By Here is more on President Lee’s plan to implement a Unification Tax:
Unification Minister Hyun In-taek says the unification tax proposed by President Lee Myung-bak is not aimed at reunification through absorbing North Korea, but at steadily preparing for reunification over the long term.
Hyun also told a KBS TV program Sunday that his government believes North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is healthy enough to run his country, saying the possibility of a contingency in the North is low.
On President Lee’s three-step reunification plan, the minister says economic cooperation without Pyongyang’s denuclearization has limits, but peace, economy and the national community cannot be divided simply. He says that if the North goes nuclear-free, economic cooperation could go with it.
In addition, Hyun says the government has set up a unification tax task force headed by a vice minister, adding Seoul will first collect public opinions on the matter before producing a specific plan. [KBS Global]
10:38 am on August 23rd, 2010 1
"Unification Minister Hyun In-taek says the unification tax proposed by President Lee Myung-bak is not aimed at reunification through absorbing North Korea, but at steadily preparing for reunification over the long term."
How so? By continuing to subsidize South Korean investments in North Korea in order to 1) to fill the coffers of nearly bankrupt companies and 2) make sure China doesn't buy out the whole country? That wouldn't really be preparing for reunification nor much different from the Sunshine Policy, would it?
11:30 am on August 23rd, 2010 2
It's a trap.
4:14 pm on August 23rd, 2010 3
Better idea is to replace the unification tax with peace treaty and reduction by 60-70 % of military spending in both – North and South Korea.
4:30 pm on August 23rd, 2010 4
"Better idea is to replace the unification tax with peace treaty and reduction by 60-70 % of military spending in both – North and South Korea."
That will require Korea to go nuclear to compensate for the reduced conventional military capability. I wonder which country except Korea itself will like that.
7:31 pm on August 23rd, 2010 5
Seeing a government planning for the future would be wonderful,… and surreal! I like the idea.
GI,
Entirely off-topic, I see the new Kindle is approaching my price range. I enjoyed your review of yours when you bought it; how do you feel now, after a few years?
6:38 pm on August 24th, 2010 6
#3,
It will never happen because it would lead to the end of the Kim regime. The existence of the North Korean government is justified by the threat of a nuclear attack by Americans, and little more. Signing a peace treaty would be an admission by the North Korean government that Americans are not the monsters they've painted them to be, and thus North Koreans would begin to question everything they've been taught.
8:17 pm on August 24th, 2010 7
“Better idea is to replace the unification tax with peace treaty and reduction by 60-70 % of military spending in both – North and South Korea.”
"That will require Korea to go nuclear to compensate for the reduced conventional military capability. I wonder which country except Korea itself will like that."
North Korea is already nuclear and for South this is also good idea. I think all the world, except some "great powers", will like that.
8:51 pm on August 24th, 2010 8
Nuclear arms race is dangerous when your neighbor is someone like China. It's better to keep US troops in Korea and use these troops as tripwire to ensure US involvement in any future conflict with China. That's the best arrangement for all countries in East Asia – for Korea, for China, Japan, Russia, and the US itself.
9:58 pm on August 24th, 2010 9
With neighbor like China and US troops in Korea the most dangerous policy is to denuclearize Korea. In this case the possibility of new "non nuclear" Korean war with chino-us involvement can rise to dangerous levels. The nuclear arms are the most cheap and sure peacemaker.
10:42 pm on August 24th, 2010 10
"With neighbor like China and US troops in Korea the most dangerous policy is to denuclearize Korea. In this case the possibility of new “non nuclear” Korean war with chino-us involvement can rise to dangerous levels. The nuclear arms are the most cheap and sure peacemaker."
I understand that nuclear arms 'may' become strategically necessary in 'some' circumstances. But it's not yet 'marginally' a better idea than its alternative, which is keeping US tripwire troops on Korean soil, still continuously developing indigenous Korean conventional military power while fueling its defense industry and keeping its men educated about the meaning of a soldier's hardship, and preserving geopolitical tension preventively at a low level. I repeat, an independent nuclear capability of Korea 'may' prove to be useful. But the necessity is still far from being absolute just yet. You should better observe first how the new relation between Korea and China develop after unification, and THEN decide what's the best path for Korea to follow. UNTIL then, keeping the US tripwire option is most preferable. Don't jump to the adventurous 'Korea should go nuclear' option so quick.