The Korean Peninsula: The Window to Unification?

Unification for South Korean's is a topic they often don't leave themselves overly concerned with, but recently the topic of unification has been brought to the surface. In September the government of South Korea started a nation wide campaign over radio, television and the internet to promote the benefits of unification, according to Jon Rabiroff at Stars and Stripes. The government of South Korea has also been taking steps to put in place a plan for eventual unification, including considering how to pay for it. According to a report sponsored by the Unification Ministry, the cost of unification if it were to happen in the next ten or twenty years could be between 734 trillion and 2.8 quadrillion won [the numbers are astronomical, even when converted to dollars]. The report has prompted a dicussion of a tax levy to pay for such a huge expense in the future, which might be sent to be ratified by the National Assembly over the next few months according to an article from the Korean HonHap News Agency. However, with all this talk of costs, what do everyday Koreans think about the idea of unification, and the costs and turmoil that might come with it?

Being that I am currently living and working in South Korea, I have the somewhat unique advantage of being able to go to the source on this one, and actually ask everyday Koreans what they think about unification. Most have been friends, who I have brought up the topic gently with. Some of the responses have been interesting however. "I really don't think unification will happen, it will be a slow process if it happens" one of my friends in her early 20s said. " We will have to wait for North Korea to develope economically post a political revolution, otherwise we will face all the burden of paying, which will be huge" she said. "I really feel that North Korean's are completely different people" another one of my friends in her late 20's strongly pointed out, "and a completely different country". "Besides, we were born with the two Koreas side by side, and we cannot see things changing or even imagine it different". I have found it interesting that it seems alot of those in their 20s to mid-30s who seem to have this view, and I am not the only one who has noticed. Andrei Lankov wrote an article in the Asia Times Online which talks about a trend of South Korean's sharing less of their identity with their long lost neighbor to the north. Part of this he suggests comes down to different economic experiences between the two Koreas, but part of it also comes down to the clear divide that exists for those born with North Korea as a seperate place, and in most respects irrelevant. A recent public opinion poll by the Peace Research Institute found a huge increase in South Korea's who see North Korea as a different country, even ethnically. This points to a sharp distinction between older generations who remember Korea as one nation, and see unification as important, and a younger generation whom the idea of unification seems potentially strange, costly and in many respects scary. But all this makes me wonder, what does this mean for the future prospect of unification?

Roland Bleiker in his paper Identity and Security in Korea - which appeared in the Pacific Review back in 2001 - pointed to an interesting problem for future Korean unification. He pointed out that in the sudden collapse of leadership in the north, a resulting refugee and humanitarian crisis might be dealt with by a military from the United States and South Korea "trained to fight and destroy, rather than help and heal". Whilst what he is talking about seems like the manifestations of worst fears, it is certainly interesting to consider how a humanitarian crisis and break down in the north might be treated by South Korea. Whilst the rush of germans over the Berlin Wall at the end of the Cold War was iconic for Germany and the rest of the world, the same kind of event might trigger a different reaction from the South, which would prevent the same kind of open trade of citizens. Imagine for a moment, that there was a break down in North Korea. One cannot be entirely sure the first place North Koreans would go would be South Korea, but what happens in those initial moments might play an important role in whether the two nations come together. The South Korean military holding back refugees from entering South Korea could lead to a frustrated reaction from the people of the north instilling mistrust. Consider for example that North Korean's who have been blocked off from the world for so long, might not have the painful example of German unification to reflect on, and instead strongly favor a quick coming together, which they feel cheated of. Having a growing number of South Koreans who see the North as very different wouldn't help the situation politically either, specially if a reaction of 'they should really sort out their future for themselves' comes in to play. A reaction like this from a generation of South Koreans, it could be said, would kill the idea that Korea can go threw a quick unification similar to that of East and West Germany post the Cold War era. But that isn't the only result I think one can draw from a much newer generation of Koreans with a different way of looking at things.

I think South Korean's are often left unconcerned with any topic involving their neighbor to the north because South Korean's [like everyone else] are more inclined to worry about what they can change - you are driven to madness otherwise. And whilst many in the world might consider living next to a crazy social stuck in the past communist state like North Korea scary, South Korea is a bit like a married couple forced to live next to a dance club - after a while you get use to all the noise, and over the hipe. That being said, I think that one would have to be incredibly stupid if they wanted to claim that South Korea's don't care, particularly when it comes to something like unification, even for a much younger and unique generation of Koreans. Writting this piece on generational change and its effect on the future of both Koreas - or Korea depending on how you are willing to look at it - makes me want to draw not only a different prospect, but hope for the future - rather then the brute stategic stage plan I draw above. For I don't think South Korea's choice is either flight or fight when it comes to a break down in North Korea and the issue of unification. No one can say that unification has become more or less likely, even with the opinion of a younger generation of South Koreans considered. The prospect for a future generation of Koreans deciding their nations belong seperate maybe swiftly changed with experience of this long lost brother nation cast as irralvant. With this experience, Korean's might come to realize how similar and unified they already are, and change their minds about whether they belong together or not. With this considered, time is not running out for unification because of a new generation with a different perspective. The window to unification is not necessarily a fixed one. There remain reasons for unification to take place in many different ways, but my own fear is simply that a strategic debarcle would mean Korean's miss out on the opportunity to come together under less painful circumstances then many fear for Korea's future.

