This is not a current topic in the news, or something on the surface related directly to the Six-Party Talks, but being reminded of the fact that none of the nations involved in the talks want Korean reunification any time soon can be useful in understanding the big picture. Reunification is certainly considered in Pyongyang’s calculus, and is fundamental to why the regime prefers brinksmanship over peaceful coexistence, and will continue to pursue nuclear weapons. Something to keep in mind as talks continue to fail.

NORTH KOREA: While reunification has been a part of North Korea’s official ideology since its creation in 1948, the regime has not realistically consider the possibility of actually doing so for the past two decades. Remembering that regime survivability is priory number one for Kim Jong-il, consider the hypothetical that the Korean Peninsula becomes reunified under North Korean rule. This Northern-System-Prevailed scenario assumes a drastic change in the south which would make it possible for North Korea to absorb the south. Repercussions of the cult regime and style of government would cause such widespread discontent in both northern and southern populations it would virtually guarantee the destabilization and collapse of the ruling regime, be that Kim Jong-il or his successor.

Upon being exposed to those from the south, those in the north would soon realize that their ideology and entire modern history are based upon mythology, carefully crafted by masters of propaganda to incorporate them into what is likely the most controlling cult regime the world has ever seen. This is also the reason for the regimes continuing self-isolation. Even if the regime attempted to keep the two Koreas separate for rule, the information would eventually spread. Separate rule would pose its own problems, and it is doubtful that the Korean people would have the patience to accept such an arrangement after over half a century of separation.

Although many South Koreans hold strong (and rather illogical) anti-American views, it is still a far cry from accepting what the north would have to offer by way of social systems (e.g., political, educational, etc.). Those in the south would soon be disillusioned by the reality of the situation, which at a minimum would have to include stricter social and political controls than the saw even at the height of the military dictatorships in the south, and a severe financial drain as the north siphoned off revenue from the south.

The current DPRK-induced tension of nuclear proliferation is exactly what Kim Jong-il and the rest of North Korea’s leadership desires (PDF). They use security concerns to convince their population that the sacrifices they make are for the survival of the country, when in reality it is the survival of the regime that is paramount. This is also why North Korea maintains an ambiguous nuclear status – they claim they have them, but we cannot say for certain without proof, which North Korea refuses to provide. Due to the size and positioning of its conventional forces, including artillery aimed at Seoul, and with the U.S. being embroiled in Iraq at the moment, North Korea has little to fear from a U.S. invasion (the U.S. still considers the destruction of Seoul too high a price to pay, for now).

With virtually strings free aid from South Korea and an invasion by U.S. forces highly unlikely, North Korea has every reason to pursue nuclear weapons and avoid any actions that might lead to reunification. This is their strategy of surviving for the long-term.

SOUTH KOREA: South Koreans do want reunification – just not yet. When? When the cost, estimated in 2000 to be US$2-3 trillion (PDF), will be less. Lessons from the study of German reunification have made a hasty reunification undesirable. For example, East and West Germans were relatively close to one another in terms of income, but not the case for the two Koreas:

South Korea has a population of 48.6 million with an annual income of $19,200 per capita. North Korea has about 23 million people with a per capita income of $1,400. Were the two countries to reunify, the resulting country would have a combined population of over 70 million, but with an average per capita income of about $13,500. That is, in some sense the cost of reunification to South Koreans could be a one-third reduction in annual income. (emphasis added)

Even the billions that could be saved annually in defense costs would be a mere drop in the bucket compared to the overall costs. South Koreans have become accustomed to a relative affluence, and that lifestyle would become a thing of the past after reunification. While many, perhaps the vast majority, profess a desire to reunify, many do not want to pay the price in reality.

Another factor to consider in the let’s-reunify-later stance in South Korea is the skill and education level of North Koreans. Defectors from North Korean now living in the south face difficulty finding suitable work, and often feel discriminated against (to be fair, probably due to both being relatively unskilled/educated, and the undeniable prejudices that exist in South Korea). This would lead to a myriad of social problems and unrest, and add even more to the overall costs (although single North Korean women would be more than welcomed in the south).

