Cost Benefit Analyses Of Unification And Economic Integration Strategies Of The Korean Peninsula

Preface Ⅰ.A Study to Analyze Cost­Benefits of the Reunification of Korean Peninsula to the United States (Marcus Noland) 1. Unification Scenarios and Interests of the United States 2. General Equilibrium Calibration of Unification 3. Implications for the United States from the Gravity Model 4. Policy Issues Ⅱ.A Study to Analyze Cost­Benefits of the Reunification of Korean Peninsula to China (Jin Jingyi et al.) 1. Introduction 2. Ideal Condition of the Korean Peninsula within China’s Development Strategy in Northeast Asia 3. Unification of the Korean Peninsula and Economic Benefits for China 4. Unification of the Korean Peninsula and Security Benefits for China 5. Sino-Korean Cooperation Strategies for Korean Unification 6. Conclusion Ⅲ.A Study to Analyze Cost­Benefits of the Reunification of Korean Peninsula to Japan (Kyoji Fukao et al.) 1. Introduction 2. Scenarios of Economic Development after Unification 3. Increase in GDP and Employment in Japan and Other Major Economies 4. A ‘Super Korea’ as Japan’s Rival in the East Asian Division of Labor 5. Financing North Korea’s Infrastructure 6. Role of Japanese Private Firms in Supporting the Infrastructure Projects Ⅳ.A Study to Analyze Cost­Benefits of the Reunification of Korean Peninsula to the Russian Federation (Alexander Zhebin et al.) 1. Factors Determining Russia’s Korean Policy 2. Major Shortcomings of the Existing Reunification Scenarios 3. Cost-Benefits of 5 Unification Scenarios 4. Suggestions for South Korea’s Unification Policy Ⅴ. The Effects of Economic Integration between South and North Korea(Sung Hankyoung) 1. Introduction 2. Changes due to Economic Integration 3. Model and Scenario 4. Analysis of Results by Scenario 5. Comparative Analysis of Scenario Results 6. Policy Implications Ⅵ.Gradual Economic Integration between South and North Korea and Economic Cooperation in Northeast Asia (Kang Moonsung et al.) 1. Introduction 2. Fundamental Directions for Achieving Economic Integration of North andSouth Korea 3. North and South Korean Economic Integration and Effects on NortheastAsian Division of Labor 4. North and South Korean Economic Integration and Northeast AsianEconomic Cooperation 5. Gradual Achievement of South and North Korean Economic Integration Ⅶ.Analysis on Diplomatic and Security Benefits of Unification and Strategies for Unification (Chun Chae-sung et al.) 1. Introduction 2. International Politics in the Current East Asian Region 3. Position on the Unification in the Korean Peninsula of Countries US, China,Japan and Russia 4. Unification Diplomacy Strategies for the Unified Korean Peninsula vis-à-visNeighboring Countries Those of us living in the contemporary times have a common mission to achieve unification in the Korean peninsula for the joint progress of South and North Korea based on the support of the international society and Northeast Asian cooperation. Korean unification is also an historical imperative for the Koreans who have been one nation and one people for a long time. Therefore it is necessary to present to the government strategies and policy alternatives through in-depth research on ‘when’ and ‘how’ unification would be achieved, and ‘what’ kinds of impact it would have, rather than ‘if’ it will happen. In this respect, this book is a summary of 7 studies conducted under the ‘Research Project on the Unified Korea and Northeast Asian Economic Cooperation’. Its main contents include analyses on the costs and benefits of the unification of Korea in the perspective of its four neighboring countries—US, China, Japan, and Russia; effects of inter-Korean economic integration in Korea’s perspective, and analysis of diplomatic/security benefits of unification. The world is now more interconnected than ever, and Korean unification will invariably impact its neighbors. In this regard, the cost-benefit analyses of the four countries are quite meaningful in that 12 overseas Korea specialists analyze the benefits of Korean unification and provide policy suggestions to maximize these benefits from the perspective of their own respective countries. In addition, the three research projects conducted by 11 domestic experts which provide advice on the effects of economic integration along with strategies for Northeast Asian cooperation based on their analysis on inter-Korean economic integration and diplomatic/security benefits of unification are also extremely valuable. The research projects conducted by researchers from 4 major countries present four unification scenarios-status-quo, North Korea’s reform and opening-up, absorption of the North by South Korea, and peaceful unification. In the case of peaceful unification, which is preferable to all parties involved, the US, China, Japan, and Russia will all witness an increase of $7.6 to 48.5 billion in their GDPs, and creation of 210,000 to 5,640,000 new jobs, resulting in positive ripple impacts for all 4 countries. According to the analyses, China will be the biggest benefactor of Korean unification, the US and Japan will reap similar benefits, and Russia will benefit the least. In the event of Korean unification, China’s three northeast provinces will become a vibrant logistics center and hub for the Eurasian Continent and the