Egypt: A Road to Summer from the Arab Spring

The world currently watches with curiosity and a lot of fear at what is happening within Egypt. With the protests that happened earlier this year ushering in a schizophrenic military regime aimed at sustaining peace in the country and holding back turmoil whilst looking to eventually hold elections. The Supreme Council of Armed Forces has been bent on keeping peace and resenting pressure to hold elections and take into account public liberties, instead cracking down on those within Egypt wanting to criticize the slow pace towards elections. According to Jackson Diehl at The Washington Post, there have been a number of actions by the regime which include bloggers being threatened for criticizing the military council and thousands sentenced to prison by military courts. It seems that individual freedom of speech to a given extent has been challenged, whilst Egypt continues to make steps towards elections planned for November this year. All this leaves me wondering to what extent the illiberal nature to Egypt's pace to democracy might turn Egypt's future as a democracy rotten. But first let me explain, what do I mean when I say 'illiberal'?

Freedoms that are often associated with democracy, have in the past to a given extent been discussed as though they are an inherent attribute of democracy, like suddenly holding elections makes your society liberal. As Fareed Zakaria wrote in an article for Foreign Affairs back in 1997 however, the application of democracy can still leave a country without liberalism, particularly if a countries transition to democracy doesn't bring forward individual freedoms before rather than after elections are first held. As he puts it, the process to pursue freedoms after an election can be tedious, with those in power unwilling to give it up to the people, particularly in a constitution. This kind of logic could translate over to Egypt, with a military regime handing over power to a parliament and/or president whom remains uninterested in acknowledging individual freedoms, like those of free speech and peaceful protest to a full extent, with the want instead to counter economic and civil turmoil in protests. This isn't the only way that elections could hurt civil liberties however. If elections result in a divided parliament where power resides after elections, then the writing of a constitution could become difficult with parties unable to agree on what a constitution should include, leading to a stale mate and again halting progress. All this concern raises a further question: What steps should be taken to keep Egypt on track to a bright democratic and liberal summer, with the acknowledgement of social and civil liberties and elections.

The Egyptian people have plenty to be frustrated with, with Amro Hassan for WORLD NOW noting that protests have again rocked Cairo as people express their frustration with the military. The military has been trying to meet push for shove however, threatening those that protest. However those whom have been protesting, have been demanding social justice and acknowledgement of individual freedoms, as AFP reports. If the current military leadership of Egypt sees threatening the people as a means to sustain the path to democracy, then it would seem that the the Supreme Council of Armed Forces lacks a strong conception of liberalism. The Supreme Council of Armed Forces needs to acknowledge that in light of the current protests, holding elections in November isn't going to magically get everyone off the streets and back to work. The demands of the people are not just for elections. Egypt needs a strong notion of freedoms of the people, and a notion of where power will reside following elections before elections, not to risk a mess either from the whomever gets elected, or from the Egyptian people who will challenge the legitimacy of whomever is elected because of the lack of civil liberties before elections. The Supreme Council of Armed Forces needs to change its behavior and mind set if it wants to get the Egyptian people off the streets.

I think that what Egypt needs right now, isn't a constitution necessarily, but the notion that it has an invisible one, where the current Supreme Council of Armed Forces and whoever comes to power after, understand that the current revolution pends on the idea of freedom, upon many others. Any leadership that ignores freedom is going to find that the revolution won't move from the streets, and will remain, to the pain of any economic and political progress for the country. Therefore, to bring about a summer in Egypt, leadership in Egypt needs to take steps to bind the rights of the people into all actions they take, and set an example for future leadership in Egypt to follow. This should include a notion of what freedoms the people should have that can soon be written into a constitution in the future - when the time is right. Egypt has made so much progress already, even with the current backlash from the Supreme Council of Armed Forces. Egypt now has a much more free press, and a number of different civil groups pinned to the idea of democracy, but also political and economic progress in the country. It needs to utilize this passion, and part of that will come with democracy but part of that also comes with acknowledging the voice of the people, to as full an extent as one can. If any Egyptian leadership wants to avoid a cold dark winter from the Arab Spring in Egypt, they need to embody the change the people of Egypt seek, before an election, as much as after.