Zach Montague, WPR:
Korean Reunification Seems More Quixotic Than Ever. Now What?
Since the initial division of the Korean Peninsula at the end of World War II, there has been a distant hope in diplomatic circles, as well as among many Koreans, that the split might one day be undone. American officials have supported Korean reunification for years, and even China, which benefits from the buffer North Korea provides between its border and the U.S.-allied South, has quietly favored the idea at times of heightened tensions. In preparation for a possible reunion, South Korea funds a Ministry of Unification that studies strategies for bringing the two states closer—and last month financed an $8 million humanitarian aid package for Pyongyang.
The goal of bringing the two Koreas together again has a certain historical appeal. It echoes the reunification of Germany, which healed a Cold War rift, reunited families and produced a powerhouse economy. Many hope that through shared history and culture, and pooled economic resources, the two countries could eventually be stronger together.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Since the founding of the Communist regime in North Korea, the long term goal of the Communist regime (like the North Vietnamese Communists when it came to South Vietnam) .... was to unify the Korean peninsula .... and by force if necessary. That was then .... today .... the impression that I am getting is that Pyongyang is accepting the fact that this is no longer militarily or politically possible, that it is in their interests to keep the peninsula divided, and having a nuclear arsenal will maintain this status quo. Where it gets complicated is that North Korea now wants a nuclear arsenal to threaten the U.S. directly .... even if it means upsetting the geopolitical balance in the region and changing the status quo where the North Korean state headed by the Kim family was acceptable by everyone .... albeit reluctantly. Why this shift in policy from North Korea .... which I would say started about 2 or 3 years ago .... is something that I do not understand. This new North Korean approach now introduces a new dimension to the Korean problem, because right now one can make the argument that regime change in North Korea (and the consequences that it may entail) may be the preferred option .... even if the outcome of regime change will mean war and conflict that will impact the Korean people for generations. Bottom line .... if North Korea was not hell-bent on developing a nuclear ICBM force .... I would be in agreement with Zach Montague's opinion that Korean unification is not going to happen for the foreseeable future. But North Korea is hell-bent on developing a nuclear ICBM force that will be capable of striking the U.S. mainland .... and this in turn has resulted in blow-back that directly threatens the stability of the North Korean state. Communist regimes .... when threatened in such a manner and without support .... cannot sustain themselves for too long. There is going to be a breaking point. An army rebellion there. A break-down in the internal security/intelligence services somewhere else. Strikes and open defiance. It does not take much .... but when it starts, nothing can stop it. When I think of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un I am always reminded of former Romanian strongman
Nicolae Ceaușescu. Ceausescu .... like Kim Jong-Un .... had a brutal internal security service, and no one believed that he would be overthrown (myself included). But he was overthrown .... because in the end there was no one there to protect him. That is my prediction for Kim Jong-Un .... in the end .... when the people who are suppose to protect him .... they are the ones who are going to shoot him. And the one who will be the most surprised will be Kim Jong-Un .... just like Ceausescu was when he was put against the wall to be executed.
