Reunification is neither jackpot nor bonanza

By Lee Chang-sup

In January, President Park Geun-hye said, "reunification would be like hitting a jackpot." Last week, however, the presidential office wanted the English-language media to paraphrase her statement as "reunification would be a bonanza."

The President might have chosen jackpot and bonanza to describe her optimism on reunification. However, they are a poor choice of words. Neither jackpot nor bonanza accurately describes the reunification of Korea because both suggest acquiring a large amount of wealth or resources quickly and unexpectedly.

Jackpot is a well-known gambling term that has negative connotations. When one hears the word jackpot, a person winning from poker or the slot machines in Las Vegas comes to mind.

The President's poor word choice raises many questions. If reunification would be a jackpot, who would be the beneficiaries? South Koreans? North Koreans? Both? Reunification should be pursued only if it benefits all Koreans.

Another question is what does the President mean by jackpot? One peaceful nation? One stronger, bigger, wealthier economy? How so? President Park should explain what reunification would mean to the North and South because except for a few left-wing chauvinists, no one in the South really thinks reunification is a good idea unless North Korea gives up its dictatorship and agrees to unite with South Korea.

Reunification isn't something that's achieved easily and quickly and thus, can't be described as a jackpot. Both countries need to address many issues before they can reunify. On one hand, North Korea needs to do something about its nuclear weapons, close-mindedness, poverty and lack of human rights. On the other hand, South Korea needs to prepare economically, politically and socially for the reunification.

Bonanza is a less disagreeable but still inaccurate word choice. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is "something that produces very good results for someone or something" or "a large amount of something valuable." It can also mean "an exceptionally large and rich mineral deposit (as of an ore, precious metal, or petroleum)" or "something that is very valuable, profitable, or rewarding."

Neither jackpot, bonanza nor similar terms for unexpected, quick gains like windfall, breakthrough and blessing accurately describe a reunified Korea. Reunification can produce positive results but only after a significant amount of effort and time.

Former American ambassador to Korea Donald Gregg says, "Reunification would be a long and difficult process" that would need careful planning and consensus. He says the sooner the process starts, the better it will be for all Koreans and for Northeast Asians. Likewise, former President Kim Dae-jung had said reunification is a long process that can take as many as 30 years and requires the steady development of trust and cooperation between North and South Korea. Indeed, a 2009 Goldman Sachs report estimated that it would take 37 years for the two Koreas to converge — 15 years to transition, 10 years to consolidate and 12 years to mature.

South Korea needs to prepare economically and socially for reunification. If it's having difficulty supporting and integrating the 26,000 North Korean defectors currently in the country, how much more with all 24 million North Koreans after the reunification?

In addition, many South Koreans still think that North Koreans are second-class citizens. In the ‘70s and ‘80s, South Korean school children were taught that North Koreans were like red pigs with horns. This offensive, discriminatory view has unfortunately stuck to the minds of those school children, who are now middle-aged, including me. Schools and textbooks should teach students what reunification is and its benefits and costs, and portray North and South Koreans as equal compatriots. Unless South Koreans embrace North Koreans as equals, reunification would be a disaster.

If the President wanted to be clear and accurate, she shouldn't have chosen either jackpot or bonanza. Rather, she should have said something like, "Reunification would have immense long-term benefits for both countries. These benefits include an expanded domestic market with 80 million consumers, and synergy between the North's vast natural resources and cheap labor and the South's technology and capital." The Goldman Sachs report showed that a reunified Korea would be economically bigger than France, Germany and Japan in 30–40 years and that per capita income in North Korea would reach half of that in South Korea 20 years after integrating.

Perhaps President Park might have used jackpot and bonanza to convey her positive outlook for reunification, which contrasts the negative view of previous studies, which in turn may have contributed to the South Koreans' ambivalence or opposition. She might have wanted to say reunification would be beneficial for both countries. She might have wanted to highlight the significant investment and business opportunities that reunification would bring. She might have wanted to play down the estimated enormous financial burden of reunification. She might have wanted to describe reunification as a win-win for both countries through proper policy incentives for North Korea.

"Despite her good intentions, vague terms like jackpot and bonanza are slick political clichés that mean absolutely nothing without facts, figures and evidence. Words like bonanza and/or jackpot fall into the cheap-shot clichés and jargon department and seem to me to be entirely inappropriate when discussing such a serious issue," according to Korea Times copy editor Bruce Kaplan.

Reunification is a more complex concept than jackpot or bonanza, and the President should choose words that more accurately describe it.

Lee Chang-sup is the executive managing director of The Korea Times. Contact him at editorial@koreatimes.co.kr.