KOREA RESEARCH MONOGRAPH 16 INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY CKS CENTER FOR KOREAN STUDIES North Korea in Transition EDITED BY Chong-Sik Lee and Se-Hee Yoo sC^-\r^)s INTERNATIONAL AND AREA STUDIES Richard Buxbaum, Dean International and Area Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, comprises four groups: international and comparative studies, area studies, teaching programs, and services to international programs. INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY The Institute of East Asian Studies, now a part of Berkeley International and Area Studies, was established at the University of California at Berkeley in the fall of 1978 to promote research and teaching on the cultures and societies of China, lapan, and Korea. It amalgamates the following research and instructional centers and pro grams: the Center for Chinese Studies, the Center for Japanese Studies, the Center for Korean Studies, the Group in Asian Studies, and the East Asia National Resource Center. INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES Director: Frederic E. Wakeman, Jr. Assistant Director: Joan P. Kask Executive Committee: Mary Elizabeth Berry Thomas Gold Thomas Havens Joan P. Kask Hong Yimg Lee Jeffrey Riegel Ting Pang-hsin Wen-hsin Yeh CENTER FOR CHINESE STUDIES Chair: Wen-hsin Yeh CENTER FOR JAPANESE STUDIES Chair: Mary Elizabeth Berry CENTER FOR KOREAN STUDIES Chair: Hong Yung Lee GROUP IN ASIAN STUDIES Chair: Robert Reed EAST ASIA NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER Director: Frederic E. Wakeman, Jr. Cover design by Wolfgang Lederer Art by Sei-Kwan Sohn North Korea in Transition To Robert and Dee Scalapino with our thanks KOREA RESEARCH MONOGRAPH 16 INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY CKS CENTER FOR KOREAN STUDIES North Korea in Transition EDITED BY Chong-Sik Lee and Se-Hee Yoo A publicationof the Institute of East Asian Studies, Universityof Californiaat Berkeley. Although the Institute is responsible for the selection and acceptance of manuscripts in this series, responsibility for the opinions expressed and for the accuracy of statements rests with their authors. The Korea Research Monograph Series is one of several publications series sponsored by the Insititute of fiast Asian Studies in conjunction with its constituent units. The others include the China Research Monograph series, whose first title appeared in 1967, the Japan Research Monograph series, the Indochina Research Monograph series, and the Research Papers and Policy Studies series. A list of recent publications appears at the back of the book. Correspondence may be sent to: Ms. Joanne Sandstrom, Managing Editor Institute of East Asian Studies University of California Berkeley, California 94720 Copyright © 1991 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 1-55729-024-5 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 90-85946 Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. Contents Foreword Robert A, Scalapino vii Introduction xv 1. Political Change in North Korea B.C. Koh 1 2. North Korea and the Non-CommunistWorld: The Quest for National Identity Samuel S.Kim 17 3. The Korean Triangle: The United States and the Two Koreas Han Sung-Joo 43 4. The U.S. Role in Northeast Asia Allen S. Whiting 55 5. Coexistence, Revolution, and the Dialogue for Unification Chong-Sik Lee 73 6. Conflict Resolution in North-South Korea Relations: A Retrospect and Prospect Joo-Hong Nam 83 7. North Korea and the Socialist World Donald S. Zagoria 93 8. Chuck* e versus Economic Interdependence: The Impact of Socialist Economic Reforms on North Korea Oh Kwan-Chi 101 9. North Korea's Relations withEastern Europe HaYong-Chool 115 10. From National Unification to State Unification: A Realistic Design for One Korea RheeSang-Woo 129 11. North Korea's Halting Efforts at Economic Reform John Merrill 139 Contributors 154 Foreword ROBERT A. SCALAPINO What an extraordinary set of changes has taken place in the world at large, and most especially in the old Leninist societies, since our conferences began in 1981! At that time, economic reforms in the Communist societies were scarcely under way. In the political realm, Leninist leaders were battling to hold the line against pluralism. Consequently, the world was still essentially bipolar, with a marked cleavage between open and closed societies, granting the existence of a number of developing states that occupied positions between the outer political perimeters. Notwithstanding the relative solidarity of Leninism in structural- ideological terms, cleavages among and between Communist states were much in evidence. The Sino-Soviet split had not been mended despite faint signs that both parties hoped to reduce tension. A limited war between China and Vietnam had only recently ended. Relations between a Soviet-aligned Mon golia and China were decidedly cool. And North Korea, as usual, kept its own counsel. In all probability, the decade of the 1990swill bring even greater changes than those we are now witnessing since we are in the very vortex of a global revolution. To predict the