Korea's Future and the Great Powers by Nicholas ...

Review Reviewed Work(s): Korea's Future and the Great Powers by Nicholas Eberstadt and Richard Ellings Review by: Timothy C. Lim Source: Korean Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2 (2001), pp. 279-284 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23718907 Accessed: 04-04-2018 16:26 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Korean Studies

This content downloaded from 130.182.4.15 on Wed, 04 Apr 2018 16:26:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

BOOK

REVIEWS

279

Korea's Future and stadt and Richard Asian

Research

ington Korea's

Press,

Future

Nicholas

and

Eberstadt

dressing

[a]...

in

2001

th

and

large

la

respect, the book is wr Korean studies than for "to

assess the strategic collectively, in making

policies"

ican

(p.

study

affairs;

4).

To

group

eminent

ernment;

finance;

do

studen

authorities

seasoned

number of and

policy,

th

with

on

anal

distinguish intelligence

impressive. From Rob Marcus Noland, Herbe others),

bunch.

there is nary As was no dou

authors

almost

automat

bility as a serious volu together a collection of hands" is not always a g newer hands, if only to analysis, debate, and di I

say

the

this,

Great

five

chapters

informs, contend

(pp.

and

with

17-18).

that

the

linked

the

in

large

Powers

are

with

qu

(chapters

also the

For

confi

possib

exampl

"tortuous

United

pa

the

deve

comple

States,

the

exhibited a mixture of 51). Lee goes on to prov


280 KOREAN STUDIES, VOL. 25, NO. 2 relations vis-à-vis the two Koreas, followed by

ing scenarios" for future relations between Seou constructive engagement, war, or absorption. He

analysis of policy options after Korean unificat

this chapter is generally solid, it is really nothi what even the most casual followers—and I coun international relations of the two Koreas already

ever, that such repetition is necessary for thos

completely unfamiliar with the two Koreas. Fair

the same information from a plethora of other s

Chapter 3 by, Chuck Downs, does not suffer

tion; in fact, of the five chapters in the section context, his is the most interesting and original

chapter, the author's goal is to discern North Kor

Downs does this by drawing upon the evidentiar

tiations, beginning with the North-South Comm with the inter-Korean summit of 2000. His con the past has advanced few, if any concrete steps

served the North's interests by aggravating polit

exciting Korean nationalistic zeal, portraying th

able of advancing reunification, and characterizin troops as the single most important obstacle to

Downs suggests, moreover, that this is not likely

those who think otherwise are just fooling them

surprising is how frequently and how easily analy

performance and lull themselves into a false imp reassuring gestures actually constitute genuine cation" (p. 103). Downs may be right, but ironical

his chapter is placed), his pessimistic conclusion

the changing historical and political context in w

In other words, one cannot simply extrapolate from

which is what Downs ends up doing. Thus, whil reading, it is ultimately unsatisfying.

Chapters 4, 5, and 6 cover, respectively, the and Russia toward the two Koreas and the issue of reunification. As with chapter 2, however, there is very little said in any of these chapters that has not

already been said, discussed, or written about elsewhere. Consider, for in stance, Scalapino's analysis of China's policy. He concludes that China does not want heightened tension on the Korean peninsula or a collapsed North Korea. "Further, China would not view with pleasure a unified Korea border ing the Yalu River under the aegis of the South." Nor, Scalapino continues, "does China want a nuclear DPRK.... [instead] China desires a DRPK that


BOOK

REVIEWS

evolves

in

with the stability, (pp.

the

nor

fication

There

are

of

example,

cess nese

Rather,

of

foreign a

election

of

After

is

con critica

so

it

is

more

policy

Kim

a

Northeast Ellison's intends to

ge

chapte

largely

descr

The

analy

very

general c pursue an ene

Northeast

conclusion

in

Daejung),

Asia.

in

l

as

interestin

Ellison's

offers

no

authors

more

Herbert

and

of

any

reunification

provide

6)

are

there

Korea."

the

reunification role.

fashion

Communist Par but progressive

120-21).

