Download Free Korean Unification Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Korean Unification and write the review.

One day, one nation on the Korean Peninsula
Korean Dream: A Vision for a Unified Korea is a powerful call to action for Koreans and supporters everywhere to achieve a new nation, rooted in a common past. In this Centennial Edition, which debuted on several bestseller lists including the Wall Street Journal, LA Times, and Publishers Weekly, Dr. Hyun Jin Preston Moon presents an innovative way forward for the Korean Peninsula that at its heart is Korean led. Ultimately, Korean reunification is the only long-term solution to security, economic, and social problems created through a 70-year division of the Peninsula. Dr. Moon goes a step further, offering a groundbreaking approach to peace rooted in the founding principles of Hongik Ingan, cultural practices, and engagement from civil society organizations to empower Koreans to become global advocates for peace. Korean Dream calls upon Koreans, Korean diaspora, and people everywhere to take charge and work to achieve a reunified Korean peninsula. Korean Dream Empowers the Korean People to Rediscover Their Historic Identity. Dr. Moon’s vision empowers the Korean people to rediscover their 5,000-year-old historic identity and take it upon themselves to lead the way toward a peaceful reunification of the peninsula. A Nation Built on Shared History and Heritage. For reunification to happen, modern South Korea must recognize and embrace its shared history, heritage and culture. South Korea’s surging economy and decades of separation caused many to lose sight of its past and common connection with Koreans in the North. A Korean-led Future with Universal Principles and Values. Korea must represent the goals of its people in the form of a popular, representative form of government. A reunified Korea must give the Korean people the same freedoms and human rights that the American people and others around the world have today. Live for the Greater Benefit of All Humanity. Hongik Ingan defines the hope, potential, and strength of the Korean people. Korean Dream is devoted to the welfare of mankind in working toward reunification, drawing support from participants regarding human rights, universal spiritual principles and natural law toward a civic society. The Role of Civil Society and NGOs. Civic associations are the heart of a thriving democracy; a medium through which citizens contribute to and build the life of the national community. The Korean people must engage with one another and civic associations to address issues in local areas beyond the scope of government. Reunification is Only the First Step. Beyond Korean reunification, the Korean people would be in a position to become global advocates on the basis of high moral principles. These principles of the Korean Dream will become a global call for realizing a world that lives as One Family under God.
The unification of North and South Korea is widely considered an unresolved and volatile matter for the global order, but this book argues capital has already unified Korea in a transnational form. As Hyun Ok Park demonstrates, rather than territorial integration and family union, the capitalist unconscious drives the current unification, imagining the capitalist integration of the Korean peninsula and the Korean diaspora as a new democratic moment. Based on extensive archival and ethnographic research in South Korea and China, The Capitalist Unconscious shows how the hegemonic democratic politics of the post-Cold War era (reparation, peace, and human rights) have consigned the rights of migrant laborers—protagonists of transnational Korea—to identity politics, constitutionalism, and cosmopolitanism. Park reveals the riveting capitalist logic of these politics, which underpins legal and policy debates, social activism, and media spectacle. While rethinking the historical trajectory of Cold War industrialism and its subsequent liberal path, this book also probes memories of such key events as the North Korean and Chinese revolutions, which are integral to migrants' reckoning with capitalist allures and communal possibilities. Casting capitalist democracy within an innovative framework of historical repetition, Park elucidates the form and content of the capitalist unconscious at different historical moments and dissolves the modern opposition among socialism, democracy, and dictatorship. The Capitalist Unconscious astutely explores the neoliberal present's past and introduces a compelling approach to the question of history and contemporaneity.
"Korean unification is one of the most important issues on the international agenda today. Hart-Landsberg's broad-ranging inquiry develops a perspective that is rarely heard, and that merits careful attention. It is a valuable contribution to a debate that should not be delayed." --Noam Chomsky
Nearly half a century after the fighting stopped, the 1953 Armistice has yet to be replaced with a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War. While Russia and China withdrew the last of their forces in 1958, the United States maintains 37,000 troops in South Korea and is pledged to defend it with nuclear weapons. In Korean Endgame, Selig Harrison mounts the first authoritative challenge to this long-standing U.S. policy. Harrison shows why North Korea is not--as many policymakers expect--about to collapse. And he explains why existing U.S. policies hamper North-South reconciliation and reunification. Assessing North Korean capabilities and the motivations that have led to its forward deployments, he spells out the arms control concessions by North Korea, South Korea, and the United States necessary to ease the dangers of confrontation, centering on reciprocal U.S. force redeployments and U.S. withdrawals in return for North Korean pullbacks from the thirty-eighth parallel. Similarly, he proposes specific trade-offs to forestall the North's development of nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems, calling for the withdrawal of the U.S. nuclear umbrella in conjunction with agreements to denuclearize Korea embracing China, Russia, and Japan. The long-term goal of U.S. policy, he argues, should be the full disengagement of U.S. combat forces from Korea as part of regional agreements insulating the peninsula from all foreign conventional and nuclear forces. A veteran journalist with decades of extensive firsthand knowledge of North Korea and long-standing contacts with leaders in Washington, Seoul, and Pyongyang, Harrison is perfectly placed to make these arguments. Throughout, he supports his analysis with revealing accounts of conversations with North Korean, South Korean, and U.S. leaders over thirty-five years. Combining probing scholarship with a seasoned reporter's on-the-ground experience and insights, he has given us the definitive book on U.S. policy in Korea--past, present, and future.
