No one will miss Kim Jong Il when his regime falls. But few stop to seriously think about what will happen when North and South Korea become one.
Via Marmot comes some pretty hard-hitting thinking from former Assistant Secretary of State Armitage regarding the prospects of a unified Korea (pdf).
At some point, a unified Korean Peninsula could cause some complications for the U.S.-Japan relationship. Korea has a robust population, relatively young. A unified Korea would have a huge military. And Korea would be a country that, very fairly, has often been described as a “shrimp among whales.”Â? I wouldn’t blame Koreans if they were to decide that they do not want to be a “shrimp among whales.”Â? The desire to end that role that history seemed to impose on them would be understandable.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
snow
April 7, 2006
8:30 am
Some leftist South Koreans are naive enough to think that they can play with China as an 'equal' and not get burned (by booting out the US troops and throwing away the US-SK alliance). Things will work out, as long as interests coincide, but otherwise, South Korea has to be careful. I don't believe China really wants any kind of reunification to occur between North and South, unless the US troops were out of the pensisula, with no chance whatsoever of them returning. It would be much more convenient for the Chinese to have the status quo of a weak, semi-puppet state in the North as a buffer for the Chinese. The North can also be a useful tool to be played off against the US in future problems with Taiwan. As long as North Korea can be a thorn in the side of the US, China can use it as leverage in dealing with Taiwan. That's why I think the South is stupid to forgo the alliance with the US with the idea of cosying up to China. There will be no cosiness. The first sign of trouble and SK will realize instantly that they were dupes.
At the same time, probably the only way that reunification will ever occur, is if the US troops are out, so that's one way to look at it. But if the US troops are out, there's also a good chance that US protection will be greatly reduced, in terms of militarily, as well as economically. This would put South Korea in a very risky position, of no protection in a potentially very hostile environment.
Curzon
April 7, 2006
8:35 am
Too true! That's what I had in mind in "this post":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/11/16/speak-victorian-think-pagan-exhibit-a/ and what I was talking about in my comment left at Marmot's post linked above.
sun bin
April 7, 2006
8:42 am
I think snow's comments are pretty much correct.
A divided Korea benefits China as snow has stated. But China also has an interest to (at least public) show unreserved support for unification, because it has the same problem (in fact, much more serious one) for itself, i.e. Taiwan.
Regarding SK's attitude toward US. IMO you need to think from their perspective. From their POV, Japan is always the 1st wife and SK always a 'concubine" (even after unification). It is natural for them to distrust US and find more mutual interest with China (i.e. in addition to the cultural linkage).
But Korea also has its problem with China, including (alleged) border disputes.
Won Joon Choe
April 7, 2006
9:11 am
I am afraid that it is not always helpful to "think pagan" about the Korean peninsula when that landscape, or at least its potentially dominant southern half, is no longer quite pagan but post-modern in the most decisive respects. It appears that the esteemed former Deputy Secretary of the State, in spite of his reputation as an "Asia hand" (a designation that doesn't impress me anyways for most part), has fundamentally misunderstood this reformed landscape.
To put it pithily: It is a mistake to affix one's gaze too intently on South Korea's frequent yet largely theatrical outbursts of national anger or more accurately "thymos" (something Aidan Foster-Carter wonderfully captured in a recent Far Eastern Economic Review piece about the splenetic character of the Korean people). In truth, the South Koreans today resemble Nietzsche's "last men," whose sole regard is "health," rather than a warlike people bristling to redress history's wrongs on behalf of the patria. They have most certainly left the regions where it was hard to live, and they emphatically do not want anything to eject them from their newfound Shangri-La of warmth. In fact, South Korea's current craven posture toward its Northern brethren has been equally driven by its understandable fear of a military catastrophe as much as its innocence regarding the true character of Pyongyang's heinous regime. Avoidance of war and pain at any price!
In this rather pacifist environment, it is most strange to imagine the unified Korea in the long-run maintaining a robust military. Where will the Koreans find the political will and the men to main it--especially when their Northern compatriots internalize the same bourgeois ethos? The South Korean youths have become so soft that avoiding the draft has become their telos. Further, once in the military, discipline has become ever difficult to enforce, and one wonders if these spoiled kids have the "andreia" to die for their country. And we haven't even gotten to the problematic character of the military in the South Korean psyche, given both Confucian culture and history. Suffice to say that the Korean military now has a serious morale crisis, given the historic persecution of the military class and more acutely the self-conscious effort of recent civilian presidents such as the two Kims to put the military back in its place.
In fact, Armitage doesn't seem to have a grasp of hard data either when it comes to Korea, much less more nuanced historical and cultural understanding. His description of the Koreas as having a "robust... relatively young" population is highly misleading. By some statistical measure, South Korean women have the lowest fertility rate in the world. And birth rates have been increasingly declining, as well as marriage age and marriage rate. If anything, South Korean demographers fear a demographics catastrophe much like the one foretold regarding Japan. A "huge military"? Perhaps in the immediate aftermath of the reunification before the North Korean military can be effectively re-socialized. But in the long-run, I don't see it.
