Korean Reunification: Alternate Pathways (review)

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS119 reinforced the reputation of the Kyöngsöng [Spinning Company] as an indigenous enterprise with a strong nationalist commitment" (1 19). All told, this book is a fascinating portrayal of the largest indigenous capitalists . One yearns for another study, one dealing with less extensive Koreanowned businesses and enterprises. Perhaps McNamara will follow up research further down the economic scale. Surely there are lessons to be learned from both the large entrepreneurs and the smaller-scale endeavors. Forrest R. Pitts University of Hawaii Korean Reunification: Alternate Pathways, edited by Michael Haas. Bibliography, index. New York: Praeger, 1989. xxii + 152 pp. $39.95. Korean Reunification is a collection of both original and reprinted papers that purport to provide alternative pathways to achieve one of the unfulfilled dreams of the sixty-five million Koreans residing on the Korean peninsula, forty-two million in the south and twenty-three million in the north. Korea since 1945 has been a divided nation—territorially and politically—initially along the thirty-eighth parallel, but since 1953, along the Demilitarized Zone that bisects the land. Inasmuch as the territorial partition of Korea was imposed upon the Korean people "rather mindlessly" by the allied powers during World War II in 1945, the purposefully and logically arranged alternative pathways that this book proposes are welcome additions and contributions to the growing body of literature on the study of divided Korea and its reunification. Most of the contributions in this imaginative and scholarly undertaking, edited by Michael Haas of the department of political science at the University of Hawaii, are quite perceptive and original in attesting to the scholarly ability and orientation of the individual authors. If the initial wartime decision in May of 1945 to draw the line at the thirtyeighth parallel, by two young intellectually-minded colonels, Dean Rusk and C. H. Bonesteel HI, had been made with the degree of deliberation and compassion displayed by the contributing authors in this volume, the tragedy of an artificial breakup and splitting of the ancient and proud Korean people would have been avoided. The millions of lives and billions of dollars wasted during the thirty-seven months of combat waged during the Korean War of 1950-1953 would also have been saved, freeing the funds for more positive and constructive uses. The sad fact of life, however, is that only through historical hindsight and reflections on past suffering do we acquire a valuable lesson, namely, the wisdom of avoiding and not repeating similar "mindless" mistakes. The nation-splitting of the Korean people is a tragedy that could have been avoided if due consideration had been given to the consequences, both intended and unintended, and the implications of such a grave decision. The reunification of a divided nation is easier said than done. It is easier to 120BOOK REVIEWS split and divide than to reintegrate and reunify. All of the chapters in this volume suggest theoretically possible models and alternatives to the task of how to effect reunification of the divided nation of North and South Korea. The alternative pathways to Korean reunification mentioned in this book range from the "historical approach" (M. Haas), to the "neutralization approach" (J. Galtung), "the functionalist approach" (M. Haas), "the nonviolence approach" (G. Paige), "the mediation approach" (T. Becker), "the negotiation approach" (O. Young), and what one contributor has called "the political feasibility approach" (D. Suh). All of these alternative approaches and pathways to Korean reunfication sound fine and dandy. However, the reality of the politics of Korean reunification is the existence of mistrust and confrontation between the two rival states and regimes of North and South Korea. The experience of inter-Korean dialogue and relations since August 1971, when the first Red Cross talks on the reunification of divided families were proposed by Seoul and accepted by Pyongyang, has not been at all hopeful or sanguine about the future prospect of an easy solution to the Korean problem through what has been dubbed the "peaceful means of dialogue and negotiation." The absence of political will and consensus between the two hostile regimes has posed a formidable barrier to achieving any early breakthrough in the settlement of disputes or an eventual agreement on the...