Pacific region. According to the study by Japanese researchers, a ‘Super Korea’ will emerge after Korean unification, rivaling Japan. The russian researchers analyzed that if energy exports increases; and the Siberian railway and gas pipeline were connected all the way to the Korean peninsula as a result of unification, it will lead to an economic boom in the Far East. Domestic researchers show that unification will bring changes in factors of production, market expansion, decrease in military spending, and improvement in international credit rating. According to their various unification scenarios, North and South Korea’s GDP growth rates will increase 16%p and 1%p respectively between 2016 and 2030. In the early stages of unification, independent currencies should be used but One Korea Indexed Unit of Account (OKU) must also be introduced; and in order to make use of North Korea’s human resources, disparity of wages between South and North Korea is unavoidable. They also analyze that a unified Korea will contribute to the resolution of the security dilemma in Northeast Asia by buffering the competition for economic and military hegemony between major powers such as the US vis-a-vis China and China vis-a-vis Japan, facilitating cooperation. Also, North Korea’s denuclearization alone will, in and of itself, significantly benefit neighboring countries. Those of us living in the contemporary times have a common mission to achieve unification in the Korean peninsula for the joint progress of South and North Korea based on the support of the international society and Northeast Asian cooperation. Korean unification is also an historical imperative for the Koreans who have been one nation and one people for a long time. Therefore it is necessary to present to the government strategies and policy alternatives through in-depth research on ‘when’ and ‘how’ unification would be achieved, and ‘what’ kinds of impact it would have, rather than ‘if’ it will happen. In this respect, this book is a summary of 7 studies conducted under the ‘Research Project on the Unified Korea and Northeast Asian Economic Cooperation’. Its main contents include analyses on the costs and benefits of the unification of Korea in the perspective of its four neighboring countries—US, China, Japan, and Russia; effects of inter-Korean economic integration in Korea’s perspective, and analysis of diplomatic/security benefits of unification. The world is now more interconnected than ever, and Korean unification will invariably impact its neighbors. In this regard, the cost-benefit analyses of the four countries are quite meaningful in that 12 overseas Korea specialists analyze the benefits of Korean unification and provide policy suggestions to maximize these benefits from the perspective of their own respective countries. In addition, the three research projects conducted by 11 domestic experts which provide advice on the effects of economic integration along with strategies for Northeast Asian cooperation based on their analysis on inter-Korean economic integration and diplomatic/security benefits of unification are also extremely valuable. The research projects conducted by researchers from 4 major countries present four unification scenarios-status-quo, North Korea’s reform and opening-up, absorption of the North by South Korea, and peaceful unification. In the case of peaceful unification, which is preferable to all parties involved, the US, China, Japan, and Russia will all witness an increase of $7.6 to 48.5 billion in their GDPs, and creation of 210,000 to 5,640,000 new jobs, resulting in positive ripple impacts for all 4 countries. According to the analyses, China will be the biggest benefactor of Korean unification, the US and Japan will reap similar benefits, and Russia will benefit the least. In the event of Korean unification, China’s three northeast provinces will become a vibrant logistics center and hub for the Eurasian Continent and the Pacific region. According to the study by Japanese researchers, a ‘Super Korea’ will emerge after Korean unification, rivaling Japan. The russian researchers analyzed that if energy exports increases; and the Siberian railway and gas pipeline were connected all the way to the Korean peninsula as a result of unification, it will lead to an economic boom in the Far East. Domestic researchers show that unification will bring changes in factors of production, market expansion, decrease in military spending, and improvement in international credit rating. According to their various unification scenarios, North and South Korea’s GDP growth rates will increase 16%p and 1%p respectively between 2016 and 2030. In the early stages of unification, independent currencies should be used but One Korea Indexed Unit of Account (OKU) must also be introduced; and in order to make use of North Korea’s human resources, disparity of wages between South and North Korea is unavoidable. They also analyze that a unified Korea will contribute to the resolution of the security dilemma in Northeast Asia by buffering the competition for economic and military hegemony between major powers such as the US vis-a-vis China and China vis-a-vis Japan, facilitating cooperation. Also, North Korea’s denuclearization alone will, in and of itself, significantly benefit neighboring countries.

