Expats call for overseas promotion

Tourists stand in front of an old steam train that once connected Seoul with Sinuiju, North Korea, at Imjingak in Paju, Gyeonggi Province on Oct. 28. / Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

By Yi Whan-woo

President Park Geun-hye extolled the possible inter-Korean unification as a “bonanza” last year in what is seen as a bid to draw support from both home and abroad.

Expats, however, are skeptical about whether such a bid will succeed, saying it is largely aimed at domestic politics.

They said the Park government should instead focus on gaining more support from regional powers, such as the United States, China, Japan and Russia.

Besides the two Koreas, the four countries are all members of the six-party party talks that are aimed at North Korea’s denuclearization, a prerequisite for the peaceful unification of the Korean Peninsula.

“The bonanza remark was boosterism for the domestic public, to keep up South Koreans’ interest in unification, which is flagging,” said Robert Kelly, an American professor at Pusan National University.

“But it won’t really be a bonanza for anyone but the chaebol. For everyone else, unification will mostly mean higher taxes and unwanted, somewhat disruptive Northern immigration into the South’s large cities.”

Steve Miller, a U.S. citizen who hosts the Asia News Weekly Podcast, agreed.

Pointing out that the six-party talks have been dormant since 2008, he said, “That the West continues to put forward the idea the six party talks are a viable option, I think does a great disservice to stabilizing the region.”

He also claimed that the Seoul-Pyongyang unification will not lead to an economic “bonanza,” saying the inter-Korean industrial park in Gaeseong, North Korea already fulfills such conditions to some extent.

“We already see economic games with the Gaeseong Industrial Complex and along the Chinese border,” he said.

“Realistically, what the West needs to do is find a better carrot to engage North Korea with. The West needs to find a reason for Kim to engage with the world as a responsible leader. That has not occurred.”

According to Yasunori Kozawa, a Japanese professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, the Park government’s unification preparations have not taken ethnic Koreans in Japan into consideration.

“I understand there are certain limitations on improving Seoul-Tokyo ties. Even under such circumstances, I still don’t see whether South Korea has a plan to embrace Korean descendents living in Japan when the two Koreas are united,” Kozawa said.

“I urge Seoul to step up efforts to include them in publicizing why inter-Korean unification is a bonanza for all.

This photo shows a now-demolished bridge that once connected the two Koreas in the tourism pavilion of Imjingak in Paju, Gyeonggi Province on Oct. 28. / Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

Yin Boyao, a Ph. D candidate at Seoul National University, speculated that China will actively support South Korea if it deems that helping the North would not be benficial as helping the South.

“Seoul will be able to convince Beijing unless Pyongyang has the merit of serving as a buffer zone between China and the U.S.,” she said.

The expats said they support the general idea of Park’s unification diplomacy.

“It’s noble, because Park is trying to keep alive a commitment to Korean unification when Koreans are increasingly wary of it,” Kelly said.

Yin voiced a similar view, saying, “I would not assess whether her inter-Korean policies are better compared to those employed by her predecessors.”

Kozawa said Park’s unification drive is “very active and optimistic,” although it remains to be seen whether her plan will proceed as intended.

Regarding how North Korea views Park’s unification diplomacy, they said Seoul should take more trustworthy gestures toward the Kim Jong-un regime.

To some extents, they agreed with the reclusive state that her inter-Korean policies are aimed at unilaterally assimilating the North.

“Largely, the North Korean argument holds water. Park envisions a unified Korea under a Seoul-style government. It completely abolishes the North Korean government,” they said.

Miller suggested to retooling Park’s proposal and retructuring the reunified goverment into two equal parts, one from South Korea and the other from North Korea.

According to Kelly, Pyongyang is “correct and very reasonable” in its argument over Seoul’s plan to assimilate the North.

“The South Korean right has traditionally supported absorption, even if they don’t put it that bluntly.”

However, he said North Korea will never enter “a meaningful, compromising league with South Korea” because then Pyongyang would have to open up, and its elites are terrified of the consequences.

Kozawa said inter-Korean trade and other exchanges should be increased in order placate the Pyongyang regime.

Park’s unification diplomacy is largely based on the German reunification model.

The expats were also divided over whether Parks’ unification diplomacy, which is largely based on German re-unification model, can be applicable.

“It is very applicable,” Kelly said.

Miller claimed the direct correlation between Germany and Koreas is “minimal.”

“When East and West Germany reunified, they were separate states. While that is true on the world stage with North and South Korea, the idea of unification on the peninsula is done under the guise that one nation will absorb the other. In that respect, the German model is insufficient to address that situation,”Miller said.

“Furthermore, the social economic impact of the Germany unification pales in comparison to what would happen on the Korean Peninsula.”