precise nature of events is impossible. Indeed, the intellectual arena is strewn with the bones of those who attempted to tell us where a given society — or group of societies — was headed. Of one thing we can be reasonably certain: Change will not follow a lineal course. However one may define such terms, **advance" will be followed at some point by retrenchment or "retreat," pursued in the name of correcting the excesses or unresolved problems bequeathed by the previous surge. In this environment, it is the task of intellectualsto live with complexity. They mustnot be swept away by either the euphoria or the deep foreboding of any given moment. The effort must be to assess and weigh a number of variables, some compatible, some viii ROBERT A. SCALAPINO contradictory, that shape the broadest trends within a given society at a given time. Our task here is to assess the nature ofone ofthe most conservative Leninist societies in the contemporary world, to determine what are the prospects for change and, perhaps more importantly, what are the diverse factors operating to advance and to restrain change. To approach such difficult questions, we maybenefitfromestablishing kcontextbyadvancing sometentative generaliz ations about the nature of the crisis in Leninism today. Despite its special characteristics, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK; North Korea) faces many of the same problems as other Leninist societies and faces also similar dilemmas as to what course to take in seeking to resolve them. It is common knowledge that economics is in command today to a greater extent than at any time in this century, both in domestic politics and interna tional relations. And it was a realization by Leninist elites that the Stalinist economic strategy was increasingly inadequate that led to the initial reform efforts in virtually every Leninist state. Yet even today, the dilemma remains as to how to combine a command and a market economy. No socialist state has yet resolved this problem in an eminentlysatisfactory manner. Eastern Europe, where an early start was made, seemed to offer great hope a few years ago. Yet despite a number of on-going experiments, the verdict on results is still out. While political and economic changes in manyof the East Europeanstateshave been extensive, one cannot say that the economic results to date have been highly positive anywhere. In Asia, the case of the People's Republic of China (PRC) is of special interest. Here, economic reform has been under way, with various shifts and turns, for more than a decade. Early successes were quite striking, especially in agriculture, where the return to family responsibility — the new liberation of the peasant — has resulted in major increases in productivity. Especially noteworthy has been the rapid growth of rural industry. Despite its defects (among them, the wasteful use of energy and other resources and the low quality of product), advances here have contributed mightily to improvements in rural livelihood and in overall productivity. Yet problems in the agrarian sector lie ahead, including the massive subsidies being paid by the state, the need for much greater investment in the rural infrastructure, and the inadequate educational structure that undergirds rural society. Meanwhile, bold experiments in decentralization and price reform seemed to offer support to the thesis that China was going to make a successful transition to a mixed economy with a heavy emphasis on the market. And indeed, the element of success should not be underplayed. A surprisingly high percentage of PRC production today lies outside the realm of state management and control. Decentralization, moreover, remains a powerful element in the Chinese economy despite recent efforts at recentralization. In reality, eco nomic zones are emerging, most of them leaping over political boundaries. Foreword ix Thus, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Taiwan economicinteraction providesthe basis for the highestgrowthrates within''greater China,'' withFujian-Taiwan another important zone and the potentiality of a Shandong-South Korea complex looming ahead. Yet one cannot minimize the economic problems faced by China, illus trated by the deep divisions among policymakers at the highest levels over the proper course to be taken as revealed at the Seventh Plenum of the Central Committee, held at the end of 1990. Should price reform be accelerated, or are the dangers of renewed inflation too great? How are structural imbalances and serious inefficiencies in state-operated industries to be remedied? And is decentralization an irreversible trend, as well as a desirable one? These questions, moreover, do not touch upon certain socioeconomic ills that preoccupy many Chinese and lay behind the political events of 1989: corrup tion, privilege, and the general economic deprivation of the intellectual and professionalclassesdespiteChina's enormousneedfor a scientific-technologi cal elite. Despite its unresolved problems, the PRC is clearly in better shape economically than the other Leninist giant, the USSR.