The Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU) is working on a four-year project (2010-2013) on the subject of Korean unification. The objective of this project is to propose a grand plan for Korean unification. The Unification Forum series is one of the tasks of this project. In the first two years, the forums reviewed the positions of the neighboring countries on Korean unification (2010) and analyzed USChina relations and their implications for Korean unification (2011). The forums are also intended to serve as a channel to deliver our unification vision to the international community Ⅰ. Korean Unification: The Final Goal of North Korea Policy Searching for a Consistent North Korea Policy Ⅱ. China and Korean Unification Free Trade Agreements and Economic Aspects of Unification China-North Korea Relations in a New Era: Assessing Continuities and Changes Ⅲ. Korean Unification from an International Perspective Korean Unification: Benefits, Uncertainties, and Costs Korea as One: Pathways to Korean Unification and Regional Transformations Reunification of the Korean Peninsula: Will China Help? Russia, Two Koreas, and Unification Prospects

The proposed governmental structure of the unified state is historically viable, immediately applicable and financially attractive. This new scenario for Korean unifi cation has three basic elements among others. First, the entire systems of the current democracy in South Korea will be applied across the entire Korean peninsula. Secondly, the structure will guarantee future securities of North Korean leaders and their descendants. Thirdly, it will obtain the Stability of the East Asian region through the United Nations. After the unification, all citizens of the new state will enjoy the freedom and liberty currently enjoyed by the citizens of South Korea. The division of the Korean peninsula was an unfortunate product of the Cold War created by two superpowers. Particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Blocs in the 1990s, North Korea became isolated and unable to make any advance in its economic front. The result is that the survival of its regime as a state is currently at risk. Moreover, South Korea possesses more than 30 times the economic strength in terms of GDP and twice the population of North Korea. It has a vast technological lead and has stolen away the North’s allies, as well as the friendship of most other states. The economic miracle of the South was achievable under the protection of the US defense system, whereas the dismal economy of the North is a result of the continual presence of the US forces in the South and the collapse of the Soviet Blocs. In light of these economic developments, now is the time for the government of South Korea to make a bold move towards an orderly Korean unification with the guarantee of stability in East Asia through the United Nations. It is regrettable to say that the Government of North Korea must give up the idea of unifying the Korean peninsula on its own terms and accept the proposed unification mode in exchange for the future securities of the North Korean leaders and their descendants. Then, most important is the end of the human rights abuses by the North Korean regime. Also equally importantly, this new unification scenario turns out to save more than $100 Billion in unification capital cost, in comparison with other known unification scenarios. Today the two Koreas have become at best a peripheral security interest to America, while economic relations have been warming up for mutual prosperity among the powerful neighboring countries- China, Japan, Russia and the US. Their governments should unselfishly support this new unification endeavor of the Koreans along with the guarantee of stability in East Asia through the United Nations. The proposed governmental structure of the new unified state is historically viable, immediately applicable and financially attractive. Thus, the Korea unification, outlined in this proposal, will provide peace, prosperity and no further nuclear threat by the North Korean regime to all nations in the world.

The current research aims to provide analytical understandings on the costs and benefits of Korean unification from political, social, and economic aspects. Upon the two years of earlier works, we constructed an analytical model encompassing both spatial and temporal dimensions of the unification process, and built comprehensive architecture, ‘the Guiding Type of Unification.’ Based on this model, we have broaden the scope of the research by collecting diverse perspectives from the worldwide experts of the leading countries. We expect to observe the global trends of world governance. Indeed, the increasing importance of Group of Twenty (G‐20) countries in managing global problems reflects both political and social aspects of the changes occurring in global governance. Another reason for this would be South Korea’s diversified international relations in the recent years. Hence, it seems necessary to take a closer look on the international dimensions of Korean unification. In this vein, we requested thirteen experts of the leading countries to express their opinions on Korean unification. In order to collect international perspectives in a coordinated manner, scholars were provided with a guideline to include their perspectives on the expected effects of Korean Unification and the potential roles of their countries during and after the process. Participants were also asked to present candid implications for Korean unification. Argentina, whose food supply is abundant, laid stress on providing assistance in terms of food security during the unification. Australia, who has special concerns in Asian security, suggested a comprehensive support not only as a mediator but also as one of the U.S. alliance. Due to remote distance to Asia, Brazil is relatively less affected by the unification. Brazil, however, expressed that it has a keen interest in transmission of its experience regarding nuclear issues with Argentina. Similar to Brazil’s stance, the effects of the unification influence is indirect to Canada. Nevertheless, Canada could play a role in providing humanitarian assistance, and could be a potential destination for North Korean refugee resettlement. France, one of the most influential members in the European Union and the United Nations, made a suggestion to promote institution building in East Asia that can promote stability in the region. Germany, the only country who had experienced unification, presented its interest in participating actively in the process of Korean unification through public and private sectors. India assumed that the unification of Korea leads to the denuclearization of the peninsula, and would see this as a positive sign for stability of the region, since it would limit or end North Korea’s nuclear weapon transmits with Pakistan. Indonesia could contribute to regional peace and stability through ASEAN and its extensions as South Korea can call upon Indonesia to engage in the peace process. Italy, who especially pointed out the role of European Union as a whole, is well-poised to contribute to economic and social development with North Korea through technical assistance. Mexico can, and expressed its willingness to play an active role in the unification process through international organizations. South Africa, who had been successful in national reconciliation and denuclearization, is very likely to provide its experience and can be a strong voice for the NPT and arms control in the international society. Advocating South Korea’s policy in Korean unification, Turkey explicitly mentioned that it will side with Seoul if there is a possible conflict in the peninsula. The author emphasized that the international community must be well-informed on how Korean unification will take place. Last but not least, the United Kingdom author suggested that Koreans will have to resolve emotional conflicts for reconciliation. Considering how both Koreas have dealt educational matters concerning the division of the peninsula, this may face a major challenge in the future generation. Thirteen countries’ diversely manifested positions on the unifying process are indicative of perceptual change that the issue of Korean unification is no longer a regional issue, but an international one, in which multiple actors have their own stakes within. Upon the previously suggested implications, we categorized the countries into three groups: bystanders, supporters, and interveners. This categorization reflects the assertiveness of each country, or coercive level of each country’s assistance instrumented towards the two Koreas during the unifying process. In the conclusion, based on our final analysis, we provided recommendations for the policy makers. First, diversified diplomacy creates an amicable international environment for unification policies beyond the power politics of the Four Powers. Second, activation of leading countries’ roles is strategically advantageous to activate the meaningful roles of these leading countries to minimize the Four Powers’ concerns. Third, emphasizing the formation of multilateral system would provide leading countries with an additional motivation to actively participate in the unification process. Furthermore, multilateral efforts to achieve Korean unification are also expected to contribute to the furtherance of democratic elements in the dynamics of international relations as a whole. Fourth, it is now high time for us to conduct more public diplomacy by devising new and creative methodologies. The global research project of this kind could be one of the most effective public diplomatic tools. Lastly, the unification between two Koreas can no longer be considered as a regional issue within Northeast Asia since others, including the leading countries, conceive their national interests along the process of unification on the Korean peninsula in diverse ways. Overall, thirteen countries’ recommendations underline the significance of collective efforts in addressing the unification process and suggest South Korea to learn lessons from the experience that they have undergone in the past. Keywords: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom, Expectation, Role, Effect ------------- CONTENTS ------------- Acknowledgments Abstract Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION Ⅱ. EFFECTS AND ROLES 1. Argentina 2. Australia 3. Brazil 4. Canada 5. France 6. Germany 7. India 8. Indonesia 9. Italy 10. Mexico 11. South Africa 12. Turkey 13. United Kingdom Ⅲ. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 1. Expected Effect 2. Potential Roles 3. Classification of Leading Countries Ⅳ. CONCLUSION References Recent Publications

