[PDF] Unification Policies Of South And North Korea 1945 1991 eBook

Author : Ministry of Unification (South Korea)
Publisher : 길잡이미디어
Page : 150 pages
File Size : 20,84 MB
Release : 1990-10-10
Category :
ISBN :

GET BOOK

1.Foreward 2.Reality of South-North Relations 3.Comparison of Bases of Unification Policies of South Korea and North Kore4 4.Comparison of Unification Formulas of South Korea and North Korea 5.Conclusion

Author : Huh Moon Young, Cha Moon Seok, Jeong Young Tai, Jung Hyun Soo, Kang Gu Sup, Kwon Oh Kook, Kwon Young Kyong, Park Jong Chul, Son Gi Woong, Yeo In Kon
Publisher : 길잡이미디어
Page : 265 pages
File Size : 30,93 MB
Release : 2013-04-10
Category : Korea (North)
ISBN : 8984796905

GET BOOK

Education to Strengthen our Capabilities for Peaceful Unification The 20th century was on era of “extremes” that was marked by several ideological confrontations and wars. It was a long age of persecution and patience, especially on the part of the Koreans. Nevertheless, the ideology that drove the world into chaos and the leaders who led the hostile inter-Korean relations are now fading from the center stage of history. On December 17, 2011, Kim Jong Il died after ruling North Korea with blood-and-iron politics for 37 years. The global community is now expecting significant changes within the North Korean regime, the relations between the two Koreas, and the East Asian order. The year 2015 will mark the 70th anniversary of the Korean division, which occurred in three overlapping phases: territorial, regime, and emotional. The first phase, territorial division, was introduced on August 15, 1945 when Soviet and U.S. forces divided the peninsula along the 38th parallel. The second phase, regime(sovereignty) division, was established with the formation of two separate governments on the Korean Peninsula; the Republic of Korea(ROK) was founded on August 15, 1948 and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea(DPRK) was established on September 9, 1948. The division was finalized as it reached the third phase, emotional division(of people), following the North Korean invasion of the South on June 25, 1950 and the subsequent three-year fratricidal war. Are we prepared to undertake unification and maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula? This issue is not only a national one that North and South Korea should resolve on their own, but it is also an international issue in which the interests of four relevant countries nations(the U.S., China, Japan, and Russia) are at stake. For this reason, peaceful unification requires the proper environment, capability and will from all parties. For the time being, we lack all three elements, as there are multiple levels of discord. In the global environment, competition is emerging between the hegemonic power in naval warfare(the U.S.) and the leading power in ground warfare(China). Within the Korean Peninsula, there is increased distrust due to North Korea’s provocative actions including two nuclear tests, the sinking of a South Korean naval ship, and the shelling of a South Korean island. There is discord even within South Korean society: ideological conflicts between the conservatives and liberals, regional confrontation between the southeastern and southwestern regions, generation gaps resulting from a rapid transition to an information-oriented society, and class conflicts that have emerged from neo-liberalism and the collapse of the middle class. Then What are the steps that we should take to make way for peaceful unification? We must first properly prioritize the issues at hand. The top priority should be given to national harmony, then international cooperation, and finally rapprochement on the Korean Peninsula. This is attributed to the fact that South Korean society characterized by internal organization and preparedness is the cornerstone of a peaceful unification; consequently, public education on unification is crucial. Despite the progress made thus far, unification education still has some shortcomings. Until this point in time, education on unification has strengthened a negative image of the North Korean situation, leading to arguments for the deferral of national unification and an increased number of people against it. Governmental programs that were intended to promote unification policies have also taken a passive, or even a critical approach on the issue due to its controversial nature. I would like to acknowledge that although multiple researchers compiled this book after much discussion and thorough review, it still has some shortcomings that will be address in the next edition. Finally, I’d like to express my deepest gratitude to the National Unification Advisory Council and the Unification Education Council for providing the videos and resources for our research...

Author : Kyuryoon Kim et al.
Publisher : 길잡이미디어
Page : 428 pages
File Size : 35,86 MB
Release : 2014-12-31
Category : Korea
ISBN : 8984797863

GET BOOK

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

Author : Jonathan D. Pollack
Publisher : RAND Corporation
Page : 124 pages
File Size : 35,50 MB
Release : 1999
Category : History
ISBN :

GET BOOK

This study examines four alternative scenarios that would result in the unification of the Korean peninsula. The authors describe the defining characteristics of each scenario, potential indicators that would predict specific outcomes, some possible variations in paths to unification, and some operational implications for the U.S. Army under different conditions and circumstances. The four scenarios (peaceful unification, collapse and absorption, unification through armed conflict, and disequilibrium and external intervention) highlight both the increasing vulnerabilities of the North Korean state and the substantial uncertainties that attach to each outcome and to the potential U.S. policy respones.