Korea Times<\/p>\n\n\n\n
December 23, 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMeditations\non the word ‘unification’\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Emanuel Pastreich<\/p>\n\n\n\n The debate about North Korea’s\nfuture has been reduced to a fight between those on the one hand who favor\nexpanding cooperation with North Korea and thereby increasing investment,\nbusiness activities, transport networks, electric grids and energy ties, and\nthose on the other hand who feel that North Korea has not completely\ndenuclearized, that it cannot be trusted by the international community because\nit is run by a totalitarian government that does not embrace democracy, free\nmarkets and open borders like advanced nations do. Korea Times December 23, 2018 \u201cMeditations on the word ‘unification’\u201d Emanuel Pastreich The debate about North Korea’s future has been reduced to a fight between those on the one hand who favor expanding cooperation with North Korea and thereby increasing investment, business activities, transport networks, electric grids and energy ties, and those on the other … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9296425,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8942","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ctpolitics.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8942","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ctpolitics.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ctpolitics.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ctpolitics.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9296425"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ctpolitics.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8942"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ctpolitics.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8942\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ctpolitics.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ctpolitics.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ctpolitics.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\nThis simplistic argument has filled the media over the last\nyear and it has been effective because of the near total collapse of debate\namong citizens concerning current affairs outside of what the media presents.
\n
\nUnlike Korea before, there are no groups of dissent or\nstudents gathering in cafes in Insadong to discuss forbidden books like there\nwere in the 1970s or 1980s, or regular debates at NGO meetings, or even debates\non policy, the environment or the future of the country going on at home over\nthe dinner table, or among friends at school, or even in cafes. The passive\nreception of information, entertaining and harmless information, via cell phone\nhas become the norm for a passive population.
\n
\nIf the press describes policy is described as\n“liberal,” or as “conservative,” that ruling is accepted to\nbe so by much of the population. We have achieved what Princeton professor\nSheldon Wolin refers to as “inverted totalitarianism,” a state of\npolitics in which the day to day discourse on issues is profoundly limited by\nhidden forces like the commercial media or the pressure of advertising, that a\ntotalitarian system is ushered in even though there is no dictator standing at\nthe top of the government to enforce obedience. Rather, corporate forces\npushing profit-driven agendas have created an environment in which it is\nnatural to ignore daily the most critical issues of the age.
\n
\nWe are no longer readers; many of us cannot focus for more\nthan 10 minutes. The corporate media has become the common space for obtaining\ninformation and social media just offers pictures of cats and chocolate cakes,\nand occasional references to pre-digested mush from the corporate media.
\n
\nThe collapse in discourse on shared concerns in South Korea\nmeans that serious questions about the collapse of the local economy, about the\noverwhelming influence of foreign investment banks, about the catastrophe of\nclimate change and its handmaiden fine dust, and about the dangerous drive for\nworld war undertaken by some in the United States, are now taboo topics in the\nmedia.
\n
\nThat limited domestic debate has profound implications on how\nthe developing relations with North Korea are perceived, what exactly\nunification will mean, and how they will be carried out. For example, the media\npresented us glowing images of President Moon Jae-in and Chairman Kim Jung-eun\nembracing, related stories of the historical cooperation between the military\non both sides in removing weapons from the sides of the DMZ, and presented\nscenes in which clean buildings in Pyongyang are shown in a positive light.
\n
\nAll that content was positive. But implied in the narrative\nwas that North Koreans who have lived in a closed feudalistic state-socialist\nstate, cut off from the world, will now be allowed to enjoy the pleasures of a\nconsumer society and to live it up in the manner that their much more fortunate\nsouthern brothers and sisters have been doing.
\n
\nBut South Korea is no paradise. The tremendous social,\ncultural and economic forces in the South, most prominently the deep alienation\nof much of its population that has resulted in a high suicide rate, the\nself-abuse and abuse of others in daily life, a rapacious employment system\nwherein young people, if they find work at all, are tracked for jobs at coffee\nshops or convenience stores that offer them no chance to serve society, to gain\nadvanced training or to or make real decisions. Every aspect of life has become\na for-profit commercial show and the people are exhausted.
