July of 2003 will mark the 50th anniversary of the truce agreement between North Korea (the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) and the United Nations Command which has resulted in a divided Korea into South and North. Technically, the truce agreement did not bring about an end to the undeclared Korean War and so a virtual state of war still exists since an armistice was never signed to settle the dispute. The division of North and South Korean is one of the few remaining vestiges of the Cold War, and calls for the unification of Korea have intensified since 2000 when the South and the North took steps to advance the reconciliation and unity of the two Koreas. This paper will argue against a quick unification of North and South Korea on the grounds that it would have dire results for the South.
Asian expert Marcus Noland (2000) refers to the two ways of reforming centrally planned economies in Asia: "the unsuccessful European big bang approach, and the successful Asian gradual approach." Although Noland believes the Asian view is mistaken, I believe that it is the best approach to take, especially given the devastating economic conditions of North Korea. The South Korean unification plan is one that would take place over two generations. Given the economic conditions in North Korea and the hard line ideological differences between the North and the South, a gradual approach would be more salutary, and in the long run, more lasting.
In fact, when South Korean President Kim Dae-jung first announced his "Sunshine" policy, which brought him the Nobel Peace Prize, he made it clear that an easing of tensions and reconciliation between the two Koreas was the goal, a goal that would take many years to reach given the very real differences and problems that exist between South and North Korea. Kim's approach is a balanced one. He pledged that South Korea will not absorb North Korea, but "will actively promote exchanges and coop...