|
|
|
|
|
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)
One Hangook,
A collapsed North Korea is not the best option. The best option is a North Korea that reforms. China is also changing. It's just a matter of time--I just want to see it accelerated.
ka
Friday, May 31, 2002 at 11:07:58 (PDT)
Weimar, I'm sorry about my recent stereotyping of all chinese people, but I think the more I talk to I Ching and AC, the more radicalized I become. I'll try to tone myself down. But I get very flustered when I see people making accusation, even when they don't understand their own accusations. People go to progressive websites and get these simple statements that say, "IMF is bad." And they never say why it's bad. it screwed over developing world. How? they don't know, because they didn't do their homework.
AC--
So you are a political isolationist, but not an economic isolationist?? You are telling me that politics and economics is nicely separated? And you accuse me of seeing the world in black and white. Let me tell you about the effects of your so-called political isolationism, but economic engagement. "Hmm.. so the government of Congo are killing civillians and financing slaughter through selling diamonds. Well, since the Congo isn't America, we will not interefere in its national sovereignty. But since President AC Dropout adheres to open economy unattached from politics, we should continue the import of "dirty" diamonds." In fact, this is what is happening with American politics today, because America refuses to get involved in these regions. Of course, you are right that in some situations, that we are better off looking the other way--which is the very premise of the Sunshine policy.
AC, you really aren't looking at the details of Clintonian diplomacy and compared to Bush diplomacy. Yes, I agree with you I prefer Clinton over Bush. Yes I agree with you that Bush shouldn't have had tariffs--he is violating my conervative free-market agenda--it is the democrats who support protectionism, if you haven't noticed, and it is tarriffs that block poor countries from developing. Controlled economy, of course is a favorite among the so-called "liberal", "democrat", "progressives." etc. But you say that we aren't giving N. Korea aid? so you think that those bushels of corn that U.S. sends to North Korea is full of sand... Which coutry do you think is the greatest contributor to the WFP(world food program)? I didn't know. Also, since when and in what year has the Bush administration abandon KEDO(the program of building power plants in north korea you are talking about)? Also for your information, even during Clinton administration the North Koreans were accusing the U.S. for stalling power plant construction.
Bush is not a good statesman, and he keeps on rattling sabres, and yes that is not very good. I agree with you here. But in my first posting what I said was the the "good cop, bad cop" routine of U.S. and South Korean approach to North Korea MAY not be a bad idea.
Yes NMD is a bad idea, because I don't want to pay high taxes for something that might not work anyway. But please note that if China aggressively pressure and succeed in having North Korea agree to nuclear and missile inspections, then U.S. would not be so paranoid and have no reason for the NMD.
And yes IMF has screwed over not only Jamaica. But you again ALWAYS chooses to ignore the finer details. What does the IMF and the World Bank do? Do you even know what it does? I'm fully convinced you do not, since you give a one sentence statements like "IMF is bad," without HOW it screwed over these economies. Central banks are often called, "lenders of last resort." Let's take a look at a simple banking system in each country. You deposit money in a bank, bank lends money to other people--other people use that money to purchase a home, buy a business, etc. They pay back the bank with interest. Bank might give you a small interest or provide you with services such as wiring funds etc. Now let's say that the Bank was full of stupid or corrupt(usually both) people who took YOUR money and lent it to either stupid or evil people.(again usually both) Bank never sees that money again, which means that YOU might never see your money again. When the word goes around in the public, everyone starts to go to the bank to withdraw their money, because they are afraid the bank is about to go under. At this point, the government steps in and gives a temporary lending to the bank to guarantee depositors that they don't have to worry. Government guarantee like this is necessary to keep people from panicking, but like in my example, what if the bank was full of cronies? What if EVERY bank were full of cronies? If EVERY bank is on the verge of collapse, then the government, the Central Bank cannot act as a Lender of Last Resort. Central Bank can only lend money to failing banks by three ways--1.printing money that creates hyper inflation as we saw in many Latin American countries.
2.borrowing from private sources--this becomes difficult if people have no faith in the government and is unwilling to lend to it.
3.borrowing from other nations. That is what IMF is about, option number three. Of course, the government has the option of letting the bank go under, and letting the depositors lose their life savings--which is politically difficult and definitely harmful to the depositors and also the economy on the whole.
Now, if you go to a bank and say to the bank clerk, "geez, I like to borrow 50,000 dollars." your bank clerk will say, "Mr/Mrs. AC, what do you plan to do with this 50,000 dollars? why do you need it? let me check your credit records."