\n
\nMoreover, the entire ideology of the “democracy and\nmarket economy” that South Korea and the United States will supposedly\npresent to North Korea as a means of saving that country from poverty and\nisolation is collapsing around the world. In the United States, Japan, South Korea\nand in Europe, the modified capitalism that evolved in response to the\nchallenge of socialism in the 1930s and 1940s has reverted to its more\ndangerous predatory form \u2015 looking more like the 1890s than the 1990s. We need\nonly look at the strife in France to get a taste of what awaits us in Korea,\nand elsewhere when the contradictions grow more pronounced.
\n
\nToday markets play a minor role in these so-called\n“advanced economies.” The super rich dominate economic activities,\nand have established a financial feudalism wherein those members of the elite\ncan borrow as much money as they want and invest it as they wish but the vast\nmajority of citizens are only allowed extremely limited high-interest loans.\nThe process by which private banks and other funds created this nightmare world\nis left out of most media and the true decision makers behind policy decisions\nare obscured.
\n
\nAt the very moment that the newspapers speak of the great\nmarket economy that is going to be introduced into North Korea, that beast is a\ndying species in South Korea, in France or in the United States. As described\nin Peter Phillip’s carefully researched book “Giants: The Global Power\nElite,” the super rich and their enablers now form a mutual protection\nsociety within which they buy each other’s’ stock, and lend each other money at\nlow rates. Ordinary people, on the other hand, are expected to complete\nruthlessly for a dwindling number of poorly paid jobs. This exploitative system\nis the product of the “fourth industrial revolution,” we are told, by\nwhich (dictated by God and not by global institutional investors) technology\ndemands a massive degrading of workers’ status.
\n
\nSo what are the issues that are swept under the rug by the\nmedia during the headlong rush to embrace North Korea and launch a new age of\ncooperation? First and foremost, we are not learning any of the dirty deals of\nwho will finance what, and why, and who will make what profits.
\n
\nIf a train is going to be run from North Korea to South\nKorea, if oil or natural gas is going to be piped through North Korea to South\nKorea, we need to know. Who owns the pipes? Who owns the oil? How will it be\nsold and how will the profits be divided up? If the pipe is being paid for with\ntaxpayers’ money, will taxpayers get part of the returns?
\n
\nWe literally know nothing about what contracts are being\ndiscussed by corporations, or about what agreements the government is\nnegotiating with North Korea. Demands for transparency are especially critical\nat this moment because a move from a state-owned system in which a mine or a\nfactory belongs to the government to a capital-driven system in which a single\ncorporation, or even an individual could have absolute control over such\nresources, could be catastrophic. It will create even greater poverty, an even\ngreater concentration of wealth in the North and the South.
\n
\nIt would be good to know which multinational banks and\nsovereign wealth funds might invest in North Korea and under what conditions?\nWhat protection will North Koreans, or South Koreans, have if the investors do\nnot hold to their agreements? Are the contracts that have been signed (or will\nbe signed) going to be made public?
\n
\nIf there are plans to build factories in North Korea, we\nshould be asking: Who will finance those factories? Where will the profits go?\nWho will own them? What rights will the workers be granted and what share of\nprofits will they get? What steps are being taken to protect the health of the\nworkers, or to assess the impact of the factories on the environment?
\n
\nNorth Koreans do not have the expertise to assess the\nenvironmental impact of mining for coal, gold, iron and rare minerals, so\nexperts and NGOs must be involved in assessing the process. Currently they are\nnot being granted visas to visit North Korea at all.
\n
\nBut then again, South Koreans, Japanese, Chinese and\nAmericans did not care all that much about what has been done in Vietnam or\nMyanmar that may have been similar to what may happen in North Korea. We did\nnot ask ourselves what the impact of the private exploitation of nationalized\nproperty in Vietnam meant for ordinary Vietnamese. So far we are told that\nVietnam is thriving, but is that an accurate picture, and was industrialization\npositive for the environment or for ordinary workers?