This book analyzes the cost of division that the four powers must bear as well as the benefits of nification they will acquire. There has been much research on the same topic, but mostly done from the perspective of Korean scholars. However, this book provides perspectives of scholars from each of the four states as well as Asia-Pacific region. This book is part of an ongoing effort by KINU to strengthen South Korea’s unification diplomacy. This book is divided into 10 chapters. Chapter 1-8 analyze the cost of division and the benefits of unification from the security and economic perspective of the United States, Japan, China, and Russia. Chapter 9 and 10 look at the bigger picture by discussing the division cost and benefits of unification from the standpoint of the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. Based on the analyses of the chapters, the conclusion chapter examines the similarities and differences of the division cost that the four powers must bear as well as the benefits they will obtain. Introduction The Costs of Division and the Benefits of Unification for the Four Northeast Asian Powers/ Kook-Shin Kim, Jae-Jeok Park Chapter 1 The Costs of Korean Division and the Benefits of Korean Unification for U.S. National Security/ Kongdan Katy Oh Chapter 2 Economic Implications for the United States of the Divided Korean Peninsula/ William B. Brown Chapter 3 Korean Peninsula Division/Unification and China : From the Security Perspective of China/ Ming Liu Chapter 4 Korean Peninsula Division/Unification and China : From the Economic Perspective of China/ Jiyoung Zheng,Jianzhong Jiang Chapter 5 Korean Peninsula Division/Unification : From the Security Perspective of Japan/ Tomohiko Satake Chapter 6 Costs and Benefits of Korean Unification for Japan : Political and Economic Perspectives/ Sachio Nakato Chapter 7 Korean Peninsula Division/Unification and Russia : From the Security Perspective of Russia/ Leonid Petrov Chapter 8 Korean Peninsula Division/Unification and Russia : From the Economic Perspective of Russia/ Alexander Fedorovskiy Chapter 9 Korean Peninsula Division/Unification and Security Order in the Asia-Pacific Region/ Thomas S. Wilkins Chapter 10 Korean Peninsula Unification : Opportunities and Challenges to Asia-Pacific Economies/ Jeffrey Robertson

The eventual reunification of the Korean Peninsula will send political and economic reverberations throughout Northeast Asia and will catalyze the struggle over a new regional order among the four great powers of the Pacific—Russia, China, Japan, and the United States. Korea’s Future and the Great Powers addresses the vital issues of how to achieve a stable political order in a unified Korea, how to finance Korean economic reconstruction, and how to link Korea into a cooperative framework of international diplomatic relations.

On the Korean peninsula, there exist two sovereign states—the Republic of Korea (ROK or South Korea) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea)—both of whom hold separate membership at the United Nations. This book discusses the construction of "one Korea" and highlights the potential benefits of unification for the Koreans and the international community. Arguing that Korean unification is intrinsically international in nature, the authors outline how the process and outcome would impact upon the policies of the four major powers—the U.S., China, Russia, and Japan. In addition, the authors highlight the possible far-reaching repercussions of unification on the political and economic dynamics of Northeast Asia. Making a case for the two Koreas and interested powers to plan and orchestrate their acts for sustained peace and gradual unification on the Korean peninsula, this book examines the Korean question and the related issue of peace building in Northeast Asia from a global perspective. It will be of interest to students and scholars researching politics and international relations.