The most important effects of the Cold War on the political development of the two Koreas were most obviously the division of a unified nation into two separate camps: the communist north and the semi-free south under military rule (which had been a democracy that wilted under pressure and then would later become a democracy decades later). Even leading up to the Korean War, Soviet interests were strongly represented in the north and American interests in the south through proxy leaders like Kim Il Sung and Syngman Rhee. With such powerful interests involved it was almost impossible for local interests and leaders to become influential without first courting either party to the Cold War. After suffering from Japanese rule, the Korean people were once again subject to foreign interference following the end of World War II. Cold War pressures between the two interests became so intense as to spark the almost inevitable Korean War and cement South Korea firmly within the U.S. security plan for the region, whereas earlier U.S. representation in the country had been limited. Following the Korean War (which technically still continues), the establishment of U.S. long-term interests in South Korea ensured a government would be willing to develop pro-U.S. policies in security and economic matters, build stronger ties to former enemy Japan, and remain opposed to the north during the military regime that ruled the south until the end of the Cold War. This ensured the development of a liberal democracy, while the north and its orientation towards Leninist, Soviet-style, personality driven authoritarian government put it on a path towards isolationism and underdevelopment.
The end of the Cold War has brought political developments such as the transition of South Korea into a full democracy in 1993 and a more reconciliatory posture towards the north in the interest of reunification. However, the south’s relationship with the United States remains especially important as the north continues to threaten the south with rhetoric while at the same time suggesting that it is working (or achieved) nuclear capability. The end of the Cold War has turned the Korean conflict into less of a proxy conflict and more into a Korean and Asian problem where one undeniably backward and corrupt government (the north) has failed to take advantage of the economic opportunities its neighbors have.
As South Korea continues to develop, it will become important in the coming years that the two sides reconcile in areas where possible and the north move away from its suicidal policies which have only hurt its people. While the current northern government is probably avoiding this scenario to avoid losing power or hinting weakness, it is only a matter of time before the unification occurs, I believe.
Abonnieren
Kommentare zum Post (Atom)
In the book, Vera Simone suggests that the Koreans in 1949 couldnt have known that the involvement of the Soviets and the United States in ousting the Japanese would have led to such division. In my opinion, this is exactly the problem with many Asian Pacific countries (including China at the time) not doing their international homework.
AntwortenLöschenLiving under a militaristic Japanese empire, I am sure it was a relief for the South Koreans to have the United States come over. Not to be the typical arrogant American, but with the U.S. comes the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the money they feel would help any country with that cause. The United States at the time would go to great lengths to court any country who would reject communism for democracy - regardless of how flimsy or corrupt the government may be (see Vietnam). But I digress.
South Korea went from harsh colonization by the Japanese to "independence" with massive United States help. It isnt a bad deal, they get windfalls of cash and plenty of support from our military (the source of many 365-day tours for my career field - in fact the Air Force is now offering incentives for younger troops to sign up for two-year tours!)
North Korea, poor guys, they simply picked the wrong team. "Independent" as they may be, they don't have the international "sugar daddy" they had when the USSR was in their back pocket. So today Kim Jong Il resorts to his annual nuclear missile test to prove he is a true power house and other side show tricks to keep his country relevant.
From colonization to cold war, neither side has developed in accordance with any of the theories we have learned about. In my opinion, looking at the world system theory, they are still (and will be for some time) periphery countries until they can stand on their own.
For sure, South Korea is much better off for American involvement than it would have been under the rule of communist ideologues and their glorious, Leninist, immortal leader! I don’t think the United States always chooses the less of two evils, but rather the more promising and cooperative of two evils. For example, even though there were liberal movements in the Philippines during the American intervention there, the United States did not support those movements and instead supported more moderate movements that valued trade liberalization and less liberal political policies. The same was true in South Korea. The United States tolerated South Korea shelving liberal democracy (which had failed) for a military government that was capable of providing long-term stability that would later foster a strong democratic state. Whether the United States really possesses this amazing foresight is really debatable. After all, the same strategy brought mixed results in American-controlled Cuba and the Philippines. But there is no doubt that the strategy in South Korea and American involvement there played a strong role in its success. South Korea is beginning to call itself a developed country on its official website and moving away from “developing country” or transitional economy language. It now considers itself a full player in the region’s market (this may explain why two year tours are being offered there now) as quality of life increases. My wife and I are moving there in a few weeks for two years and were surprised to see the housing costs in Seoul to be comparable to Munich or Alexandria, Virginia. Obviously, their market has come a long way. As for North Korea, it will be interesting to see when the nightmare will end – perhaps like East Germany, but with much more interesting humanitarian and human migration complications if the north was to open. Or, like Belarus, it may be a freak state afraid of the outside world, or more importantly, the elites losing their control f power. The next few years will be interesting!
AntwortenLöschenYou are certainly traveling over there at an interesting time. With a much more liberal president in office, I am interested to see what concessions we will offer North Korea to keep them engaged at the table. Secretary Clinton's visit to Japan seemed to indicate that we will not tolerate their shows of force for attention. Hopefully those are just words. However, I do see President Obama moving more favorably to lifting the "Axis of Evil" label from North Korea in order to bring them to the table.
AntwortenLöschenFor South Korea, I feel they find themselves in the same boat as West Germany. Unification would really mean inviting in the prodigal son. The amount of money they will have to drive into that region to even out the country could hurt them as it did Germany. However, if Germany is any indication of success, Korea's economy should survive.