Of course, you may ask: If fear drives the South Koreans, wouldn't they try to find a way to protect themselves? Indeed. I see two possible scenarios.
First, as I have written in a recent op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor, I think there is a very good chance that a unified Korea will try to retain Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal.
Second, the unified Korea may try to maintain neutrality. This neutrality won't be like the Swiss neutrality but closer to the neutrality pursued by the brilliant Choson king, Gwanghaegun. Gwanghae had adroitly played off the fading Ming and the emerging Ching against each other. The South Koreans in large part see the U.S. as the new Ming and China as the new Ching. In fact, a number of Koreans I've talked to who are in position to know these things have spelled out this as the best option, rather than maintaining the U.S.-Korea alliance or finding shelter within the traditional Chinese orbit.
I do not advocate this Gwanghaegun neutrality for a variety of reasons. I will merely adumbrate one of those reasons: History rarely repeats itself with arithmetic precision. Whereas both Ming and the Ching were equally malevolent entities as far as the Chosun were concerned, today I see one country that poses a clearly greater threat to Korea.
snow
April 7, 2006
10:02 am
snow
April 7, 2006
10:09 am
As with Quebec in Canada, the separatists there are dreamers who think they will get a better deal either as an independent country or as a part of the US. Quite ridiculous, as they want the same things that Koreans claim to want-more protection for their own culture and language and more freedom to act.
But as a small fry, Korea will never be able to act completely freely. If one of the bruisers on the block, such as the US, China or Japan don't like what SK has to say or do, it can be easily ignored, especially if they are supposedly independent. SK will have far more influence under the wing of the US than without. Who will listen if the US is gone? Certainly not the Chinese or Japanese.
Chief Wiggum
April 7, 2006
3:47 pm
Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » North Korea: Regime unstable?
April 7, 2006
5:41 pm
sun bin
April 8, 2006
2:26 am
well, do we really think any country is going to invade Korea in the next 200 years? (let's assume the NK will collapse eventually and count it out.)
if not, what kind of threat are we talking about?
likely invader in order: japan, china, US. but even for japan, it would be extremely unlikely.
korean are proud people. they do not want see see foriegn army on their soil. that is why they react to US presence. if it is chinese or japanese force there to protect them, the reaction will be a lot stronger.
---
btw, if you got a chance to view the movie "welcome to dongmakgol", and do not come out seeing this as a pro-NK or anti-US film, you have understood the delicate korea minds.
won jun chow, agree?
Mingi
April 8, 2006
1:12 pm
In the military realm, S. Korean gov't officials don't say much publicly, but their long-term armament plans, especially regarding its navy, indicate their fears are no longer solely with N. Korea but with a country S. Korea is already having problems with on the sea, China. And if you ask ANY S. Korean official dealing with issues on the sea (e.g. maritime police, academics, maritime ministry, etc.), they have few nice things to say about China whose growing seapower is a worry for nearly everyone in Asia, whether India or the South-East Asian islets that have territorial disputes with Beijing.
S. Korea by no means considers China as a replacement for the US-ROK alliance nor does it see Beijing as a benevolent great power. S. Korea, even under Roh, places importance on the alliance with America. After all, why is it that Seoul dispatched the third-largest number of troops to Iraq, only behind the US and Britain? And how many troops have the American hawks' favorite Asian ally, Japan, contributed to American efforts in Iraq? Japanese contributions have been pale in comparison to what S. Koreans have been doing, and Japan doesn't border one of the world's largest militaries. S. Korea has also dispatched these troops at a time when its responsibilities are growing due to US troop withdrawal from Korea. And let's not forget Vietnam, where tens of thousands of S. Korean troops fought.
The point is, while S. Korea in all likelihood couldn't "give back" everything the US has done for Seoul, S. Korea is doing what it can with what it is able to provide. S. Korea doesn't have the abundance in resources as the US, and it is doing what it can to sustain the alliance.
There are more and more S. Koreans, including politicians and academics, who think along the lines of this question: S. Korea-China relations may be alright now, but how will China treat a S. Korea that doesn't have a superpower ally like the US?
This question will factor even greater into how S. Korea, and even a unified Korea, thinks about China in the future.
sun bin
April 8, 2006
5:34 pm
all the paranoid respond to the Korea-China relationship is way overblown. it is simply what you would also do if you are put into Korea's situation. a relatively small (and divided) nation squeezed by 4 major power: a hegemone, a behemoth with largest population, a bully with largest area/resources and a historic expansionist/colonist which is both stronger and more advanced.
snow
April 9, 2006
4:49 pm
And Sun bin, I don't think invasion of Korea is too likely, unless China were to invade North Korea to keep it from reunifying with the South. Waht I'm basically saying is that SKers are dreaming if they think that 'independence' or cosying up to China while dumping the US would be better for Korea. Neither option would be better for Korea than remaining committed to an alliance with the US, at least in some form, and it would really be to SKs benefit to not give the finger to the US so often. Ultimately, even Roh realizes the importance of the US, so sent troops to Iraq. This is the reality that many in SK see as being in the best interests of SK. But it gets real tired real quick when the public view of the US, from citizens and politicians, is that the US is and has been a bad thing for SK. This public view is important, because it gives a skewered view of the alliance and could lead to some serious consequences, namely the destruction of the alliance with the US.
