|
|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES
Impact of Corean Unification
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.]
(Updated
Wednesday, Jan 22, 2025, 06:38:55 AM)
Red China needs to STOP supporting North Korea! If the Red Chinese stop their political and military support, North Korean regime will likely collapse and have no choice but to concede to unification on South Korea's terms. Of course, Red China will continue to support North Korea simply because they share ideology and strategic interests. That's why China needs to be democracy before any change can happen in the negotiations on the Korean peninsula. We South Koreans must encourage the Chinese to be more democratic like us so they can support us in unification efforts and remove the evil North regime who are killing and starving our Korean brothers and sisters in the North.
One Hangook
Thursday, May 30, 2002 at 17:36:45 (PDT)
ka,
"You Chinese, you guys are really great. Now I see why not a single moderate Chinese person posted on this forum, because, wow... Fascism is right! Might makes Right! American can nuke everyone too! Yey!"
AC and I Ching do not represent all Chinese opinion on this subject. But you are probably correct in your observation that too few moderate Chinese speak up on this issue and others. The surge of nationalism /patriotism among Chinese youth is pretty scary these days, fascism may not be inappropriate. We should stand up for ourselves of course, but that doesn't mean that we need to try and force other nations into our orbit.
Fortunately, most Chinese leaders have been pretty uncharismatic as of late. I would be very afraid if a Hitler or Tojo like leader were to appear on the Chinese political scene.
Try to remember that there are plenty of Chinese moderates out there too. It's easy to rant and rave about fighting the U.S., subjugating Corea and invading Taiwan when you are sitting behind a computer in America. Most Chinese in the real world are more pragmatic than here in Goldsea.
Weimar Chinese
Thursday, May 30, 2002 at 13:29:49 (PDT)
NYhomeboy, I think you are right that it's so hard for South Koreans to take up a more principled stance.
It's such a quagmire. On one hand, you have South Korean people who want to see that North Koreans don't have to starve to death. On the other, you have South Korean people who don't want to pay for it. Afterall, it's not South Korea's fault that North is in this mess.
It poses a problem for U.S., China, Japan, and even in Russia there are news that North Koreans are used as gulag workers in Siberia.
I'm not advocating that China should open up her border and let 20 million North Korean people flee from Kim Jong Il's despotism. Afterall, South Koreans on the most part would fear this just as much as the Americans and Japanese who are afraid of influx of migrants. There are real reasons why a sudden unification would be bad for North Korean people--namely that North Korean people will receive discriminations from the South--and South Korea might effectively "colonize" the North.
I'm simply implying that China should make an outright statement that Beijing will not give military support for Kim Jong Il. If we take away the option of militancy from North Korea, they may wake up to the fact that they can't win a war of confrontation, and therefore should seek genuine peace. This will allow both North AND South Korea to reduce arms and use government resources more effectively. On top of that it would take away the very reason why the U.S. is in Korea, aggravating the Chinese, and furthermore, China also wouldn't have to spend an enormous amount of military resources in the Northeast region.
Right now China is progressing at a breakneck speed, and laissez-faire policy is very dangerous for China. If North Korean refugee problem destablizes the already poor region of Northeast China in addition to problems in the West, an unstable China can prove to be even more militant towards South Korea, making North-South relations even more of a pipe dream.
For the remainder of the term for Kim Dae Jung, South Korea should employ Sunshine policy. If after next February North makes absolutely no progress, only then, I think, South should take a much more hardened stance.
I think that overall, the sunshine policy has been a failure. But I still think there are merits to this policy, and it should at least be carried to term by Kim Dae Jung. Kim Jong Il will sooner or later have to learn that if he waivers on a genuine approach for peace, then he might face a much more hardened South Korean president.
ka
Thursday, May 30, 2002 at 11:24:07 (PDT)
ka,
You've gone over the deep end. The language, the frustration, the Yiddish. Will I have to pay for you sexual favors?
If you must know, I'm a political isolationist. No point in going too far with political ideals when it comes to trade.
Also I agree with Clinton's direction. Aid to develop Nuclear Power with N. Korea. It is better to keep enemies closer than totally isolated as Bush likes to do.
But then I'm only an individual citizen, can't really do much in foriegn affairs with the executive branch of government. You know the War Powers Act give Bush a lot of discretion at this point.
Counter points:
1. We have with the steel tariff imposed
2. We don't give aid to N. Korea right now
3. IMF destroyed Jamaica's healthy economy
4. We have with the NMD plan
USA interest in S. Korea is all geopolitical. Had nothing to do with right, or moral, or just. I'm sure many S. Korean now question the righteousness, the morality, and the justice of the Blue House.
Since USA interest is only geopolitical the question then is whether unification can occur in the current political climate of USA with PRC. Or even when the political sphere of influence shifts back the PRC?
AC Dropout
Thursday, May 30, 2002 at 10:43:21 (PDT)
I now see the difficulty the SK and Americans are faced with when negotiating with the N Koreans for past 50 years.
Unfortunately, I Ching's type of mindset would be considered a moderate compared to the N Koreans.
Life it too short...let the people go free - you don't own them...and please dear leader don't think we are all after your lunch... we have plenty and enough to share.
NYhomeboy
Thursday, May 30, 2002 at 10:23:34 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|