If you are saying that it would be great if the Korean peninsula were united under a single government - well then, how could I disagree? Ethnic distinctions in South Korean society (like between Cholla Namdo and Gyeonggi) are so minor that from a Western perspective they are virtually non existent. Something like the difference between an Ohioan and a New Englander. Differences between North and South continue to exist, with the North relatively undeveloped and agricultural, completely the reverse of the pre-Korean War situation. Moreover, having lived in Korea for more than a decade, I can say with certainty that it is the sincere, heartfelt wish of EVERY South Korean that this were so. But, not every Korean would agree that the partition was worse than the imposition of Communist rule over the entire nation, in fact I think only a minority of South Koreans would agree with this notion. The notion that the interference of the US led to the division of Korea can’t be taken seriously unless you consider the imposition of Communist rule both natural and unavoidable.
I could (and would) argue with equal sincerity that the division of Korea was caused directly by the Chinese invasion of the peninsula after virtually the entire nation had been liberated from the Communists.
Moreover, if you argue that Confucian societies generally embody values that are compatible with successful, vibrant economies, I also have to agree. I would be a bit reluctant to attribute this solely to Confucianism, but instead to the entirety of the national mindset. But then, why did North Korea fail, and China and Mongolia stagnate until Deng in the case of China and the fall of the Soviet Union in the case of Mongolia? I’d argue strongly that the nature of Communism at its core is “against the natural order of things”. It abhors a free economy and elevates a central control of the means of production. It stifles creativity and enterprise. South Korean prosperity resulted in no small measure from their access to the US marketplace.
I’d argue that North Korea would already be dead and gone if it had not been propped up by all manner of “humanitarian” aid from the West, from Japan, and from South Korea itself. Now, there’s something I do see as against the natural order of things - propping up your enemy.
Also, I think there was a moment, when the Soviet Union fell, and Germany re-united, that South Korea recoiled from the social turmoil and costs that reunification would have brought, and the opportunity that might have existed slipped away. What set of circumstances might now arise wherein reunification might be possible is something that has not been revealed to me. I can scarcely imagine what it could be short of a terrible and all-encompassing collapse within North Korea.
Also, I think there was a moment, when the Soviet Union fell, and Germany re-united, that South Korea recoiled from the social turmoil and costs that reunification would have brought, and the opportunity that might have existed slipped away. This is what I'm talking about. Everything you argue I take for a fact except for a couple things and come with the conclusion that the crazy costs of unification that are being contemplated is ridiculous since Korea already paid the price of unification once (the Korean War) without seeing its natural conclusion.
Ethnic distinctions in South Korean society (like between Cholla Namdo and Gyeonggi) are so minor that from a Western perspective they are virtually non existent. Ethnic distinctions do not exist in Korea (well up until recently) Well, actually this point doesn't even matter, but ethnic distinctions do exist between the English descendants in New England to the Scots/Irish in the Appalachians...
The imposition of communist rule was both natural and unavoidable. The U.S. didn't liberate all of Korea...(looking at it from a 1950s point of view), since at that point in time the vast majority of the peasants in all of Northeast Asia did indeed favor Communism.. So, your argument about China being at equal fault doesn't apply. Also, the U.S. accounted for half of all wealth at that point in time, which puts things in perspective about what the U.S. really was capable of... also check Han's comment here:. Copied and pasted in full:
And, in a similar light the U.S. was so caught up on the communist aspect of these "revolutions" going on in East Asia that the U.S. couldn't realize that these communist revolutions were really at the initial stage "a people's revolution" in that they really were people trying to build brand new institutions, after those of years past saw their countries become the play thing of foreign powers. Capitalist or Western Institutions lacked credibility to much of the people in this region at that time.
The U.S. had she been more open-minded and confident (as should have accompanied her very sizeable wealth and power relative to the rest of the world) in her approach to this region, could have seen this and had supported a Mao or Kim Il Sung or Ho Chi Minh rather than a Chiang Kai Shek or a Rhee Syng Man (who America hated as much as those in South Korea did by the way)...
The cold war would've been over before it had even started... It really wasn't about Communism in that part of the world, but the U.S. made it like that. Of course, with respect to Mao this goes before 1945... The U.S. would not have feared Communism to be this Monolithic plague. I'd like to point out how U.S. Vietnam veterans must've felt when a sitting U.S. president visited a united communist Vietname