|
|
|
|
|
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)
ka,
Personally when I want to make a change in local government. I open my check book and hire a professional lobbiest. I don't like pushing air as they call it.
That was a very informative little piece on WB and the IMF. However, throughout your little piece. You carefully ignored the two conflicting issues of these institutions.
1) To help poor nation with the injection of capital.
2) To remain in business by collecting on interest from these loans.
These two goals always come in conflict. And is especially damaging to smaller countries who do not have the resources to present good applications for the best loans.
Yes the IMF and the World Bank love making suggestions. But you always have to take it with a grain of salt. Most of the time the people who are making the suggestions don't even live in the country, and are only concerned that the country is around to make its next installment payment.
Look if you don't see how USA can direct help N. Korea out of its near future problems, just by openning up trade restrictions. Countries cannot change without money and food.
AC dropout
Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 21:53:44 (PDT)
AC Dropout--
Again you fail to examine the finer details. Since the armistice of 1953, ALL military provocations came from the NORTH. Also, NORTHERN military units are FORWARD deployed, whereas SOUTHERN military forces are deployed defensively. Furthermore, AC, you again ignore the finer detail that North has adopted military first policy while the South has been engaging in Sunshine approach.
You say "tit" for "tat", but you fail to realize that one side has clearly an offensive strategy. Does South play brinkmanship diplomacy? no. Does North do? Yes. But you always like to ignore the finer details.
The devil is in the details. I hope that you can get over your 2-dimensional view of the world.
AC, Kim Dae Jung has improved Korean-Japanese relations as well as Korean-Chinese relations. Based on a "sunshine" principle South Korea has made peace initiatives which the North has ignored. The longer the Northern government stifles reforms, the more of a deep whole North is digging. When North do fallapart, the resulting chaos will be extremely harmful to Chinese interests--just think hundreds of thousands of NOrth Korean people fleeing to China. You keep on saying "chinese interests" this and that, but you still fail me to show me why the Chinese would think that 30,000 troops in Korea would make them so fearful, when already the military balance is so skewed in favor of the U.S. Please explain to me what those 30,000 U.S. troops can do against China. It can "hem" China in? How does this harm China? You can't say, because you don't know. What, you think U.S. marines will land in Tibet and free Tibetans from the Chinese? You think 30,000 U.S. soldiers will march into Beijing to trigger a nuclear war? You think 30,000 U.S. personnel will sink Chinese fishing boats in the Yellow Sea and block Chinese passenger airlines from flying over Korea and Japan? Please explain to me what that 30,000 U.S. troops mean to the Chinese.
ka
Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 19:14:18 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|