A major area of concern for Korean unification is the immense cost it will impose on South Korea. To lessen this burden, South Korea will need to initiate policy reforms that can ease the financial stress and repercussions of unification and create an integrated economic community with North Korea. At the same time, North Korea will need to create an environment that is conducive to economic integration by accepting and adopting reform measures that can build the foundation for a market economy. The two largest factors to any economic reform strategy in North Korea would be to overcome the changes to the political-belief system that drives the current economy and the strong link between the state and masses. A policy of engagement will create an environment in which inter-Korean dialogue and mutual cooperation could lead to a transformed, opened North Korea. The unification of Germany and Yemen offer pros and cons as well as similarities and dissimilarities to Korea to form certain conclusions, predictions, and prescriptions. The case studies of China and Vietnam provide a detailed analysis of planned economies transitioning to market economies. From these case studies, several conclusions are drawn regarding the implications of economic unification.

This book analyzes the cost of division that the four powers must bear as well as the benefits of nification they will acquire. There has been much research on the same topic, but mostly done from the perspective of Korean scholars. However, this book provides perspectives of scholars from each of the four states as well as Asia-Pacific region. This book is part of an ongoing effort by KINU to strengthen South Korea’s unification diplomacy. This book is divided into 10 chapters. Chapter 1-8 analyze the cost of division and the benefits of unification from the security and economic perspective of the United States, Japan, China, and Russia. Chapter 9 and 10 look at the bigger picture by discussing the division cost and benefits of unification from the standpoint of the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. Based on the analyses of the chapters, the conclusion chapter examines the similarities and differences of the division cost that the four powers must bear as well as the benefits they will obtain. Introduction The Costs of Division and the Benefits of Unification for the Four Northeast Asian Powers/ Kook-Shin Kim, Jae-Jeok Park Chapter 1 The Costs of Korean Division and the Benefits of Korean Unification for U.S. National Security/ Kongdan Katy Oh Chapter 2 Economic Implications for the United States of the Divided Korean Peninsula/ William B. Brown Chapter 3 Korean Peninsula Division/Unification and China : From the Security Perspective of China/ Ming Liu Chapter 4 Korean Peninsula Division/Unification and China : From the Economic Perspective of China/ Jiyoung Zheng,Jianzhong Jiang Chapter 5 Korean Peninsula Division/Unification : From the Security Perspective of Japan/ Tomohiko Satake Chapter 6 Costs and Benefits of Korean Unification for Japan : Political and Economic Perspectives/ Sachio Nakato Chapter 7 Korean Peninsula Division/Unification and Russia : From the Security Perspective of Russia/ Leonid Petrov Chapter 8 Korean Peninsula Division/Unification and Russia : From the Economic Perspective of Russia/ Alexander Fedorovskiy Chapter 9 Korean Peninsula Division/Unification and Security Order in the Asia-Pacific Region/ Thomas S. Wilkins Chapter 10 Korean Peninsula Unification : Opportunities and Challenges to Asia-Pacific Economies/ Jeffrey Robertson

The North Korean economy cannot sustain its population. Absent fundamental economic reforms, it will never be able to do so. Hence North Korea will require sizable external support for the foreseeable future. South Korea, China, Japan, and the United States have been willing to provide this support because they fear a collapse in the North or, even worse, a lashing out that would unleash war on the peninsula and put millions of people in Asia in jeopardy--including thousands of US troops stationed in South Korea and Japan. The status quo is thus closer to extortion than charity. In this volume, a diverse group of contributors analyze prospective developments on the Korean peninsula. The authors first address the three broad strategic possibilities of war, collapse, and gradual adjustment. Four immediate policy issues are then considered: the current economic conditions and policies in the North, the food crisis, the nuclear energy/nuclear weapons issue, and the possibility of large-scale refugee flows. Finally, the volume considers several longer-run issues concerning the inevitable integration of the peninsula: the potential relevance of the German experience, the costs and benefits of economic unification between North and South Korea, and the possible role of the international financial institutions in funding the new arrangement. The volume concludes with recommendations for policymakers, especially in the United States and South Korea, from the preceding analyses.