How will a unified Korea respond to the Kim regime's crimes against humanity? Will North and South Korea be able to reconcile their differences after being divided for so long? Will China, the US, Japan, Russia, and U.N. drive the process? This book examines the challenges associated with Korean unification and human rights accountability.
Against the backdrop of China’s mounting influence and North Korea’s growing nuclear capability and expanding missile arsenal, South Korea faces a set of strategic choices that will shape its economic prospects and national security. In South Korea at the Crossroads, Scott A. Snyder examines the trajectory of fifty years of South Korean foreign policy and offers predictions—and a prescription—for the future. Pairing a historical perspective with a shrewd understanding of today’s political landscape, Snyder contends that South Korea’s best strategy remains investing in a robust alliance with the United States. Snyder begins with South Korea’s effort in the 1960s to offset the risk of abandonment by the United States during the Vietnam War and the subsequent crisis in the alliance during the 1970s. A series of shifts in South Korean foreign relations followed: the “Nordpolitik” engagement with the Soviet Union and China at the end of the Cold War; Kim Dae Jung’s “Sunshine Policy,” designed to bring North Korea into the international community; “trustpolitik,” which sought to foster diplomacy with North Korea and Japan; and changes in South Korea’s relationship with the United States. Despite its rise as a leader in international financial, development, and climate-change forums, South Korea will likely still require the commitment of the United States to guarantee its security. Although China is a tempting option, Snyder argues that only the United States is both credible and capable in this role. South Korea remains vulnerable relative to other regional powers in northeast Asia despite its rising profile as a middle power, and it must balance the contradiction of desirable autonomy and necessary alliance.
Education to Strengthen our Capabilities for Peaceful Unification The 20th century was on era of “extremes” that was marked by several ideological confrontations and wars. It was a long age of persecution and patience, especially on the part of the Koreans. Nevertheless, the ideology that drove the world into chaos and the leaders who led the hostile inter-Korean relations are now fading from the center stage of history. On December 17, 2011, Kim Jong Il died after ruling North Korea with blood-and-iron politics for 37 years. The global community is now expecting significant changes within the North Korean regime, the relations between the two Koreas, and the East Asian order. The year 2015 will mark the 70th anniversary of the Korean division, which occurred in three overlapping phases: territorial, regime, and emotional. The first phase, territorial division, was introduced on August 15, 1945 when Soviet and U.S. forces divided the peninsula along the 38th parallel. The second phase, regime(sovereignty) division, was established with the formation of two separate governments on the Korean Peninsula; the Republic of Korea(ROK) was founded on August 15, 1948 and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea(DPRK) was established on September 9, 1948. The division was finalized as it reached the third phase, emotional division(of people), following the North Korean invasion of the South on June 25, 1950 and the subsequent three-year fratricidal war. Are we prepared to undertake unification and maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula? This issue is not only a national one that North and South Korea should resolve on their own, but it is also an international issue in which the interests of four relevant countries nations(the U.S., China, Japan, and Russia) are at stake. For this reason, peaceful unification requires the proper environment, capability and will from all parties. For the time being, we lack all three elements, as there are multiple levels of discord. In the global environment, competition is emerging between the hegemonic power in naval warfare(the U.S.) and the leading power in ground warfare(China). Within the Korean Peninsula, there is increased distrust due to North Korea’s provocative actions including two nuclear tests, the sinking of a South Korean naval ship, and the shelling of a South Korean island. There is discord even within South Korean society: ideological conflicts between the conservatives and liberals, regional confrontation between the southeastern and southwestern regions, generation gaps resulting from a rapid transition to an information-oriented society, and class conflicts that have emerged from neo-liberalism and the collapse of the middle class. Then What are the steps that we should take to make way for peaceful unification? We must first properly prioritize the issues at hand. The top priority should be given to national harmony, then international cooperation, and finally rapprochement on the Korean Peninsula. This is attributed to the fact that South Korean society characterized by internal organization and preparedness is the cornerstone of a peaceful unification; consequently, public education on unification is crucial. Despite the progress made thus far, unification education still has some shortcomings. Until this point in time, education on unification has strengthened a negative image of the North Korean situation, leading to arguments for the deferral of national unification and an increased number of people against it. Governmental programs that were intended to promote unification policies have also taken a passive, or even a critical approach on the issue due to its controversial nature. I would like to acknowledge that although multiple researchers compiled this book after much discussion and thorough review, it still has some shortcomings that will be address in the next edition. Finally, I’d like to express my deepest gratitude to the National Unification Advisory Council and the Unification Education Council for providing the videos and resources for our research...
Constitutional Handbook on Korean Unification(I): Introduction Constitutional Handbook on Korean Unification(II): Political and Social Issues Constitutional Handbook on Korean Unification(III): Law Issues Constitutional Handbook on Korean Unification(IV): Economic Issues
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