When government goes to the IMF, IMF will do the same thing. IMF starts giving conditions. IMF is not a "friend" of the borrower, as suredly your local banker is not your friend, and is only interested in making money. International Monetary Fund is composed of money from member nations. Those nations will want to see their money back--and more over they will like to see their political demands met--which is why you say IMF is bad. (did you know why you said IMF is bad?)
Often the IMF will tell the country in question to reform its economy, and for many reasons, this will be unpopular. But AC, you don't look at details at all, you fail to realize that by the time a country goes to the IMF, they are so screwed, that no matter what the politicians do at this time, they will become hated. That's why I mention Argentina, but you have not been paying attention.
IMF typically will give these kinds of demands:
1. cut government spening--what this means is that government is asked to fire public servants or decrease the military or decrease health care or decrease education or you think of what other programs your government spends money on.
2. raise taxes
3. reform laws to enforce better banking or companies. What this typically means is that companies are asked to "open" their books so that other people can see what is happening to the company. Also it might mean that in case of South Korea, that Chaebols are asked to selloff failing units and consolidate their business--in other words, fire people who are not productive. Marxists hate this part, because pro-businesses policies tend to mean anti-union.
4. lastly there are "political" things thrown in, such as open market for foreign sellers, etc.
What I listed here are obvious not very popular. But since you didn't bother to think about the details, I hope you realize now that many poor countries with poor leadership who get their countries to this mess, have often very little choice but to follow IMF at this point. Some times these countries go to the extreme and have a Marxist uprising--nationalizing industry, printing money, etc. This has been a failure in ALL socialist nations.
What happens when a country says "screw you IMF"? Well Russia after it fell apart borrowed money from IMF, and decided not to follow through with it's agreement with IMF. So what did the IMF do? It decided not to lend any more money. Period. See? IMF goes in, when things are crazy. IMF is not very popular because IMF is the harbinger of doom. But the doom was not created by the IMF. You CAN however argue that IMF entices governments to enforce unsound economic policies, but that's not what you have been saying. Moreover, I would have to disagree with you even if that was your argument.
Now for World Bank, which I think you are confusing the two institutions for, lends money to the developing world, with the intention of "economic development." But like the IMF, it's not a charity. It is a "useful" organization where when an African/Asian/South American leader has a vision of roads or micro-financed small businesses can turn to finance his projects. World Bank is assaulted by rock throwing protestors in Seattle for two reasons. 1: World Bank like the IMF, makes demands on how the money is used, or makes demands on the public policy.
2: World Bank may be used by corrupt/weak rulers to use defit spending to prop up his short term popularity while putting his country to enormous debt.
African nations, when they encounter World Bank's demands get angry. Why? First the accusation goes that the World Bank makes eurocentric economic suggestions that continues the neo-colonial economic policies. There is truth in this. But the reason why I desregard a lot of these types of accusation is that Africans themselves acknowledge that these type of "aid" has a way of putting Africa in dependency--that what West gives as Charity stifles African grassroots development. But now we have a choice. What do we do? Do we give no aid at all? Or do we do whatever African leaders say? I urge you to do your homework on this, because only by doing so, will you be convinced.
Those protestors in Seattle who were talking IMF this and World Bank that, for all their poster weilding prowess, what they are effectively saying is that the rich countries give money to the poor. Or rich countries stop doing business with the poor. Or rich countires do MORE business with the poor. But they are always in contradiction with themselves with their only certainty being that the "white man" is out to oppress all colored people.
Lastly AC, I hope that one day you can wake up to the fact that USA or China or Korea does not have a sentience of it's own--that political leaders gain power on what they say and do by the suppor of his peers, and that the people of each nation, just like you, have a conscience.
All of us by ourselves may be weak, but you and me together, we are stronger, and with enough like minded people, can even change a government.
ka
Friday, May 31, 2002 at 11:06:29 (PDT)
ka,
"I'm simply implying that China should make an outright statement that Beijing will not give military support for Kim Jong Il."
Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that China can only make that statement if the USA also makes the similar statement about Seoul and the Blue House.
Well after February there will be someone else sitting in the Blue House. Even since his son was arrest Kim Dae Jung can only talk about the Sunshine policy without incurring the anger of the S. Korean populace.
AC Dropout
Friday, May 31, 2002 at 10:15:11 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|