Lessons From German Unification For The Korean Peninsula

Seminar paper from the year 2008 in the subject Politics - Region: Far East, grade: 85% = 2,0/A-/GPA 3.7, Peking Universität (School for International Studies), course: International Securtiy in East Asia, language: English, abstract: Germany achieved what Korea still can achieve, namely peaceful unification. There are several similarities between the divided Koreas and the formerly divided Germanys. In both cases, the division grew out of the Second World War and the following Cold War. The divided nations have totally different systems of government. North Korea, as a communistic one-party state, is similar to the GDR and South Korea, as a democratic republic, is similar to the FDR. Major differences are apparent in the economic development between North and South Korea, which again corresponds to the situation in Germany at the end of the 1980s. In light of these similarities, an important question to answer is the following one: what lessons can the Korean Peninsula learn from German unification? Thus, this essay will proceed as follows. Firstly, the developments in Germany, leading to the opening of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent unification will be described and analyzed. Secondly, the economic and socio-cultural outcomes of the unification will be briefly analyzed. Thirdly, recommendations for the Korean Peninsula will be formulated and finally, the essay will conclude its findings.

CHAPTER 1: WHY A UNITED KOREA CHAPTER 2: GERMANY AFTER UNIFICATION 1. Benefits of German Unification 2. Implications for Korean Unification CHAPTER 3: COSTS AND BENEFITS OF UNIFICATION 1. Understanding the Costs of Unification 2. Unification is Less Costly than Division 3. Unification Benefits Outweigh Unification Costs 4. Building Unification Readiness to Minimize Costs CHAPTER 4: RESTRUCTURING THE UNIFICATION ARGUMENT 1. Direction of the Unification Argument 2. Argument to Change the Public View on the Need for Unification CHAPTER 5: VISION OF A UNITED KOREA 1. Political & Diplomatic Vision 2. Economic Vision 3. Security Vision 4. Social & Cultural Vision CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION

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

A distinguished panel of scholars from around the world convened at the Hoover Institution in June 1993 to assess prospects for a reunited Korea. North Korea's highly publicized stance of nuclear noncompliance, initiated only months earlier, gave the conference historical immediacy. It also underscored the potentially catastrophic consequences of continued ideological friction on the Korean peninsula. Scenarios for reunification identified at that conference are presented in this volume.

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