TWO BETTER THAN ONE?

...SOMETIMES

Here's an interesting article from today's edition of the International Herald Tribune (Asia-Pacific edition) about Korean reunification. It's certainly nothing new. The thought has been lingering in my mind for well over a year, and many others have discussed this idea before (print/blog/etc.)

In case the article becomes a for-pay excursion, it appears in its entirety below, with permission from me.

__________

Letter from Asia: For many, two Koreas may be better than one
Norimitsu Onishi

FRIDAY, JULY 1, 2005

SEOUL When South Korea's Ministry of Unification officials visited North Korea two weeks ago to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the historic summit meeting between the two countries' leaders, the talk centered, not surprisingly, on Pyongyang's nuclear program. As an indication of the ups and downs in relations between the two Koreas, there was little mention of the idea that had gripped the imagination of both sides of the demilitarized zone five years ago: reunification.

Back then, the South's Kim Dae Jung and the North's Kim Jung Il signed an accord that spoke of the "yearning for peaceful reunification of the fatherland." The meeting even earned the South's Kim the Nobel Peace Prize.

Breakthroughs have followed, ranging from high-level military talks to the joint manufacture of goods at a new industrial park just north of the demilitarized zone. That zone, the lasting symbol of Cold War division and still the most fortified place on earth, is a little less threatening, now that it has new roads up and down that government officials, businessmen and tourists from the South travel almost daily.

Hopes for the Korean Peninsula's reunification, however, appear to be receding. On and off the peninsula, everyone supports reunification - officially, at least. But five years after the North-South summit meeting, against the backdrop of a shifting balance of power in the region, strong arguments are heard that continued division, or at least delayed union, might serve, well, everyone's interests.

In South Korea, talk of reunification usually focuses on how it must be accomplished without causing economic or social harm on the richer, southern half of the peninsula. In other words, South Koreans are not prepared to suffer a lowering of their hard-won living standards. The government's policy, therefore, is to engage in economic projects with their northern brethren so as to reduce the gap between the two Koreas.

"At the time, we were very emotional, but within the last five years, we have cooled down," said Song Young Gil, a lawmaker from the governing Uri Party. "We now realize the realities of the two countries."

"The economic gap between the two Koreas is greater than it was between West and East Germany," he added. "So the more desirable situation is to engage in economic cooperation and to maintain the divided situation. We should help lift North Korea's economic level to at least 60 percent of South Korea's before we start to think of reunification. That will take more than 20 years."

Andrei Lankov, a Russian-born historian at Kookmin University in Seoul, says the South has, effectively, abandoned the idea of reunification. Its engagement policy's real aim, he says, is to prop up Pyongyang economically and prevent a collapse that would bring refugees flooding south.

"I call the Unification Ministry the 'anti-Unification Ministry,"' he said, "because it is the main government agency responsible for engaging North Korea. A collapse of the regime would be the quickest way to unification."

Since the peninsula was divided half a century ago, the idea of reunification has changed along with the balance of power and economics on the peninsula. Through the 1970s, as the North seemed ahead of the South economically, Pyongyang strongly favored reunification, calculating that it would come out ahead in a unified country.

"After 1979, the balance tipped in South Korea's favor," said Lee Geun, a professor of international relations at Seoul National University. As the South's lead over the North kept widening, the South's support of reunification rose, reaching its peak after the Germans unified in 1990.

Today, the North, despite flowery words about reunification expressed regularly by its official news agency, no doubt knows that East Germans did not fare so well in the new Germany.

Those with the most to lose in a new Korea would probably be the North's military elite.

"If we unify, we will have to reduce our combined military and absorb the North Korean military," said a senior official in the South Korean Army. "It will be very, very difficult compared to other areas of society. It will be the last area to be resolved."

South Korea, especially under President Roh Moo Hyun, has been distancing itself from Washington. The popular attitude toward the United States is perhaps best reflected in the daily presence of hundreds of South Korean police officers in riot gear who guard the U.S. Embassy in Seoul.

In a speech a few months ago, Roh stressed the importance of making South Korea's military fully independent "within 10 years." About the Pentagon's plans to transform U.S. troops here into a regional force, instead of one focused on the peninsula, Roh said, "It should be clarified that we will not be embroiled in any conflict in Northeast Asia against our will."

Roh said later that South Korea would begin to play a "balancing role" in Northeast Asia. He added that "the power equation in Northeast Asia will change depending on the choices we make," suggesting that support for its traditional allies, the United States and Japan, would not be automatic.

Reunification of a newly assertive South and a fiercely anti-American North would raise fears in Washington that its influence would decline further, especially at a time when it wants to project as much power as possible against China.

The fears would be even higher in Tokyo, which has always been keenly aware that the most combustible common element of nationalism in both South and North is lingering anger over Japanese colonialism and militarism. The rawness of the South's anger surprised Japan in recent months.

"Under these circumstances, it will be very difficult to get Japan, and to a lesser extent the United States, to give us the help we would need if we were to seek reunification," said a former senior South Korean Foreign Ministry official.

The other country whose backing would be critical is, of course, China. To Beijing, Pyongyang is a Communist ally, and the influence the Chinese are said to hold over it increases their stature and bargaining power with Washington, as in the stalled multiparty nuclear talks.

What's more, China might fear that a unified peninsula would actually lean toward Washington and that U.S. troops could move up to its border, taking away the North Korean buffer. For the Chinese and everyone else perhaps, division might be preferable to the uncertainties of reunification, which they support, officially, at least.

__________

Posted by The Cracked Potter