| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ronald

Joined: 14 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: Which side has stalled unification the most? North or South? |
|
|
A year ago, I would have automatically said the North. Now that I've been here a while, I wonder if the South doesn't have more to lose. For example, a cheap labor bureaucracy made up of a mandatory military service.
However, now it seems the South's mouth is watering over all that cheap labor.
Last edited by Ronald on Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Location: Goseong
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've heard that the North Koreans who do make it here are very much looked down on.
I tend to agree, South Korea has more to lose. It will cost trillions of dollars to bring North Korea's infrastructure out of the stone age. Many have argued that, if it happens, it will be much tougher then the reunification of East and West Germany.
I don't think if North Korea collapsed tomorrow (not that it will), that it would automatically mean the two countries would reunify. There are too many political differences between the two countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Everybody seems to assume the future of the Koreas is for them to reunite. Maybe the North government will collapse, but that doesn't mean they'll join back together. It would be nice to see two independent democratic states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
betchay
Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i wonder why, but most koreans i know are not in favor of reunification... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ronald

Joined: 14 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe it's because that's the way they've been educated? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bassexpander
Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Location: Someplace you'd rather be.
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
They're not in favor of reunification because they know it will cost them personally.
Taxes, etc.
It's sad to say, but the truth is that they dream of a united Korea, but don't want to have to pay for it, therefore they are against it. I've heard this same sentiment echoed by student after student.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... if the walls came down today, a lot of NK elite would become richer than rich, while the poor would still remain poor (although they would eat). Within five to ten years, there would be another revolt/war/whatever by the poor of the North who would by then have seen just how rich "everyone else" is.
Let's not forget that the reason the Korean war began was because people in the North were easily swayed due to their feelings of being taken advantage of by those in the South. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Passions

Joined: 31 May 2006
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koreans want anything and everything as long as it doesn't cost them a penny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea

Joined: 28 Feb 2005 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:10 am Post subject: Re: Which side has stalled unification the most? North or So |
|
|
| Ronald wrote: |
A year ago, I would have automatically said the North. Now that I've been here a while...
the South's mouth is watering over all that agriculture |
Maybe you need to study a bit more about the North mate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ronald

Joined: 14 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You're right, I shouldn't have said agriculture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Roch
Joined: 24 Apr 2003 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
I've heard that the North Koreans who do make it here are very much looked down on.
I tend to agree, South Korea has more to lose. It will cost trillions of dollars to bring North Korea's infrastructure out of the stone age. Many have argued that, if it happens, it will be much tougher then the reunification of East and West Germany.
I don't think if North Korea collapsed tomorrow (not that it will), that it would automatically mean the two countries would reunify. There are too many political differences between the two countries. |
Really, it took more than a trillion dollars worth of direct and indirect U.S. gifts (and their on-going billions and billions and billions in annual military freebies) not to mention the billions and billions and billions of dollars, yen, etc., from Japan and other nations to help the R.O.K. become much more modern.
Many South Koreans know this and do not want to lower their standard of living by trying to help their cousins in North Korea. They'll, we should predict, turn to the U.N. and other sources of money to foot most, if not all, of the costs of reunifying with North Korea.
I said as much to one of my adult pupils back in December, 2002, and he, a researcher in the topic of reunification for a think tank, asserted that this was the Korean government's plan at that time.
They'll have their hands turned palm sides up asking the traditionally generous nations of the world for the money to help them reunite with their families in North Korea. You just wait and see, eh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Location: Goseong
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Roch,
Do you happen to know what the name of the thinktank your student worked at? It would be interesting to read what they've published.
Then again, I guess I could Google it. I guess I'm feeling lazy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ilsanman

Joined: 15 Aug 2003 Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I will answer predictably and say it's mostly KJI's fault for no reunification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jvalmer

Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It is not in Japan's, the US's or anyone's interest in seeing both SK and NK going bellyup. Also, China would prefer a stable Korean peninsula than one that is tettering on the verge of an econmic collapse. All countries that have interests in Korea and the region will be as financially generous as possible, very very generous, in hopes to stabilize Korea as fast as possible in the event of a sudden collapse of NK. Assuming it's NK that collapses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Roch
Joined: 24 Apr 2003 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
Roch,
Do you happen to know what the name of the thinktank your student worked at? It would be interesting to read what they've published.
Then again, I guess I could Google it. I guess I'm feeling lazy. |
I can not remember. For some reason, I think that it is connected to Cheong Wa Dae. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GoldMember
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fools! It's never a Korean's fault, it's the fault of the USA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|