Twenty-five years have passed since the system transformation initiated from Central and Eastern Europe in 1989. Since then, studies of social science have focused more on the external phenomenon that caused the collapse of the socialist system. Immediately after building the system, much attention was centered around the ‘revolution of a society and the establishment of the system,’ until it was replaced by the ‘maintenance of the system.’ The disintegrated socialist system was a part of living mechanism that was introduced to manage human societies in the former Soviet Union, including Central and Eastern European countries. The living mechanism has endured in a collective manner through diverse organically-connected fields. Therefore, the theories of socialist system is to simultaneously analyze the political, economic, and socio‐cultural transformations by taking this organic living mechanism into consideration. In addition, this analysis is subject to be established based on a generalized perspective which is commonly drawn from various examples regarding the system transformation. Upon these studies, we have continued on the analysis of the costs and benefits of Korean Unification which was launched in 2011. In this year’s research, we decided to view lessons from the system transformation and integration of the countries that had already undergone similar processes. Scholars from seven different countries were asked to submit papers on the analysis of system transformation or integration on their countries as well as the implications on the unification process of the Korean peninsula. Various implications, concerning Korean unification, are suggested by each scholar. In Poland’s perspective, seeking consensual relations with major powers in the Northeastern Asia seems to be an encouragement of the unification process. Polish case indicates that in the unified Korea, some major economic efforts must be undertaken to lift out the North Korean population from poverty. Romanian scholar mentioned mainly about how the economy should be transformed and how the North Korean totalitarian managements should be dealt with after the unification. Czech and Slovenia pointed out that the biggest obstacle in their system transformation was the ‘socialist way of thinking’ which had been indoctrinated into the population so that Korean must take it into consideration. Ukraine and Kazakhstan cases suggest that South Korea has to take a great caution not to make radical economic reforms in the Northern part of the unified nation which could lead to an anti-unification sentiment among the North Koreans. Irish case puts emphasis on the normalization of relations between North and South Korea, which is not likely to be accomplished in a short period of time. Vietnamese case presents meaningful implications and suggestions on the possible economic reforms in North Korea. Finally, the last part of this book includes suggestions on South Korea’s policy toward North Korea, as well as the South’s foreign policy during the whole process of Korean unification. Some typical points that should not be overlooked are as follows. First, South Korea needs to keep an eye on the North Korean scholars in case of a precocious achievement of reformation, open-door policy, or unification. Second, the South Korean government should persuade the advocates of reform and open-door policy in North Korea to stand independently and gain the majority of parliamentary seats, or join negotiations for unification. Third, South Korea needs to urge the North to undertake a gradual economic reform rather than a radical one when those who favor the reformation and open-door policy seize the power of the country. Fourth, the prompt dissolution of North Korea’s Supreme People’s Assembly is prerequisite for unification of Korea, for it can be an obstacle in the process of North Korea’s system transformation. Keywords: Polish, Romanian, Czech, Slovenia, Ukrainian, Kazakhstan, Irish, Vietnamese, Transformation, Integration ------------- CONTENTS ------------- Abstract Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION Ⅱ. CASES OF TRANSFORMATION AND INTEGRATION 1. The Polish Case 2. The Romanian Case 3. The Czech and the Slovenia Case 4. The Ukrainian Case 5. The Kazakhstan Case 6. The Irish Case 7. The Vietnamese Case Ⅲ. ANALYSIS OF TRANSFORMATION AND INTEGRATION PROCESS 1. Theoretical Types 2. Distinctive Features Ⅳ. CONCLUSION References Recent Publications

The current research aims to provide analytical understandings on the costs and benefits of Korean unification from political, social, and economic aspects. Upon the two years of earlier works, we constructed an analytical model encompassing both spatial and temporal dimensions of the unification process, and built comprehensive architecture, ‘the Guiding Type of Unification.’ Based on this model, we have broaden the scope of the research by collecting diverse perspectives from the worldwide experts of the leading countries. We expect to observe the global trends of world governance. Indeed, the increasing importance of Group of Twenty (G‐20) countries in managing global problems reflects both political and social aspects of the changes occurring in global governance. Another reason for this would be South Korea’s diversified international relations in the recent years. Hence, it seems necessary to take a closer look on the international dimensions of Korean unification. In this vein, we requested thirteen experts of the leading countries to express their opinions on Korean unification. In order to collect international perspectives in a coordinated manner, scholars were provided with a guideline to include their perspectives on the expected effects of Korean Unification and the potential roles of their countries during and after the process. Participants were also asked to present candid implications for Korean unification. Argentina, whose food supply is abundant, laid stress on providing assistance in terms of food security during the