\n
\nAs a general rule, we do not discuss, or even think about,\nthe damage to the environment, or the injury to workers, or other long-time\ncosts that lie behind the cheap clothes we buy and throw away, the cheap\nplastic items we consume, the cheap smart phones and speakers and sunglasses\nthat we think nothing of tossing in the garbage. To put it bluntly, our\nconsumer society has blinded us to the true cost of things. This is a serious\nproblem in the age of unification.
\n
\nNorth Korea will bring that reality back to us. Building 20\nor 30 thirty coal-powered power plants in North Korea will be not only\ncatastrophic for the ecosystem, and contribute to global warming, it will make\nthe already dangerous air in Seoul even more lethal to people’s health. If\npollution from factories is subject to little regulation in North Korea in the\npursuit of profit, not only with South Korea get the pollution, South Korean\nfactories will no doubt follow the precedent set in North Korea.
\n
\nWe must remember that poor wages and poor environmental\nprotection in North Korea will be quickly imported into South Korea, which\nalready is suffering from increasingly poor air quality.
\n
\nIf North Korean laborers have no rights and cannot organize,\nSouth Korean companies are likely to follow that model and exploit South Korean\nworkers. To put it another way, we are being sold a myth that North Korea will\nopen up and become freer, happier and wealthier like South Korea. But the truth\nis that South Koreans themselves are less and less free and less and less happy\nand wealthy following the current developmental model.
\n
\nOr could it be that the plan being put together by investment\nbanks and corporations for North Korean economic development is not about\nhelping North Korean people at all. Perhaps they are planning for North Korea much\nas they would plan for Mongolia or Vietnam. There is no concern for people\nbeyond profitability.
\n
\nThe concentration of wealth is the most important issue after\nclimate change that we need to consider when we address the challenge of\nunification. The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is increasing\nglobally, and particularly it is increasing in South Korea and in China. That\nprocess damages the rule of law and creates a culture in which ordinary\ncitizens are compelled by a twisted culture to admire the indulgence and the\nwaste and extravagance of the super rich because a corrupt media bombards them\nwith such images.
\n
\nThe mainstream media narrative is that North Koreans are poor\nand that the big economic gap will be between South and North. In standard\neconomic terms, this situation is an undeniable fact.
\n
\nYet we already know that some North Koreans find the\nselfishness, the competitiveness and the lack of concern for others in daily\nlife in South Korea to be so unbearable that they have wanted to go back. Many\nSouth Koreans who visit North Korea are deeply touched by the lack of\ncommercialization, the lack of a competitive culture and the value given to\nart, gymnastics and writing as an end in itself.
\n
\nThere is a bigger issue. If wealth is increasing concentrated\nin the hands of the few, as the trends described in Thomas Piketty’s book\n“Capital in the Twenty-First Century” suggest, then it is likely that\nthe true divide in Korea will not be between the poor and malnourished North Koreans\nand their prosperous and healthy South Koreans, but rather between ordinary\nKoreans in the North and South who are increasingly poor, and a tiny handful of\nthe super rich.
\n
\nI am not trying to deny the existence of tremendous gaps\nbetween the North and South today, but rather to suggest that the economic\ndistortions caused by the concentration of wealth are even greater.
\n
\nSuch trends suggest that we need to address an extremely\ndifferent set of problems on the Korean Peninsula and that there is not a\nchance in hell that we will reproduce the “Miracle of the Han River”\nin Pyongyang under the current circumstances. Social and economic justice will\nbe a bigger issue than material progress in the years ahead.
\n
\nThe unification task must involve a meaningful response to\nnegative impact on ordinary people of an economic system that subsidizes the\ncheap transport of goods through trade routes around the world and undermines\nthe local economies, an economy in which cheap finance is available only to\nlarge corporations.
