In 1988, Kim Young-oak, Korea's most influential contemporary thinker, published an op-ed piece entitled, "About Unification" that compared the two Koreas to a divorced couple. According to Kim, as soon as the two decide to patch things together, eat and sleep together, everything will be fine. Kim views the unification of the two Koreas as an "estranged couple continuing their predestined fate." Still, the relationship could be in for stormy weather if the two sides, "lack the will to live together," or cannot come up with a reason to continue their relationship.
The difficult work will take place in the future. For instance, the reunited couple will have to agree on: re-registering their household, remodeling, and raising the kids. Who will take the responsibility for all this? Both sides will have to make adjustments. But if the couple is committed and willing to try, they should be able to work things out.
If national reunification was really this easy, why has only Germany been able to reunify? The reason is simple: both sides of a "divided nation" are interested in protecting their vested interests (including political, ideological, and economic interests), and unwilling to risk these interests on a unification which -- conveniently for them -- is "very difficult." So the rulers of both countries inevitably erect countless obstacles, set an endless string of conditions and raise the stakes so high that neither side is willing to risk unification. Small wonder that the two sides' ideas about unification have drifted apart over the years.
South Korea's Ministry of Unification (and the "National Unification Board" that existed in the past) is the counterpart to Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council (
The people of Korea are more practical in their attitudes toward the reality of their division than the Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait. However, public opinion about unification is also much more polarized in Korea. This is reflected in the widely divergent personalities and leadership qualities of the leaders of North and South Korea.
The following is a description of Kim Jung-il by a Chinese translator after a meeting between Deng Xiaoping (
Reporters from the Japanese media who interviewed Kim Jung-il described him as a, "pragmatist with excellent judgement and clear opinions."
In 1996, when Hwang Jang-yop, a top theoretician from Kim Jung-il's Korean Workers' Party, defected to South Korea, Hwang described Kim as, "Quick and accurate when making decisions." Kim Jung-il has most likely carefully weighed the possible outcomes of the upcoming summit very carefully before agreeing to attend, South Korean media has said.
After looking at intelligence gathered by several countries, South Korea's intelligence agency concluded that Kim Jung-il, "Is a leader who thinks with great care yet reacts swiftly."
After his secret meeting in Beijing, the Chinese foreign ministry issued a glowing statement of him. It said, "Kim Jung-il is in good health with an exceedingly clear mind. Kim also highly praised China's `reform and open up' policy." This is the most recent account of the hermetic leader.
Now for Kim Dae-jung.
During his candidacy for president, Kim Dae-jung was described as, "A great leader who is thoroughly prepared [to take office]." It is expected that he, too, is fully prepared for the upcoming summit.
Kim Dae-jung has been active in opposition politics for decades, which has tempered his will and strengthened his patience. South Koreans call him a fighter who is, "tenacious in the face of adversity." He has also been criticized as being prone to capriciousness, and for being, "authoritarian."
Kim Dae-jung has shied away from accepting political contributions from shady sources after being active for so many years in the opposition movement and living under the fear of harsh government repression that could be used against him for even a small mistake. There are no records of the donations, in any case, as all information about them is locked away in his head. On the bright side, this is likely to sharpen Kim's memory, and force him to keep a clear head, but on the darker side it could also push his personality more in the direction of an arbitrary strong man.
Kim Dae-jung is a man that pursues perfection, and is committed to thinking all things through carefully, quite the opposite of Kim Jung-il who is known for his extemporaneous decisions. Still, it is undeniable that both men possess complex personalities.
In traditional Korean society, there is a clear hierarchy of respect. Kim Jung-il is 18 years younger than Kim Dae-jung, and the way the two manage their traditional responsibilities of respect, deference and benevolence could affect the summit's outcome.
For North Korea, one of the spin-offs of the summit could be the creation of a rift among right-wing political forces in South Korea. If North Korea places emphasis on reforms, it could confuse social values in South Korea. The summit could also be used to foster anti-American sentiment in Korea and abroad, and push for the removal of US military bases and the abolishment of the "National Security Law," which North Korea views as a barrier to Korean unification.
North Korea's propaganda machine has been mobilized since the summit was announced two months ago, and is blasting its message to South Korea in the hopes of raising the specter of anti-US sentiment in South Korea. In contrast with North Korea's autocracy, South Korea has a very open economy and pluralist society. North Korea's reactionary propaganda program can broadcast all it wants, spreading its poison to the people in South Korea, but the people of North Korea have yet to get a whiff of the air of freedom from the summit.
Regardless, the "world's greatest gamble" is set to begin. Public opinion about the unification summit is beginning to polarize in South Korea. The optimists believe that the summit could start a process of change in North Korea, while the pessimists contend that "old dogs can't learn new tricks." Looking at past experience, no change in North Korea is just that: no change.
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry