So far, we haven't discussed inter-Korean relations. As you have perhaps seen, inter-Korean relations have marked these ups and downs. It was like a hyperbolic relationship of conflict and cooperation between North and South Korea. In fact, it was in this context that debate and Korean unification has emerged. Then why Korean unification? I think we can come up with a four important reasons why we are talking about Korean unification. First, to realize national dream of unity. The creation of unified nation states through the restoration of a single national identity and community. Simply put, we want to have one unified single unified nation state. Second, to create a perpetual peace under Korea peninsula Conflict is all about incompatibility toward a certain goal. When North and South Korea divided, they have a two different goals, and that became the source of conflict between North and South. But once we have a one-nation state on the Korean Peninsula. Then we won't have any problem regarding old incompatibility, then we can have a perpetual peace on the Korean peninsula. Third, to promote common prosperity by not only removing costs of national division but also generating new economic synergy of unification. National division has made South Korea to be a maritime state. Our entry into the continent was bad by the national division. But once we have unification, we can move into the new continent in the nose. We can offer no room nor the economy, and Korea will be truly enjoying economic benefit as a peninsula state. We can enjoy double benefit, one from the maritime shipping another from the continental shipping. Finally, to contribute to peace and stability in Northeast Asia and the world. As you all know, Korean peninsula, conflict in the Korean peninsula has become so instability in Northeast Asia. And instability in Northeast Asia has lead to the Instantly from the world, why? Because it involves, has a rivalry among big powers over the Korean Peninsula. That is why if we can achieve unification, then we can continue toward peace and stability in Northeast Asia and the world. Then once the unification, they has all kinds of stories, debates, and kinds of unification. But it's very important for us to come up with a very clear concept of unification. First, you should make a distinction between integration and unification. Integration is something like what Karl Deutsch, a very renowned American political scientist. It is something like a pluralistic community. Integration defers today's situation. And there is a high degree of corporation among nations that result Losing their own sovereignty. On the other hand, unification is similar to American made community. In which all the nations would lose their supremacy and would have one unified supremacy. Therefore, you can argue that integration is a step toward unification. European Union is a perfect example of integration, because each individual member retains their sovereignty. But in the Germany case, when East Germany and West Germany were unified, then both sides lost their own independent sovereignty and created new sovereignty under the unified Germany. Therefore, you can make a distinction between pluralistic community as an integration, amalgamated community as a form of unification. Now let us get to the so called the cons of unification. Unification can take the form of one single unified nation state. We need one sovereignty. No South Korea and the two sovereignties become one nation. But in today's world I think, Japan is a classical example of one single unified nation-state. Another example is a Federation. Again, one sovereignty, but there is a high level of local economy. The United States, Germany, Australia are good examples of this federation. The other one is a con-federation, North Korea calls it low level of federation. It also assumes one sovereignty and greater degree of local autonomy but the local is greater than under the federation. Switzerland and older Czechoslovakia are examples of this confederation. But those single unified nation states, federation, confederation, all assume the one superiority. But on the other hand, if you look at the union of states like European Union. It assumes an individual sovereignty. Therefore the higher degree of cooperation and integration among nation states results losing their own sovereignties as can be seen in European Union. North and South Korea can have their own sovereignty yet form a union of states, that there could be in the formal unification. But in this case, once there is a one sovereignty, we can call it the duo, the legal unification. But in the case of union of states, you can call it de facto unification. Meaning what? There's no legally defined unification. Why legal it is particularly to find unification. But there is a higher degree of corporation integration and by allowing free flow of people, goods, and services, okay? Therefore, you can call it the factor unification. Therefore, unification under one sovereignty be one single unit beneath five nations, take federation confederation. Then they are seen as the [FOREIGN] of legal unification, but on the other hand, union of states can be seen as de facto unification. And again, separate from race of defined unification. There are several different pathways to unification. One good example is unification by absorption, it is called the German model. And now you can see the German wall falling apart and like in Germany, okay, East Germany lost it's sovereignty. Or East Germans gave up their own sovereignty and agreed to adopt the unification constitution formulated by West Germany, okay, and become part of West Germany. It can be called unification by absorption. Unification by obstruction is one model. Another model is unification by force. Perfect is example is the Vietnamese model. North Vietnam took over South Vietnam to war. Therefore, unification can come after a war. All type of pathway to unification, unification after an international trusteeship. We can call it Lebanese model. Lebanon was divided by among, by in a different communal groups. And Syrian forces intervened in Lebanon as a kind of stabilizing force, and Lebanon was under the kind of international of Syria. And after a while, in early 1990, Lebanon finally regained its full sovereignty and become independent and there was kinds of reunification of Lebanon. Likewise, North Korea can be under international trusteeship or Chinese trusteeship and after their long trusteeship North Korea becoming again independent. And then North and South Korea can talk about unification after that period. This is already called unification after international trusteeship. Final pathway to unification is through mutual consensus that happened in Yemen in 1990. Both North and, I meant South Yemen agreed to form a unification. However, Yemenese model collapsed. Initially, it was done through the mutual consensus, but there was war between North and South Yemen over the issue of a military integration and other economic and issues. Finally North Yemen won the war and took over South Yemen. Therefore, it started with mutual consensus, then there was a war, and there was absorption of South Yemen by North Yemen, 1994. Likewise pathway to unification is not uniform. It is diverse, therefore, it is very important for us to pay attention to these diverse models. And also when we talk about the unification we talk about cost of unification. That this cost of unification can be extremely arbitrary, okay? It's caused, would estimated from the $62 billion lowest level that was done by Charles Wolf of Grant Corporation in 2010 to $2- $5 trillion which was estimated the Peter Beck in 2010. Depending on the assumption of costs and method of unification, the cost of unification can vary. But obvious a kind of barrier signal research incremental unifications from which your consensus is low cost. Meanwhile Unifications war is the most expensive and even unification through absorption, would cost very high figure. Here is a KDI report, in 2010, calling that report, okay. Radical unification through absorption would cost $2.14 trillion. Whereas incremental unification through mutual consensus would cost only $322 billion. But it's again, very arbitrary. However, all these reports show that cost of unification under the situation of incremental unification of mutual consensus is much lower than unification through war, or unification through absorption. Of course, cutting to other figures. Unification after international trust would be lowest in terms of course, which is very simple. China, or international community, would assume all the course will be infrastructure in North Korea, and enhancing income level of people. Then, we can have unification but in the case, entry cost by South Korea in North Korean market would be very, very high. But in the case much smaller, in South Korea, can be kind of free rider but South Koreans would never accept the kinds of formula.