\n
\nThe result for South Korea of the decay of an open economy\nhas been the collapse of local stores, local factories, local pharmacies, local\nbakeries and the growth of Starbucks, convenience stores, chain bakeries and\nother businesses funded by large corporations that can take massive losses for\nyears because of the low-cost finance they receive, and thereby eliminate\nfamily-run businesses.
\n
\nWorking in these chain businesses means the employees are not\nguaranteed long-term employment or adequate retirement and health benefits.\nThey have no role in decision-making over administration and finance, and they\ndo not get any ownership of the branch in which they work.
\n
\nThis is a tremendous setback from the family-owned stores\nthat were once so common, but are increasingly being driven into bankruptcy. If\nthis is the economics that we are planning to introduce to the North, it should\nsay no while it still can. After all, the primary issue for North Korea is\nwhere it will be in 20 or 50y years, not what thrills its citizens can get\ntoday from the introduction of video games or K Pop idols.
\n
\nWhat is “unification?”<\/strong>
\nCentral to the confusion concerning the ultimate meaning of\nunification is the vague and misleading comparisons made to the unification of\nGermany in 1990. This fairytale comparison is popular when talking with\nforeigners over soju late at night and it always follows the same plot: East\nGermany was hopelessly behind West Germany economically and unification\nimproved the lives of people in East Germany and it made Germany a more\nprosperous and powerful nation. Korea can also derive such benefits, but\nbecause the gap in income and in industrial development between East and West\nGermany was not as great at that between North and South Korea, Korean\nunification should therefore proceed more slowly.
\n
\nThe gap in income and development between North and South is\ncited as a justification of the exploitation of low-paid North Koreans by South\nKorean and international firms as part of the long process of unification. But if\nNorth Koreans are poorly paid, and if they are not allowed to accumulate\nspecialized skills, or save money, that process is more likely to result in a\ndecline in living standards for all Koreans than it is to make North Koreans\nwealthier. Encouraging North Koreans to waste their tiny incomes on fast food\nand cell phones will make things worse for them.
\n
\nAnd how exactly did South Korea come to enjoy the relative\neconomic prosperity that it has had the last few decades? That process is\nobscured by the term “miracle” as in “miracle of the Han\nRiver.” It was many contradictory things but it was not a miracle.
\n
\nEconomic growth was in part a result of the plans for rapid\nindustrialization undertaken under President Park Chung-hee. Looking back, that\nrapid industrialization that left South Korea so dependent on fossil fuel and\non imported agricultural products seems less of a blessing now, but we must\nadmit that the policy was effective.
\n
\nPresident Park effectively employed the Manchurian\ndevelopment model to speed development and compel all citizens to participate\nin the national project as if they were all part of an enormous military.
\n
\nBut the key to rapid industrialization was the manner in\nwhich the government took the control of capital away from foreign banks, and\naway from big business, and put it firmly under the control of government\nbureaucrats who were committed ideologically to a long-term developmental\nmodel. Park ruthlessly restricted Koreans’ ability to send their money outside\nKorea, and he compelled them to place their savings (and saving was encouraged\nby state-sponsored campaigns) in government-administrated savings plans that\nfinanced development.
\n
\nHe also made sure the government controlled the flow of\ncapital into South Korea so it could be focused on growing industries and\ntechnologies, on building infrastructure and education. It could not be used\nfor short-term speculative purposes such as is being planned for North Korea\nnow.
\n
\nThere were positives and negatives to Park’s approach. What\nwe can say for sure is that South Korea’s government and business community are\nnot considering such a model for the development of North Korea. There has been\nliterally no mention of how the education level of North Koreans will be\nincreased through long-term projects, or how civil society will be developed,\nor green zones established. The need to cultivate a new generation of North\nKorean intellectuals is not even mentioned. Perhaps this is true in part\nbecause intellectuals have become so disposable in South Korea.
