As the debate about unification has recently been enlivened in Korean society, the flame of hope for unification is being re-kindled. However, there are still many who focus solely on the enormous costs involved, while others remain passive toward the unification issue. Particularly members of the younger generation feel satisfied with ‘co-existence under an unstable peace’ as a divided peninsula. However, as indicated in a special report by the Russian Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) which assessed that “North Korea is already in the process of collapse,” the unification issue is no longer something we can avoid. Therefore, armed with this consciousness of the problems of our era, this project assesses the significance of the recent rekindling of interest in unification and considers a new vision of unification and its potential value, dealing intensively with the positions and roles of the four neighboring powers regarding unification as well as ideas for strategic cooperation among South Korea and its powerful neighbors. The publication of this project owes much to the diligent efforts of KINU research associates such as Hyo Min Lee, Uichan Ko and Jisuk Park who reviewed and edited the various papers. Also, the English version of this publication benefited greatly from the accurate translations done by research associates Meredith Rose Shaw and Hyo Min Lee. It is the editor’s hope that this research project can help both Korean and foreign experts, academics, and readers to better understand the value of Korean unification and the various positions and roles that can be played by the US, Japan, China and Russia. Chapter 1 A Vision of Korean Unification and Its Value : Building Great Power Korea/ Jung-Ho Bae | Director, Center for International Relations Studies, KINU Chapter 2 German Reunification and the European Union/ Don-Jay Yeom | Dean, Graduate School of Strategic Studies, Sungkyunkwan University Chapter 3 The United States and Korean Unification/ Ralph Hassig and Kongdan Oh | The Institute for Defense Analyses(IDA) Chapter 4 Japan’s Role and Position on Korean Unification/ Takashi Inoguchi | President, University of Niigata Prefecture Professor Emeritus, University of Tokyo Chapter 5 Managing the Path toward Eventual Korean Unification : The Chinese Way/ You Ji | Associate Professor, School of Social Science & International Studies, The University of New South Wales Chapter 6 Russia’s Role and Position on Korean Unification/ Alexander Panov | Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Chapter 7 Korea’s Diplomatic Strategy for Unifying the Korean Peninsula/ Young-Ho Park | Senior Research Fellow, KINU

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

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.

This title was first published in 2003. After the inter-Korean Summit in 2000, the Korean peace process gained a new momentum and the two Koreas increased mutual contacts and exchanges. However, in 2001 the peace process stalled and was further hindered by Bush's hard-line policy towards Pyongyang and North Korea's inflexible attitudes towards Seoul. Interest in the Korean peninsula by the US, Russia, Japan and China, for geo-strategic and geo-economic reasons means that peace and unification will inevitably become an international problem. Against this backdrop, this original volume deals with the problems and prospects of the inter-Korean peace process and the interests, attitudes and policies of these major powers.

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

This thesis assesses the reasons for the continuous division of the two Koreas and proposes necessary policies for Korean unification. In modern times, Koreans have been unable to determine their own destiny. Many examples show that Korea[alpha]s circumstances have been influenced by other countries. Korea[alpha]s division and the North Korean nuclear standoff are not only Korean problems but also international issues. In these contexts, Korean unification requires not only domestic efforts but also international efforts. Also, for successful consensual and peaceful unification, domestic and international efforts should not be passive and reactive. They should be practical, proactive, and comprehensive. In other words, Korean unification has been difficult because there have not been sufficiently proactive domestic and international efforts. Internal and external efforts can be implemented in three fields: military containment and negotiation, political negotiations and economic and social engagement. These three approaches are the fundamental pillars on which to build successful unification. Proactive and synchronous implementation of the three policies is the pivotal point in order to deal with North Korea because each policy is important and can be implemented in different fields. Strong defense is critical to supporting other policy implementation. Political negotiations can deal with the peace treaty issue. Economically, an engagement policy should be maintained to open North Korea and provide humanitarian aid. Through the proactive implementation of those policies for Korean unification by the two Koreas and four powers, northeast Asia will be more stable and peaceful. Peaceful Korean unification will be an important first step on the road to a more peaceful world in the twenty-first century.