South Korea’s policy of engagement with the north, formerly called the “Sunshine Policy,” is partially meant to help bring North Korea up to a similar standard of living as the south, which would theoretically make for a less difficult reunification. The problem is that being on par with the south would not be an inducement for the north to want to reunify, in fact the north has historically been even more competitive for social-political leadership when they were economic equals.

The “hard landing” option is outright rejected, while the “soft landing” is something of a utopian fantasy, at least with the current northern leadership. In the end, South Korea’s policy of seeking reunification later amounts to no reunification.

CHINA: To put it bluntly, China prefers a divided Korea since a unified peninsula would bring the possibility of having a nation with U.S. forces (and with a new number one priority in the region – China) on its border, and open up territorial issues:

Officially, China supports Korean unification as long as this occurs peacefully and through the efforts of the Korean people themselves. Outside analysts, however, have questioned the sincerity of this position. To publicly oppose reunification would offend Koreans on both sides of the 38th Parallel, and a divided Korea has clearly been advantageous in some ways for Beijing. The division has ensured a weak and preoccupied country on one of China’s borders. In contrast, a united Korea would be a stronger state that might turn its attention to unpleasant issues such as Korean interest in incorporating parts of Chinese territory, including Baekdu Mountain and areas of Manchuria with heavily ethnic Korean populations.

Although North Korea’s nuclear brinksmanship has forced China to take a more constructive role in negotiations that it might have otherwise preferred, it has also created an opportunity for China to garner global prestige for its assistance.

Financially China would lose much of a valuable market in South Korea, since the costs of reunification would make Chinese products unattractive to Korean consumers. To compound this, China might face an influx of refugees, and be asked to shoulder some of the costs of reunification.

The status quo is by far preferable to China.

JAPAN: The current threat posed by North Korean missiles and potential nuclear weapons is something Japan would like to see resolved in a peaceful manner, but reunification poses its own risks.

Japan has some of the same financial concerns as China – loss of southern market, costs of reunification, etc. – but traditionally Japan has considered the Korean Peninsula to be a “dagger” pointing at its heart. Indeed, a unified Korea could easily lead to a regional arms race where both Korea and Japan go nuclear, and tensions with China are elevated. In this situation a relatively minor conflict between China-Taiwan, or even between China and Korea, could spark an all out regional war, or even a world war.

A resolution to current security issue with North Korea, but falling short of reunification, is preferable to Japan.

RUSSIA: Like China, Russia does not want to see U.S. forces on its border. Unlike China and Japan, however, Russia would stand to lose little in the way of trade. More importantly for Russia, the status quo provides an opportunity for it to ask as an intermediary, or attempt to, with the goal of regaining lost prominence, at the same time using it as a card to play against the U.S., if and when needed. Russia has little to gain from Korean reunification except potential security headaches.

UNITED STATES: American concerns about Korean reunification are based more on security issues than financial ones. Although a reunified Korea is likely to opt to keep U.S. forces – the U.S. philosophy is that it is much less expensive in terms of lives and money to maintain stabilization forces than to fight a war – the possibility exists that an American military presence would be shunned, which could easily lead to the arms race mentioned above (including a nuclear Korea and Japan), and a general deterioration of regional stability.

Less altruistic concerns might be that the ROK is the sixth largest purchased of U.S. arms, the partial loss of a justification for National Missile Defense (NMD), and of course the issue of cost (e.g., humanitarian aid, infrastructure, etc.).

Ending the North Korean nuclear situation and having troops in a country bordering China and Russia would be a definite plus, but at this point the uncertainty surrounding potential problems outweigh any advantages.

As neutral as the U.S. position might seem to be in terms of benefits, the U.S. is ideologically for reunification. This has led to the odd predicament where all local parties profess to want something that none really do, at least for the foreseeable future, leaving the U.S. as the nation with most positive outlook on near-term reunification.
—–