here,

281

Asia

hardly

more

bespea

and policymakers would should stress, that the c are not worth reading. C

Asian politics (which ma policymakers), each of t ground reading and rela rary politics related to th for undergraduate studen to Korea specialists and Asian politics. Fortunately, the two r Powers have much more especially nomic

true

issues

financial

of

that

chapte

Korean

institutions,

an

unification. In chapter 7 of these issues. He begin cessfully Not

pursuing

surprisingly,

a

dom

his

pr

genuinely "reformist" le indigenous economic ref What

might

happen


if

t

282 KOREAN STUDIES, VOL. 25, NO. 2

Indeed, his analysis is based on the premise tha

some "noncataclysmic fashion" and will be abso

from this carefully delimited (but justifiable) p

nicely argued and well-balanced assessment of t

to face a united Korea. Thus, while he points out

he also zeros in on a number of less-discussed p

that the "key point overlooked in most discussion

is that efficiently allocated investment yields re

He also takes great care to consider the politica

cations of unification. One of the most importan

ment of deep cleavages, including (but not limit

the North and the South and another within Sou

labor. These cleavages, which would be difficult

stances, can nonetheless be exacerbated by the "w

the key issue in reunification is less economic t

his analysis this way: "The key finding is that t the residents of North Korea are the main determi

(p. 221). This issue, to my knowledge, has not rec

Gifford Combs extends Noland's argument b cance of international finance in Korean economi

cation (chapter 8). This is also a generally ign critical issue. For, as he argues, "South Korea socialize the cost [of unification] and spread i

through economic policymaking as Germany di ment will require explicit grants and loans from amounts of capital" (p. 231). The key question, th attract enough foreign capital to make unificatio according to Combs, is "no." That is, unless Sou ture their economy—with reform of the financ

task—there is almost no hope that internationa

ments, bankers, or multilateral aid organizations)

necessary capital for South Korea to successfull makes a convincing argument—one that is worth

novices alike. In the end, though, he is only rei

mists and financiers have been saying for a

nomic structure is an inefficient, corrupt mess.

Combs puts it, "South Koreans must embrace co

(p. 244). Unfortunately, this is not telling us

the question is not what the problem is (by now answer), but how to deal effectively with the p tably, Combs has very little to say.


BOOK

REVIEWS

The

last

examines phasis on

283

section the the

of

chapters, Michael who have

McD

writers

concerned strategy

with

of

K

strategi implicat

the

spec

the

pr

peninsu

of

work on unificatio that focuses on explaining ... the plau

Work

studies the

that

examine

presumption

of

t

un

national security stra 253). Such studies are well-thought-out

McDevitt's ented

chap

argument.

approach

unification

forces

proceeds

matters;

the longer the framework can be mai

In

chapters

number

of

voluntary

pages short the

more

South 1990s. book's

notes,

of

in

Galluc

their

boo

interesting,

Korean, In

and

a

Jap

the

final cha them or exacerb

recurrent

cooperation

in,

no

length it

and

reunificatio

with

include

10

diplomatic

and

some

influenc

of the previous chapt the foreign policy-lead that

is,

their

interests" trian

assess two

in

(p.

that

the

conceptio

317).

they

Th

rely

interests

Koreas,

Japan,

an

Ru

macy of power and events" (p. 319). On


th on

284 KOREAN STUDIES, VOL. 25, NO. 2

but, on another level, it is important to recogn

realism, as a theoretical framework, suffers from

that the authors had not only acknowledged th them more seriously in their analysis. For, in so

have given us a more comprehensive and balanc

tary, economic, political, ideological, and histor

Instead, we are treated to banal warning about th

tion will result in unbalanced power relations in aggressive China.

The shortcomings in the concluding chapter r

with Korea's Future and the Great Powers, whic analysis, debate, and discussion are too limited

tive. This could have easily been avoided if the e

of the "usual suspects." Why didn't the editors, f

contribute a chapter examining national interes tive? A few new voices—"new blood"—may also

improve the perspective of the book. There are

scholars and specialists who could have made

ing" contributions to Korea's Future and the Gre

There are, I should note, a few minor editin

and the Great Powers. The most obvious appears the editors misidentify chapters 4 and 5. In the Scalapino and chapter 5 by Armacost and Pyle. stadt and Ellings reverse the order. Speaking of

point out that this is a very long chapter—forty so long is the editors provide very detailed sum

ing chapters (in one case, their summary is a third

in total, more than half the introduction, twent

(excluding chapter notes), is devoted to summari

almost makes reading the remainder of the book

Despite its limitations, Korea's Future and th would recommend. The first section has little of

provides a nice overview of past and current eve

peninsula. This section, however, would be extr

Koreanists, be they students, scholars, or policym

sections, by contrast, offer something for every

these chapters are much more original and insigh

ters, and they are all written in a highly readable m

Timothy C. Lim

California State University, Los
