|
|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES
Impact of Corean Unification
(Updated
Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:52:27 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.]
DC observer,
I see we have another one of those who flaunt their educational pedigrees on the Internet. Fine, I'll believe you that you are indeed an educated man/woman of law and public policy and is an "insider" of US politics. Still doesn't change the fact that you are a 21st century Chinese fascist, pseudo-intellectual. (By the way, i'm the arch-angel michael, and have privy to information pertaining to future events
provided to me by the Holy Spirit)
I do agree with you 110% that US lose nothing out of pulling out of the Korean peninsula. 32,000 troops are not merely symbols, they are infact hostages--if you are as educated as you claim to be this point should be obvious to you. 2000 Americans perished during 9-11, to which the response to this action is the massive mobilization of American troops into the middle of nowhere Afghanistan. In addition, this troop is about to bombard Iraq into submission--a spectacle that will in all likelihood, never been seen before. If North Korea should launch a surprise attack against South Korea, they will initiate a blitzkrieg sort of strategy which has worked in their favor on June 25 1950. They will use this strategy for many obvious reasons, primarily for the fact that they will be running out of fuel, munitions, and food. 32,000 US personnels sit on the DMZ. Both US and South Korean military personnels acknolwedge that they are merely "speed bumps" for the first few initial days North Korean invasion, which will undoubtedly and inevitably be repelled by overwhelmingly superior US/South Korean armor/air force/navy.
Now, you just saw US marching into Afghanistan and about to see them march into Iraq, virtually UNCHALLENGED. all because 2000 Americans died. This is very much like Pearl Harbor, where American hawkish sentiment gets fanned when massive numbers of Americans are killed by what they perceive to be a dastardly act. If 32,000 US americans die by a surprise attack, (civillian or not), the US public will massively favor a military reaction. The placement of those troops signals the south korean government as well as it's other allies around the world, that US delivers on it's promises.
To put it simply, this simply shows that United States of America is far more committed to the preservation of her allies, while China is a wishy washy partner at best. (Wishy washy, because they give nominal amounts of grains/oil to North Korea) What type of message does this send to the world?
Just yesterday there was a news where a Portuguese politician claimed that their relationship with US is more important than with the EC. This is what he said, "If Portugal should be invaded, I doubt France or Germany would come to our aid. (opposed to US) During Kosovo, France sent in couple of tourists ferries as military support, while the US sent C-130 cargo planes." In other words, US has earned the trust of South Korean public despite the recent anti-american protests. (just a week ago there was a massive pro-american rally to counter the recent anti-american demonstrations.)
The nation that is making Northeast asia unstable is NOT US, it is the People's Republic of China. For the past 50 years, United States have pressured it's allies to seek a non-nuclear military solution--Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan remain nuclear free, despite the fact that during the 70's Park Chung Hee started a nuclear program. During this same period of time, People's Republic of China has given missile/nuclear technology to North Korea.
North Korea is becoming a nuclear power, and you are naive to believe that somehow a unified communist Korea would fall under Chinese imperialism. And you say that you are a "DC Observer." I take this to mean, that you read DC comics.
You prattle on about the "ethical solution" of carving up Northeast Asia, and the entire region from Japan to Pakistan will become nuclear states. US cannot ignore a militarily inferior country like China, precisely because it has nuclear weapons. How many countries will China be able to annex, when they all possess nuclear weapons? Especially if a mad man like Kim Jong Il has nuclear weapons with a unified Korean industrial base, he will represent a far more dangerous threat to China than to United States. (afterall, US can play dumb and say, "You win, we won't be in Asia anymore.") Whereas Beijing will always lie only couple 2 hours away from Korea by air.
Stop smoking crack. I'm sure you are a very good Tax lawyer and your knowledge of public policy in regards to an efficient tax structure is quite extensive. But evidently your area of expertise isn't foreign policy.
Or maybe it's just that Beijing University pumps out fascist students, I don't know.
AC, I have decided not to respond to your substanceless babble, as doing so
is very much like talking to a wall.
