North Korea. South Korea. Two Koreas. You.d think that the answer to that one was 

simple. But it.s not. A plethora of political, social and economic problems circumvents 

Korean reunification from being a simple deletion of a prefixing cardinal direction. 

Numbers separate the two sides of the thirty eighth parallel; but the important ones 

aren.t degrees of latitude, but Wons, indices and guns. Yet, despite the seemingly 

infinite chasm between the two halves, the Koreas share an overruling link upon which 

the process of mending the scar etched across the land and the people may begin. 

First, the indices. Or the socio-politics. There are two men: One lives in Seoul and the 

other lives in Hamhung. The former, dressed in a neatly pressed suit with a slim black 

tie à la mode, is sipping a shot of espresso with a grimace and watching the day.s 

financial summary on his smartphone. The latter, wearing a grimy overall, is hauling the 

night.s catch over the side of his fishing boat, also grimacing. Despite the starkly 

disparate backdrops of these two protagonists, when they are stripped down of their 

social trappings and stand naked, they are remarkably similar. They speak Korean, they 

eat Korean and they feel Korean. They are Korean and are passionate about being one 

(especially during football games). They probably flicked through similar textbooks of 

history (at least up to the point where Kim Il Sung „liberated. Korea from colonial Japan) 

and partake in similar matters of culture. They share a link doubly reinforced by blood 

and four millennia of history. 

However, the problem is, they aren.t very naked. They.re in quite a thick layer of very 

different sets of assorted garments. Or politics and social climates. The government in 

Seoul is a democratically elected institution of many political parties whilst the one in 

Pyongyang is a superficially elected institution of a single communist party. The two 

systems are black-and-white antitheses. Although the two governments frequently, and 

publicly, confess their undying love for each other and promise to seal this love in holy 

matrimony swiftly (the Constitution of the Republic of Korea mentions „reunification of 

the fatherland. even before the very first sentence finishes), they stand adamant and 

monolithic in the negotiations on who would rule a unified Korea. Furthermore, the 

differences in styles of government have emphasised different aspects with regards to 

social development. In the sixty years following their violent divorce, South Korea has 

clawed up the tables and reached respectable heights in social indices. One need only 

look at the charts for the Human Development Index (HDI) measuring standards of 

living to measure how far apart the couple has really gone their separate ways. Hence, 

in spite of the mutual core that the two Koreas share, the differences in the socio-politics 

are so vast that any poorly planned reunification could result in a very sour reunion. 

In a similar fashion, the Wons (the economics) only widen and consolidate the chasm 

between the two Koreas. Possible the most striking difference between the two 

aforementioned men is that the man in Seoul has money – and lots of it. But he wasn.t 

always so affluent. In fact, sixty years ago from today, at the breakout of the Korean 

War, these two brothers were indistinguishable financially. In the eyes of nineteenth 

century American missionaries, poverty was a common, “almost universal condition of 

Koreans” (Ryu, 2009). Today, the Republic of Korea is one of the World.s richest 

countries and, despite the survival of poverty and growing inequality, it has its place, 

sipping nectar and ambrosia, amongst the nouveau Olympus of winners in the tragic 

game of global capitalism; the Democratic People.s Republic of Korea, on the other 

hand, is synonymous with the edge of the world (not quite in the same sense as New 

Zealand) and abysmal poverty. Obviously, something happened to the South Korea in 

the past sixty years; something involving a lot of perspiration, blood and money. 

But it turns out that reunification, the alleged Philosopher.s stone of both Koreas, costs 

an awful lot: Economists estimate that reunification may cost approximately $70 billion 

per annum and up to $700 billion in total (Wolf Jr., 2006). All of a sudden, the oasis of 

a unified, independent and affluent Korea that the Southerners had envisaged in their 

sixty years of toil becomes less attractive. Moreover, the economic powerhouse that was 

West Germany failed to be an assuring precedent, as it continues to struggle with 

unification even after thirty years (Beck, 2010). In short, sixty years of incredible 

human feats of effort have produced an economic miracle on the Han River, but have 

also turned the South Koreans into hard realists. The calculators into which their 

accountants had entered higher figures each successive year spell financial disaster for 

reunification. 