\n
\nThe fact that conglomerates are involved in discussing North\nKorea’s development at all is a major conflict of interest. After all, those\nbusiness interests are by their very nature focused on short-term profits and\nhave no role to play in planning for North Korea’s future. It would be entirely\nappropriate to limit the discussion about North Korea’s development to\ngovernment officials and specialists with no conflict of interest and a\ncommitment to ethical governance.
\n
\nLet us turn back to the Germany’s unification in 1990. This\ntook place a long time ago, in a distant universe. At that time, the economic\nsystem and industrial production in Western Europe supported a far broader\ndistribution of wealth and unions and government regulation made the exploitation\nof citizens (at home and abroad) that we see today virtually impossible. The\ncheck on the economy enforced by the communist bloc meant the concentration of\nwealth did not become as radical as it has become today.
\n
\nWhat was ballyhooed as the triumph of capitalism in 1990 was\nrather the sign of the relative strength of a strong social welfare state\ncompared with bureaucratic socialism. But that welfare state would never have\ndeveloped in Germany (or in France and Scandinavia) without the constant\npressure and critique from those committed to a radical or revolutionary\nsocialist agenda. That is to say that the capitalism that won the day in 1990\nwas a modified and watered-down capitalism. The absence of the challenge from\nthe communist bloc meant that it would degenerate back into its original lethal\nform over the next 30 years.
\n
\nThat nightmare world of concentrated capital that pushes an\nempty consumer culture on citizens cannot be separated from the onset of\nradical climate change. Unfortunately, when the media mentions climate change\nat all, it is suggested to be something many years in the future, even though\nscientific experts suggest that we have very little time left.
\n
\nThe response to climate change must be at the center of\nunification policy; and yet government officials and businessmen blithely\nassume that North Korea has a few dirty decades to develop without any concern\nfor the environment. Such language is a dangerous fraud, but it is no worse\nthan encouraging the use of coal in South Korea, or in Southeast Asia.
\n
\nAnother myth is that the divided Korean Peninsula, and\nspecifically North Korea, is the last remnant of the Cold War. But is North\nKorea the last remnant of the old socialist system that lingers on in a new\norder powered by the freedom of open markets, the open exchange of ideas, and\nthe realization of one’s own potential through a democratic process? Those\nfighting in the streets of Paris against the government in France today\ncertainly do not see the world that way.
\n
\nThose who struggle against the massive agribusinesses that\nare destroying our natural environment and that are driving traditional farmers\ninto destitution do not see such a paradise in the Western world. Of course it\nis true that North Korea has walked along the wrong path for too long, mired in\ncorruption and its citizens subject to oppression. But we can be certain that\nthe solution to this will not come from ruthless multinational banks that push\npolicy through think tanks and on to governments.
\n
\nConsider the most powerful symbol of the tragic division of\nthe Korean nation: the
\nDemilitarized Zone, or DMZ.
\n
\nFor the older generation, the DMZ represents the tragic\ndivision between the socialist and capitalist worlds, between state control of\nthe economy and democratic and free societies.
\n
\nFor them the DMZ is a monument to the personal suffering and\nthe divisions of the past that have already been overcome in Europe and\nelsewhere. The DMZ lingers on, strangely, in an age in which borders are\nmelting away in the age of the internet, of free trade and tourism and the\nremarkable integration of the world by free trade over the last 30 years.
\n
\nThat is a powerful way of describing the DMZ. But might there\nbe other ways of looking at that wall?
\n
\nIf you asked someone from a younger generation, the answer\nmight be that this DMZ is not a remnant from the past, but rather a harbinger\nof something that is coming \u2015 the restriction of the movement of ordinary\npeople at a time that capital, products and the superrich are free to go\nwherever they want, wherever there is a profit to be made.
