In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

202DEUCHLER political discussions that were agonizing the court during this decade would also have enabled the reader to grasp more readily the dilemmas confronting the Korean leadership and how it was beset by problems that defied solution. Deuchler has produced a study that will be useful not only to scholars of Korea but to students of China and Japan. Through diligent research into Korean, Chinese, and Japanese sources, she has contributed to a clear and thoughtful understanding of modernization and imperialism in East Asia in the late nineteenth century. Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys deserves close attention; Deuchler deserves gratitude. Edward J. Shultz University of Hawaii, West Oahu College The Two Koreas in East Asian Affairs. Edited by William J. Barnds. New York: New York University Press for the Council on Foreign Relations, 1976. xi, 216 pp. Index. $15. A product of "a series of discussions held at the Council on Foreign Relations during the first half of 1975," this book examines the "two Koreas" in the context of evolving international relations in Asia as they bear upon not only the Korean peninsula but also other major powers, particularly the United States. The book contains five papers: "Old Issues in a New Context" and "The United States and the Korean Peninsula " by William J. Barnds; "North Korea and the Major Powers" by Donald S. Zagoria and Young Kun Kim; "The Two Koreas—Dialogue or Conflict?" by Robert A. Scalapino; and "Korea: Militarist or Unification Policies?" by Gregory Henderson. It goes without saying that the discussion of the question is timely. Moreover, all the contributors present excellent factual descriptions under their respective headings. However, regrettably, all but one of the contributions, that of Henderson, are rather journalistic; still more regrettable, they are kept within the old historiographical genre of confrontation or quasi-confrontation. They lack serious appreciation of the concrete historical experiences of divided nations in the region; consequently , the policy preferences they express are "technical" in nature and therefore largely irrelevant. They remind the reviewer of the "constrainment-without-confrontation" policy so earnestly recommended as a technical adjustment to U.S.-China policy. We all know where that policy ended up. BOOK REVIEWS203 As the title suggests, all contributors start with the premise of the existence of "two Koreas," and all but Henderson present their analyses and preferences within the imperative of preserving the two Koreas. Though somewhat disparate, one can adduce three major reasons for their defense of "two Koreas." First, inasmuch as the present division is based on global balance-ofpower strategy, disturbance of the existing situation will invite instability in the region and destabilization of relations currently obtaining among the major powers, that is, detente. This pointis made particularly strongly by Scalapino (p. Ill), less forcefully by Barnds (pp. 179-180), andimplicitly by Zagoria and Kim (pp. 52-53). Second, any disturbance to the present Korean situation will present enormous problems to Japan, inasmuch as the security of Japan is closely tied to the security of South Korea and peace in the Korean peninsula (Scalapino, pp. 93, 113; Barnds, pp. 15, 168, 199). Otherwise, Japan might even go nuclear (Barnds, p. 185). In other words, preserve the status quo for the sake of Japan. Third, unless the present condition is preserved, the political and psychological environ of South Korea would be disturbed with unpredictable consequences, though even as it is, South Korean leadership can and should extend greater political freedoms to its opponents in the interest of a stronger posture vis-à-vis North Korea. With these views come their corollary policies; (1) continue to promote reciprocal recognition of Koreas by the major powers and admission of the two Koreas to the United Nations; (2) assist South Korea in its defense buildup so that it will be stronger than North Korea but not by too much; in this connection, South Korea should be discouraged from going nuclear for fear that Japan, traditionally scornful of Korea, in the view of Barnds, might go nuclear herself; and (3) encourage the South Korean regime to extend human rights. Ahistorical as their analyses are, some of the contributors at least recognize the difficulties rooted in the existing anomalies. Thus, for example , Barnds...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 202-206
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.