P.S. If Chinese idea of "ethically preventing" war, is the support of political gulags and government sponsored famine of Chinese friendly North Korean government--I can already see WWIII approaching.
ka
Friday, March 14, 2003 at 10:49:40 (PST)
[168.103.182.191]
ka, your comments aren't really worth answering in depth, not because they are too astute or intelligent, but because they amount to a pile of B.S. Oh yes, and you can call me a "pseudo-intellectual" all you want, but I have a law degree and a MA in public policy, and I work in the US House of Reps. Finally, I say all this not because I *want* China to take over these countries, but because it is inevitable and it's the only way to ethically prevent nuclear war in the region. I repeat: the only way to prevent a nuclear conflagration and ensure peace in the region is for the USA and China to peacefully carve up the area, as in your own words. Even if I didn't think this were a good idea (as I do), I would still recognize that eventual Chinese control over Korea is inevitable. And oh yeah, by the way, I never said I thought that the North Koreans love the Chinese. The North Koreans are like a spoiled little baby of the Chinese. The Chinese are secretly laughing at them, using them as literal pawns, and the second the North Koreans are no longer convenient, China will devise a new government for them, probably one with a Chinese governor who reports to Beijing. As for the US, it makes no sense whatsoever for the USA to have troops in SK. The troops that the US has there right now don't amount to a hill of beans, they're just symbolic, and don't deter sh*t. They are just for show. The US loses nothing, absolutely nada, if the troops are removed from SK. In fact, the US gains a great deal if it simply withdraws completely from the Korean penninsula. In short: the best policy for the US is to withdraw all aid and support for both SK and Taiwan, allow China to peacefully assert control in these two places, and sign pacts with China mandating that they would be allowed to be free enterprise zones like Hong Kong. In return, the US could get concessions from China such as (for instance) getting China's vote of support on the UN Security Council. The whole thing makes sense and is a *pragmatic* solution, which is what we need. Howard Stern recently said, regarding Iraq: "Bomb the hell out of 'em. Screw 'em." Well, I wouldn't bomb the hell out of Korea, but I say "Screw 'em". Both NK and SK are farcical states living on borrowed time. It's time for the US and China to carve 'em up. That's the ethical solution to the problem.
DC Observer
Thursday, March 13, 2003 at 13:26:43 (PST)
[131.216.163.195]
ka,
Based on historial evidence China does have legitmate claims to Tibet, Outer Mongolia, Siberia, and Taiwan. All stemming from imperial Europe and USA during the 1911 revolution in China.
Whether you wish to share USA view that this will be expansionism, or China view regaining diginity from imperialism is another matter.
Will USA let SK go nuclear is a whole other issue. SK military is basically under the total control of the USA. You would be basically advocating the removal of the USA from SK, before SK can go nuclear.
Actually Japan is the world 3rd largest economy after China. It is slow slipping from its position.
Where do you plan to amass troops for a land invasion into China. Mongolia, SK, India, Japan, Taiwan, Russia, Afghanstan.
Remember most of the high tech hardware for the USA comes from China. Can't fight a high tech war with the source of high tech production.
Basically a direct war between Russia, USA, and China can not really occur without dire consequences to the world economy. Any arm conflict between these nations will be played out in the disguise of satelite nations. Korea and Vietnam are just some examples.
Also it seems a lot has been developing in the world beyond USA intellegence these days. Who knows who has what these days.
AC Dropout
Thursday, March 13, 2003 at 09:47:30 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
CSAA,
Actually China and Russia been having border skirmishes for centuries. I doubt either country has the ability to crush the other. If they did it would have happened already. Unless you want to study the Mongolian Dynasty one could say on China has dominated Russian land for any prolong period of time.
Russia and China have been shifting borders for ages.
Currently both China and Russia would form a political alliance to prevent USA from interferring in their interest in preserving NK as a buffer zone to the USA military.
A worst case, you would see the military of Japan, SK, and USA in a dead lock with USSR, China, and NK on the other side.
However, both support of USA foreign policy on NK from Japan and SK are questionable at this time. All our allies in the region are advising us to turn away from our current position. If our endeavor in Iraq is unfruitful, I guarantee you we will lose all support from our allies in the region on the NK issue.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if the SK govenment usurp the USA command of SK military forces to prevent further escalation of the tension, with the current adminstration in the Blue House.
We are playing a very dangerous game here. Because our only check against Russia and China, is our promises of future economic and military ties between our countries. However, if our economy keeps sliding, we will not have the economic card to keep USSR and China at bay. Also what if our military is attritioned in Middle East. Hence, they might take the opportunity to challenge our military presence in Asia, while we are still focused on Iraq.
In other words, we are currently over committed to the Middle East. Which leaves our domestic security and Asia presence exposed.
Not to mention we might have been hinting at pulling troops out of SK, as a method of applying diplomatic preassure on SK new administration. If the SK calls our bluff. What then?
Like I keep mentioning our current White House adminstration is causing more problems than they are solving on the international front.
But I do agree with you DC Observers post seem more like shock journalism than actual insightful information.
AC Dropout
Wednesday, March 12, 2003 at 13:22:17 (PST)
[24.136.115.189]
I check this site only every so often now, as it tires me out everytime I see a new horde of pseudo-intellectuals prattling on about how knowledgeable they are--
DC Observer, I'm talking to YOU. It seems that AC Dropout and I Ching has passed on the botan of delustional psychopathic fantasies to you.
