International Journal Of Korean Unification Studies

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

As the debate about unification has recently been enlivened in Korean society, the flame of hope for unification is being re-kindled. However, there are still many who focus solely on the enormous costs involved, while others remain passive toward the unification issue. Particularly members of the younger generation feel satisfied with ‘co-existence under an unstable peace’ as a divided peninsula. However, as indicated in a special report by the Russian Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) which assessed that “North Korea is already in the process of collapse,” the unification issue is no longer something we can avoid. Therefore, armed with this consciousness of the problems of our era, this project assesses the significance of the recent rekindling of interest in unification and considers a new vision of unification and its potential value, dealing intensively with the positions and roles of the four neighboring powers regarding unification as well as ideas for strategic cooperation among South Korea and its powerful neighbors. The publication of this project owes much to the diligent efforts of KINU research associates such as Hyo Min Lee, Uichan Ko and Jisuk Park who reviewed and edited the various papers. Also, the English version of this publication benefited greatly from the accurate translations done by research associates Meredith Rose Shaw and Hyo Min Lee. It is the editor’s hope that this research project can help both Korean and foreign experts, academics, and readers to better understand the value of Korean unification and the various positions and roles that can be played by the US, Japan, China and Russia. Chapter 1 A Vision of Korean Unification and Its Value : Building Great Power Korea/ Jung-Ho Bae | Director, Center for International Relations Studies, KINU Chapter 2 German Reunification and the European Union/ Don-Jay Yeom | Dean, Graduate School of Strategic Studies, Sungkyunkwan University Chapter 3 The United States and Korean Unification/ Ralph Hassig and Kongdan Oh | The Institute for Defense Analyses(IDA) Chapter 4 Japan’s Role and Position on Korean Unification/ Takashi Inoguchi | President, University of Niigata Prefecture Professor Emeritus, University of Tokyo Chapter 5 Managing the Path toward Eventual Korean Unification : The Chinese Way/ You Ji | Associate Professor, School of Social Science & International Studies, The University of New South Wales Chapter 6 Russia’s Role and Position on Korean Unification/ Alexander Panov | Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Chapter 7 Korea’s Diplomatic Strategy for Unifying the Korean Peninsula/ Young-Ho Park | Senior Research Fellow, KINU

Peaceful Korean reunification would end a growing nuclear threat, ease regional and geopolitical tensions, and bring about significant economic growth and cooperation in resource-rich Northeast Asia. The central assumption of this book is that peace and reunification can be achieved by changing the underlying incentive structure for all North Koreans, and by offering its leaders a safe, honorable and profitable way out of a deteriorating situation. Economic stagnation and increased awareness of the better life beyond their borders has led to growing dissent inside North Korea, while dynastic transition and the rise of a new generation of leaders may have opened a new opportunity for political acquiescence. The book outlines a Korean Peace Fund strategy that provides for global elites, corporations and governments to raise $300 billion to give to North Korean power elites, military officers and common people if they agree to reunify under South Korean political leadership. Kim Jong-un would likely be hailed worldwide for participating in a win-win, face-saving resolution.

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

One day, one nation on the Korean Peninsula