However, if the Koreans have done it once, they can do it again. In a country so mineral 

poor, South Korea.s greatest asset in its ascendance from Hades was its people. The full 

participation of the entirety of the peninsula.s populace will only bolster this. The future 

economic benefits of a more stable, peaceful and populous Korea are as certain as the 

short term shock of reunification. One need only look at the percent of public spending 

dedicated to military use, as monstrous as the weapons it manufactures, to confirm this. 

Korean reunification will bring an economic winter in the short term, but a spring will 

come nevertheless. 

Now, the guns. It.s in the news. „Nuclear-weapons. is the second part of a single word 

that people expect when they hear „North-Korea.. In recent years, North Korea has 

rocketed up in global awareness and fear of her has become pervasive in the quotidian 

lives of billions. North Korea.s rise as an international celebrity has only heightened the 

already tense status quo of stakeholders around the geopolitically strategic peninsula. 

Korean reunification has never truly been a domestic issue, as the original markers of 

the Korean partition were the United States and USSR; but the North.s development of 

terrible weapons threatening humanity as a whole has certainly raised the stakes and 

elevated an essentially regional problem to a much more sophisticated, vastly 

international problem. Surprisingly, although the increase in risks and stakeholders 

certainly does not facilitate negotiations, it could also provoke a surprising global 

comradeship in solving the global problem of North Korea. Policy makers and investors 

are united in desiring a more stable North Asia (Beck, 2010). Hence, the development 

of nuclear weapons in North Korea has certainly added dimensions to the issue of 

Korean reunification, but the new international presence may actually lighten the heavy 

burden of unification on the small shoulders of the two Koreas. 

But getting past the figures, it is crucial to find the human centre of the problem by 

dissecting the meaning of the nation state at the grassroots. The theoretical raison d.être 

of the state is to protect the happiness of its citizens. The Thirty Eighth Parallel tears not 

only the Korean peninsula in half but also the hearts of families split during the War. 

.

Millions of litres blood and tears were shed to achieve Korean independence and 

millions more for unification during the Korean War. The very survival of the Thirty 

Eighth Parallel would turn the dead in their graves. Korean reunification must come 

without delay, or the two countries face irrelevance as the number of families split 

North and South, waiting for reunification and justice, dwindles and the bonds of 

history and blood dilute with time. There may come a day when the two men, one in 

suit and the other in overalls, cannot recognise his kin underneath. Reunification is the 

human solution to the problem of numbers. 

Korean reunification is upsetting. It is traumatic in the short run. However, its longer 

term benefits are undeniable and its impact will pervade to every corner of the globe. 

Often, it is too easy to conduct a cost benefit analysis and dismiss the issue on the basis 

of logistics. But that does no justice to the human left out of the equation. As long as 

Korean reunification is considered a human problem, it is possible. But, it.s still not a 

breezy trek up north eight or so miles. Some problems will be easy. Others will require 

a lot of effort, from both sides. Still others, like Kim Jong Il.s chronic fashion sense, 

may be irreconcilable. But Korean reunification must come, and swiftly too, or the 

human soul may find no peace. 

 Joshua Nahmo Kang    University of Auckland 

REFERENCE LIST 

Beck, Peter M. (2010, January 4). Contemplating Korean Reunification. Wall Street 

Journal (Eastern Edition), p. A.15. Retrieved August 4, 2010, from ABI/INFORM 

Global. (Document ID: 1931940911). 

Ryu, Dae Young (2010) « Understanding Early American Missionaries in Korea (1884-

1910): Capitalist Middle-Class Values and the Weber Thesis », Archives de sciences 

sociales des religions URL : http://assr.revues.org/20190 

Wolf Jr., Charles (2006). KOREAN REUNIFICATION: HOW IT MIGHT COME 

ABOUT AND AT WHAT COST. Defence and Peace 

Economics, 17(6), 681. Retrieved August 4, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. 

(Document ID: 1169444021).