administration, including the current one, must pander to these special interest groups. Clinton was just the most eggregious example in recent history. You miraculously interpreted this as equating to "democracy".
Back to the issue: I again request forum members to post a reasoned, rational argument against the current Bush policy in Korea.
With so many protestors, surely there must be an argument out there somewhere.
dss
Friday, February 21, 2003 at 08:33:42 (PST)
[208.165.224.68]
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|