|
|
|
|
|
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,
> principles vs. expediency
its the age old delimma - expediency always seems to cost less but that is wrong!
principles only seem to cost more until, your enemies realize that principles have become your standard operating procedure, then they have to factor that in to your future responses, at that point principles don't cost more than expediency - that's secret beauty of principles.
> brinkmanship diplomacy
NK thinks it¡¯s the only card they have. The NK are either feigning schizophrenia or they actually are. What does a kid which is essentially powerless do, he throws a tantrum to get attention. I like to see a continuation of the sunshine policy – a type of tough love approach. They know that we know that they know the game is over.
> regarding the 30,000 troops,
I don¡¯t think they are the issue. You are forgetting the ¡°face issue¡±. China cannot ¡°abandon¡± its only remaining ¡°soulmate¡±, she would lose respect of the world, lose credibility. Also, even if the ruling class realize the folly of the past and current policies, they cannot get too far in front of their ¡°constituents¡± (mainly the Red Army), remember pioneers get ¡°arrows in the back¡±, especially in politics.
NYhomeboy
Monday, June 03, 2002 at 20:03:13 (PDT)
ka,
The key flaw to many of the theoretical economic policy IMF and the World Bank proposed and then chastise countries from not meeting their commitments. Is the simply fact that these are theories and not emperically tested. There are not 2 or 3 Argentina's or Thailand's to practice these theories on to make sure that all is sound in different environments. But that is not the concern of the organization, as long as the countries around to make their next payment all is well.
The IMF did more damage to Russia than any modern war, by helping to reduce its economy to rubble with their grand Keynesian economics recommendations. The IMF is a political tool as well.
Growing up in NYC I was familar with people in the loan sharking business in the Chinese and Korean community. What works on a micro-economic model also works pretty well on the macro-economic model.
AC Dropout
Monday, June 03, 2002 at 14:55:33 (PDT)
AC, I keep on telling you time and time again, but you keep ignoring the simple arithmatics.
You said, "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." First, I wrote time and time again that in fact that U.S. of A., is the biggest aid giver to North Korea--period. Who are the next biggest aid givers? Until recently Japan, followed by South Korea. These nations HAVE been giving HARD currency as well as food to North Korea. But again, you keep on avoiding the hard realities, because you can't answer. North Korea is free to do business with China, South Korea, Japan, and Europe. And even though these nations have agreed to trade with North Korea, trade is very minimal. Why? North Korea currently does not produce anything which other nations really want. Secondly, North Korea puts embargo on certain "sensitive" products. This basically means anything that says "made in South Korea" which might embarrass Pyong Yang.
North Korea does not allow ANY south Korean import apart from South Korean grain aid and South Korean technical expertise in KEDO. Now you keep going on about American embargo this and that, but so far you keep writing 3 sentences, "America bad bad bad." Now, when North Korea has failed to do a proper trade with the rest of the world, what in your wildest imagination would make trading with America any different? You need to do your homework and find out about the background info on North Korean commerce first. You think there are a horde of American companies just drooling to make money in North Korea? Only thing North Korea offers at this point is cheap labour--meaning that if American companies go into North Korea to exploit "cheap labor" marxists like you would go into violent shakes--the only "successful" business in North Korea from foreign investor's point of view is the Gumgang mountains tourism project. This project is only successful because South Korea subsidizes it. WOULD YOU INVEST IN NORTH KOREA? Would you put your hard earned savings and give it to Kim Jong Il? Then why are you telling me to give my hardearned tax dollars to a man that is KNOWNED to send his political enemies into gulags and be tortured? How can U.S. help North Korea? you are effectively saying that U.S. should give more and more money. That is an absurd foreign policy--so whenever foreign governments persecutes its people through poor governance, U.S. should step in and give money? Trade restriction? U.S. has been the leader in expanding free trade in the world--north korea is the leader in Juche ideology which emphasizes self-sufficiency and closed borders. AC, please do your homework before you keep on repeating your false mantras of Big Evil America not 'hurting' north korea with a trade sanction.
Again, AC, you obviously have not paid attention to my little econ lesson for you. I have not ignored the conflict of interest, I have spelled out for you in case you have trouble understanding me--that the IMF is not your friend, as much as your local banker is not your friend. But bankers are necessary as we do need loans.
You make it seem like the IMF is a great business--it is not. It is a horrible business. From a business perspective, it is one of the most horrible business I can think of. Risk is too high and the payback is too low. The purpose of the IMF is to insure stability. AC, what is it exactly about IMF you don't like? Please give me some specifics.
You said, IMF is damaging to small countries that does not have the resources to get loans on the "Best terms." please explain to me what you think "best term" is then. What you are saying is that IMF is bad, because loans and usurers are bad. That we should give direct subsidies. Isn't this what you are saying? Even now I don't get a clear sense of why you hate the IMF.
AC, you said,
"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."
Very well. I on the otherhand, am a poor man. Therefore, I seek to convince others of my political views, and hope others like me will make appropriate political decisions during election time. This is why I like democracy and freedom of speech--AC, unfortunately there are people in the world who have neither. And I feel that others should be blessed with these too.
I'm very thankful to God, that Marxists in general, are usually poor too, and will not have much in their checking account to hire a communist lobbyist.
Oh and one more thing, you know it was your least favorite american president George W, who have been talking about relieving Africa of her debt obligations. Well... what do you know. But if IMF and World Bank ceases to exist, I wonder where the developing world will get loans? From citibank? From J.P.Morgan Chase? I wonder if they'll get "best terms" from them instead.
ka
Monday, June 03, 2002 at 13:49:42 (PDT)
"Also, NORTHERN military units are FORWARD deployed, whereas SOUTHERN military forces are deployed defensively."
You know if go to N. Korea they will say the exact same thing about S. Korea.
"Does South play brinkmanship diplomacy? no. Does North do? Yes."
That's like saying do I need to get my hands dirty, when I have the resources not to. As oppose to a competitor that has less resource and tries to compete with my company and needs to get their hands dirty. The strategy the North engages is basically a neccessity of their resources.
"Chinese would think that 30,000 troops in Korea would make them so fearful..."
You don't play chess do you? The 30,000 may seem like weak pawns. But pawns are the initiators to the end game when the times arrive. If 30,000 troops are so insignificant, then S. Korea should invite them to leave based on your logic. If you do not see military situations where it would advantageous to the USA to utilize the troops in S. Korea, I can only state how blind you are the reality of military politics.
Remember USA publicized they have China on a possible nuclear attack target. Not the other way around.
AC Dropout
Monday, June 03, 2002 at 13:35:38 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|