The current anti-american sentiment in South Korea is fanned primarily by the idea that United States has "colonized" South Korea. When PRC makes South Korea into a Tibet, just as the Chinese fought the Japanese invaders, South and North Koreans alike will fight the PRC from Baekdu mountain to Halla mountain. You seem to hold this delusional idea that because Kim Jong Il is dependent on Chinese oil and food, that somehow North Koreans hold positive feelings about the Chinese--they do not. The north koreans regard the chinese as betrayers of communist cause. South Korean government on the otherhand is very dependent on US--especially for military aid--which is principally the reason why South Korea doesn't ally with China. Afterall, if North Korea launches a surprise attack on the South, China will never support South Korea, even if it should sever diplomatic relationship with United States. (like as if) Furthermore, 10 F-15 purchased from United States will have a much more devastating impact on the war then 100 outdated Chinese tanks or fighters.
Why would the US support Korea? China has already expressed imperial expansionist tendency (doing the same thing America was doing during the 1800's) by annexing Tibet. China makes a legitimate claim to Taiwan, but YOU start to lump in Korea, Mongolia, and Vietnam, then china becomes the new Third Reich, and hence a bona fide threat to US and hence a target to US minutemen ICBMs. Unless you are suggesting that Beijing and Washington sign up an agreement to "carve up" the world to reduce the chance of hostilities.
But you are a fool if you think South Koreans/North are just watching. North Korea is already going nuclear and if US no longer gives nuclear guarantees to South, South will no doubt become nuclear. If you think 200 million chinese dead by nuclear weapons while 70 million koreans die by nuclear weapons constitute a Chinese victory(800 million remaining chinese vs 0 koreans), you are really sick. I urge you to stop playing CivIII and get yourself a girlfriend/boyfriend. Go watch some pornos, it might do you some good.
And when this is happening you think the Japanese are just watching? Because the Japanese always give a pacifist line, you are greatly underestimating the military power of Japan. Japan is the world's 2nd largest economy(not china, my friend). They can be pumping out nuclear bombs at will. Already the North Korean antics have opened the debate of whether Japan should be nuclear--this was unthinkable before politically.
If China annex Korea, you think Japan will just look onwards? During WWII Japan called Korea, "the dagger that is aimed at the heart of Japan." China is a strong nuclear power. But asides from their nuclear arsenal, they have nothing else. Japan has no nukes, but it's Navy is far far more powerful then anything in the Chinese naval arsenal. (Japan has the 2nd highest military spending in the world.) The same is true for its airforce. The point is, you think the world has China and US duking it out with insignificant extras running around. On top of this you greatly underestimate US and overestimate China.
You wrote, "you really don't understand the dynamics of global geopolitics." Wow, that must have been a real mouthful for you to say, "dynamics of global geopolitics." You should do some homework on some facts before you start to point your fingers at others.
Put this into perspective, during the last gulf war, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops died. Couple hundreds of US troops died in the SAME war. A big antiquated army is no match to a smaller, more mobile, technologically advanced army. Never since the Mongol hordes slaughtered everyone from Koreans, Chinese, Muslims, and Russians alike, have we seen anything so assymetrically before. In addition, the US airforce is by far superior to what any other nation possess. Let's face it, PRC airforce can't even fight against Taiwanese airforce--this is a simple fact, not a way to humiliate Chinese people. (afterall Taiwanese have a strong airforce and they are chinese) Does China have stealth technology? No. What about tanks? I don't think that I really need to get into anymore details, because only a fool wouldn't recognize the fact that US is called a "hyperpower" by today's political analysts for a reason.
I'm not doing this out of some national chauvitism--but I'm trying to unveil that cloth around your eyes so that you can see with objectivity instead of ethnic pride.
This is nothing to boast about, but US has such a staggering number of nukes, there are military people who actually do analysis and considers losing everyone west of the missippi by chinese nuclear weapons to be a victory against a genocide of the entire Chinese mainland. (and despite the large numbers of H-bombs the Chinese possess, the bulk, can't reach american soil) Again, I have no reason to feel "national" pride that america can do this, but to show you the reason why Chinese political leaders act the way they do.
They don't lack balls. (something you have too much of evidentally.) but they certain have brains. (something that you seem to compensate with your many balls) In otherwards, US/Chinese possibility of WWIII is impossible, because of US overwhelming power and Chinese rationality.
p.s. it's fun to play armchair general, but you should think about how many real living Chinese people will die for your personal insecurities. I don't know, a small penis? Why do you have this insecurity?
ka
Wednesday, March 12, 2003 at 11:41:23 (PST)
[168.103.182.191]
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|