I just wish SKers would get over the inferiority complex and quit having to claim independence. If they truly had independence, it would put SK in a very weak position vis a vis the 4 powers. Who would listen to Korea's concerns if they were independent?
What is wrong with making mutually beneficial agreements with others? It's as if many in SK quietly go about their lives and business, making deals with the US and others, while the public view is quite negative to the US? Some Canadians have this same problem, loudly proclaiming themselves to be independent of the US and seeking an adversarial relationship with America. This is just an idiotic stance. As a Canadian, I don't feel the least bit 'inferior' to the US and yet I have a great deal of respect for the place. Why be an ornery contrarian, just for the sake of being an ornery contrarian?
And I still think that China poses a far greater threat to SK than do any of the others in the region, except for their brethren in the North.
Admiral
April 9, 2006
5:00 pm
lirelou
April 10, 2006
12:47 am
Curzon
April 10, 2006
1:38 am
Won Joon Choe
April 10, 2006
2:39 am
1. Sun Bin:
I do not believe my last name å´”? has a Chinese equivalent. So I am not sure why you called me "Chow."
At any rate, as for your question regarding the Korean movie you mentioned, I generally don't watch Korean movies--as I think they are almost universally fourth-rate and mimetic, copies of Hollywood or Japanese cinema.
2. I think Mingi simplifies things a bit, esp. in favor of Korea and to the detriment of Japan. First, while Roh did send troops to Iraq, those troops were pointedly sent to areas where they would not likely see serious combat. Second, from what I understand, Japan is constitutionally forbidden from sending combat troops overseas, aren't they? Besides, as a close Japanese friend who works for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs tells me, it seems like Japan can't win anyways. If they sent combat troops to the frontline in Iraq (and zealously took to their task), it would have been a pretext for more alarmist rhetoric about Japanese militarism in the Far East.
Finally, ceteris paribus, the better bet is that South Korea or Unified Korea chooses China over the U.S. in the long-run. I think those who think otherwise under-estimate the power of history and conversely over-estimate the patience of the American public or even policy-makers. Dave Kang in particular has done exceptional and interesting work on how East Asian international landscape hasn't yet conformed to the realist, balance-of-powers model, and will continue to likely bandwaggon on China, rather than oppose it.
3. Having said that, however, I don't think I took the position attributed to me by Lireou: "Along with Choe Won-joon, and Sun Bin, I don't see any future for an American presence in Korea once Korea is reunified, whatever the plans of this or future U.S. administrations."
Emphatic predictions belong to the realm of mathematics or the natural sciences, not human affairs. It would be extremely difficult, but I could see a scenario where the U.S. troops stay in Korea. One scenario is where China increasingly becomes more of a bully (accompanied by signs of U.S. retrenchment from the region), a foreshadowing of which Seoul has seen in its Koguryo spat with Beijing.
And as I have said a number of times in different fora (and as ex-pat Bloggers who actually know something about Korean political politics like Kushibo have commented), South Korea's ideological lurch to the left is greatly exaggerated if not entirely fictive. Kim Dae Jung and Roh Moo Hyun became presidents because they utilized the division in the South Korean right and co-opted major elements from it (Kim Jong Pil in the case of Kim Dae Jung and Chung Mong Jun in the case of Roh), not because South Korea has had suddenly turned Left. If Han Na Ra had been united, Lee Hoi Chang would've won both elections, period. And Roh is also currently extremely unpopular (in fact he is the most unpopular president in Korean history), and barring a dramatic change no traditional leftist Uri candidate (e.g. Chung Dong Young or Kim Geun Tae) can hope to win a one-on-one election with Lee Myung Bak (the likely conservative candidate).
sun bin
April 10, 2006
5:22 am
sorry for the typo, W is nest to E on the qwerty keyboard.
Choe does have a chinese equivalent, Cui, and is a fairly common last name. I think it was also spelled as Choi or Choy in Korea, correct?
Won Joon Choe
April 10, 2006
6:18 am
No problem.
As for your question, I believe the Chinese name you speak of is represented by a different character: è”?¡.
Won Joon Choe
April 10, 2006
6:22 am
Mea culpa: You are correct. I looked it up on Google to double-check, and å´”? is a Chinese last name as well.
Oh well: There goes another myth of Korean exceptionalism :)
sun bin
April 10, 2006
12:22 pm
many Cui in China are in fact Korean Chinese (e.g. pop singer Cui Jian).
where Lee (Ee) in Korea is different from Lee (Li) in China, I was told they just borrowed the character. I believe this is true for many other names as well.
(Yes, there is Choi in Chinese names as well, they are the Cantonese pronounciation for Cai, the character you wrote above)
-- so much for the OT.
slim
April 12, 2006
3:11 am