Loading ...
The possibility of the two Koreas undertaking joint oil exploration projects in North Korea adds another reason as to why surrounding states view Korean unification as problematic. The arithmetic is simple. A Korea divided, is easy to control – a Korea united is that much more difficult.
Negotiating with South and North Korea, despite the latter’s often hyperbolic description as irrational, is easier than negotiating with a unified Korea. There are distinct and predictable aims that both South and North Korea have. South Korea seeks to maintain a standard of living and pursues this through a close government-industry partnership. North Korea seeks to sustain regime control and pursues this through payments to centres of power in the Korean Workers Party and military. Ultimately, whether it is South or North Korea, there is a certain level of predictability.
If Korea were unified, this predictability collapses. A population of 74 million ethnic Koreans with an uncertain geo-strategic stance makes East Asian security just a little more unpredictable. Coupled with a medium-term economic recovery, as the 7th or 8th largest economy in world (South Korea by itself is currently 11th or 12th, dependent on measurement methods), strategic oplanning in East Asia becomes ever more muddied.
The possibility of the two Koreas in joint oil exploration brings home these thoughts to regional planners. If Korean reconciliation were not so strong, then it would be China, Russia or even Japan that would have an opportunity to exploit any potential oil reserves in North Korean territory. Instead, if reconciliation continues, oil exploitation will inevitably feed the South Korean economy (and ultimately the North Korean economy). South Korea imports all of its substantial crude oil requirements and is the fourth biggest purchaser of crude in the world.
To enjoy the strong support of regional neighbors, South Korea will have to ensure that they are co-opted into supporting Korean unification. This could mean demonstrating that they also stand to benefit economically from Korean unification – is this possible?
Share This
2 responses so far ↓
1 apple jacks // Oct 10, 2007 at 12:34 pm
The only reason to even take the argument that regional players would or do not support Korean unification seriously is that it appears in so many academic papers. Yet this, like so much of what passes for “common sense” about the Korean peninsula, makes no sense at all. How would China or Japan or especially the US truly be threatened by a unified (and presumably democratic) Korea. It would be a lot easier to deal with a unified Korea, which would still be weaker in economic and political power than the US, the EU, and China, than to put so much effort, time, and money into containing North Korea to make sure it does not put money or weapons into the hands of terrorists.
2 dilworth // Oct 11, 2007 at 8:52 am
I think I did not express my views clearly. China, Japan and the US are not threatened by a unified Korea. They are threatened by the uncertainty of how a unified Korea would position itself – would it be a close ally of the United States on China’s border, or would it revert to a Chinese sphere of influence… It is this uncertainty that makes many prefer the status quo.
If you were China, would you prefer to deal with North Korea (a state over which you arguably have substantial influence) or a unified Korea that is allied to the United States? If you were Japan, would you prefer to deal with a decrepit, impoverished North Korea (which granted, often presents a distinct threat) or a unified and stronger Korea in the Chinese sphere of influence (that would more than likely still threaten you from time to time)? In both cases, a divided Korea is that much easier…
Leave a Comment