unification. Australia, who has special concerns in Asian security, suggested a comprehensive support not only as a mediator but also as one of the U.S. alliance. Due to remote distance to Asia, Brazil is relatively less affected by the unification. Brazil, however, expressed that it has a keen interest in transmission of its experience regarding nuclear issues with Argentina. Similar to Brazil’s stance, the effects of the unification influence is indirect to Canada. Nevertheless, Canada could play a role in providing humanitarian assistance, and could be a potential destination for North Korean refugee resettlement. France, one of the most influential members in the European Union and the United Nations, made a suggestion to promote institution building in East Asia that can promote stability in the region. Germany, the only country who had experienced unification, presented its interest in participating actively in the process of Korean unification through public and private sectors. India assumed that the unification of Korea leads to the denuclearization of the peninsula, and would see this as a positive sign for stability of the region, since it would limit or end North Korea’s nuclear weapon transmits with Pakistan. Indonesia could contribute to regional peace and stability through ASEAN and its extensions as South Korea can call upon Indonesia to engage in the peace process. Italy, who especially pointed out the role of European Union as a whole, is well-poised to contribute to economic and social development with North Korea through technical assistance. Mexico can, and expressed its willingness to play an active role in the unification process through international organizations. South Africa, who had been successful in national reconciliation and denuclearization, is very likely to provide its experience and can be a strong voice for the NPT and arms control in the international society. Advocating South Korea’s policy in Korean unification, Turkey explicitly mentioned that it will side with Seoul if there is a possible conflict in the peninsula. The author emphasized that the international community must be well-informed on how Korean unification will take place. Last but not least, the United Kingdom author suggested that Koreans will have to resolve emotional conflicts for reconciliation. Considering how both Koreas have dealt educational matters concerning the division of the peninsula, this may face a major challenge in the future generation. Thirteen countries’ diversely manifested positions on the unifying process are indicative of perceptual change that the issue of Korean unification is no longer a regional issue, but an international one, in which multiple actors have their own stakes within. Upon the previously suggested implications, we categorized the countries into three groups: bystanders, supporters, and interveners. This categorization reflects the assertiveness of each country, or coercive level of each country’s assistance instrumented towards the two Koreas during the unifying process. In the conclusion, based on our final analysis, we provided recommendations for the policy makers. First, diversified diplomacy creates an amicable international environment for unification policies beyond the power politics of the Four Powers. Second, activation of leading countries’ roles is strategically advantageous to activate the meaningful roles of these leading countries to minimize the Four Powers’ concerns. Third, emphasizing the formation of multilateral system would provide leading countries with an additional motivation to actively participate in the unification process. Furthermore, multilateral efforts to achieve Korean unification are also expected to contribute to the furtherance of democratic elements in the dynamics of international relations as a whole. Fourth, it is now high time for us to conduct more public diplomacy by devising new and creative methodologies. The global research project of this kind could be one of the most effective public diplomatic tools. Lastly, the unification between two Koreas can no longer be considered as a regional issue within Northeast Asia since others, including the leading countries, conceive their national interests along the process of unification on the Korean peninsula in diverse ways. Overall, thirteen countries’ recommendations underline the significance of collective efforts in addressing the unification process and suggest South Korea to learn lessons from the experience that they have undergone in the past. Keywords: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom, Expectation, Role, Effect ------------- CONTENTS ------------- Acknowledgments Abstract Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION Ⅱ. EFFECTS AND ROLES 1. Argentina 2. Australia 3. Brazil 4. Canada 5. France 6. Germany 7. India 8. Indonesia 9. Italy 10. Mexico 11. South Africa 12. Turkey 13. United Kingdom Ⅲ. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 1. Expected Effect 2. Potential Roles 3. Classification of Leading Countries Ⅳ. CONCLUSION References Recent Publications

In light of growing discussion about the future of the Korean peninsula, the CSIS Korea Chair held a major conference featuring senior-level policy and scholarly discussions on the topic of unification, and this report provides a record of that conference. It was a landmark event addressing economic, business, political, and security opportunities of unification, and it was cohosted with the National Research Council for Economics, Humanities and Social Sciences (NRCS) of the Republic of Korea and a consortium of other institutions.

"Assembled in this volume are a diverse group of economists and analysts from academia, government and think tanks in the US and South Korea. Topics range from philosophical to practical policy matters. Students, researchers and policymakers interested in Korea and in the broader issues of economic and political integration will find this volume fresh and insightful."--BOOK JACKET.