\n
\nWe see the offspring of the DMZ in the walls put up around\nGaza in Palestine and in the massive wall that Donald Trump is erecting between\nthe United States and Mexico. These walls block out poor people, and they\nresolve the economic conflicts created by global investment, through the use of\nforce
\n
\nThere are also walls going up right around us, the walls that\nsurround the gated communities where the rich live, walls that make sure that\nthose who enjoy a comfortable life can avoid running into people who are not\ntheir equals. Those walls suggest a radical fragmentation within our society,\nwhether in Korea or elsewhere, into small groups that share narrow interests.
\n
\nThe hidden precedents for unification policy<\/strong>
\nAs we dive deeper into the unification project, we need to\nconsider what exactly might be the model for unification that lurks in the\nsubconscious of the South Koreans in government and in business who are making\nthe plans. Of course, they may talk about German unification, but that process\nis quite distant from the history of the Korean Peninsula and from their\ninstinctual responses.
\n
\nThe economic, political and social unification of Korea has\nhappened before. There were the previous unifications of the peninsula under\nthe Silla Dynasty or the Goryeo Dynasty, but those precedents for unification\nare too far in the past to have an immediate impact on how Koreans respond.
\n
\nBut what is it that is hidden beneath the surface of the\nKorean consciousness, just out of reach, but that deeply formed how Koreans\nthink about economic development and about what unification might mean?
\n
\nThe more recent precedent for a massive economic and\npolitical unification project can be found rather in the 1936 “First\nAgreement for Cooperation between Manchuria and Korea (dai ichiji mancho kyotei\n\u7b2c\u4e00\u6b21?\u671d\u5354\u5b9a) issued by the Japanese governor of Korea. This agreement set in\nmotion the “Manchuria and Korea as one” (?\u671d\u4e00\u5982) vision for the rapid\nindustrialization of both regions and their effective economic and cultural\nunification.
\n
\nKorean newspapers in the late 1930s were full of reports\nabout how Manchuria offered a tremendous opportunity for Korean businesses to\ntake advantage of cheap Manchurian labor, and to exploit the natural resources\nof Manchuria (coal, minerals and rich soil) to make a quick fortune.
\n
\nWhen former President Park Geun-hye spoke of a\n“bonanza” (daebak\ub300\ubc15) to be found in unification with North Korea back in 2014, the\nterm she employed seemed a bit odd. But in fact, it was literally a modern\ntranslation of the expression popular in Korea in the 1930s to describe the\neconomic opportunities offered by Manchuria to “snatch up a thousand\npieces of gold” (\uc77c\ud655\ucc9c\uae08 \u4e00\u652b\u5343\u91d1).
\n
\nPresident Park probably was not thinking specifically about\neconomic and political integration between Korea and Manchuria in the 1930s\nwhen she made that comment. But that process was the source of many Korean\nfamily fortunes that continue to the present day. A subtle resonance was most\ncertainly audible. The concept was perhaps imbedded in her subconscious.
\n
\nAfter all, her father, the former President Park Chung-hee,\nlearned about politics and economics, and found his path to power as an\nambitious young man who ran off to Manchuria to take advantage of that economic\nboom. Just as many Americans were drawn by the siren call of “Go\nWest!” in the 19th century, so were Koreans drawn to Manchuria’s open\nskies in the 1930s.
\n
\nThe parallels between how North Korea’s development is\nexplained to South Koreans today and how Manchuria’s development was sold to\nKoreans in the 1930s are disturbing.
\n
\nBut we do not have to follow that tragic path this time. We\nhave the ability to find our own way and to create new models for the\ndevelopment of the Korean Peninsula and of the region that do not depend on\nexploitation or massive capital investment.
\n
\nUnification must be a citizens’ movement. It must be an\nexchange between people that allows them to realize their full potential\nwithout any concern for the returns given to venture capitalists. Unification\nshould be a cultural movement that revitalizes culture and expression so\ncitizens can express a vision and then realize it. It should be a youth\nmovement that allows youth from across the peninsula to join forces and to\ncreate a society in which they are empowered.
\n
\nUnification should be a peace movement that seeks to direct\nattention towards social issues, environmental issues and other concerns that\nare shared by all, and away from militarism and great power competition. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"