Paul Dibbs has an interesting article in the SMH on the changing power relationships in the Middle East and Northern Asia titled; As one nuclear flashpoint reaches a lull, another simmers away . Two paragraphs on South Korea's relationship with its neighbours caught my attention.

Paul Dibbs writes;

Japan's relations with South Korea are at a low point, partly over Japan's view of the history of World War II but also because of territorial disputes, which Seoul has elevated to the level of national pride, threatening the use of military force. This is occurring when, from Tokyo's perspective, South Korea is drifting from the orbit of the US alliance and getting uncomfortably close to China, as well as appeasing North Korea.

South Korea has been a neo-conservative dream. While practicing Asian-capitalism, South Korean youth are moving toward a credit and consumption based economy. Of the North and South-East Asian nations I thought it would be the first to adopt an American/Australian style of economy.

South Korea has also chucked out autocratic rule and in 1988 established a multi-party liberal democracy with firm separation of powers. If the neo-conservative view of foreign policy holds, then South Korea should be forging closer ties to the global trading system within US hegemony - as Australia has done - rather than moving toward China.

I tended to think of South Korea's relationship to North Korea as similar between West and Eastern Germany where ultimately the more modern, wealthier and democratic nation bought its former enemy - amalgamating them into their political and economic system - at great pain to themselves.

The North Koreans desperately need it since China and Russia have discovered it is more profitable to trade with the west than to prop up ideologically compatible but unsustainable isolationist regimes.

This speech in 2003 by Alexander Downer mimics many of the conservative view points of current Australian foreign policy and methodology but contains genuine concern for Australian interests;

Our top four trading partners, for example - Japan, United States, China and South Korea - would be directly affected by any security crisis [on the Korean Peninsula].

However, as per Australian GAPF foreign policy doctrine, Australia participates mainly through its bilateral relationship with the US.

As to Dibbs' claim that South Korea is drifting away from the US and to China seems to be predicated on South Korea not following or adopting US policy toward North Korea.

For instance this article by Lee Kyo-kwan in the Asia Time titled, Seoul and Washington closer to divorce ;

South Korea and the US have drifted so far apart on North Korea policy there is now speculation the longtime partners are getting close to divorce. ...

It is believed US officials no longer trust their South Korean counterparts on North Korea policy.

Kyo-kwan lists several instances where Roh has opposed US policy and pressure toward the Jong-Il regime. It appears the political conflict in South Korea over such a path is a similar one facing Australian foreign policy makers - accept US hegemony in foreign policy and work inside it, or strike out on an independent path;

In South Korea, the progressive camp continues to seek a security policy much more independent of the United States regardless of concern over the weakening partnership, while the conservative camp strives to resurrect the struggling alliance.

South Korea is the tenth largest economy in the world, we may have to ask ourselves, just how big does a country have to be to strike out on a foreign policy path that is independent to the US?

It was not that long ago that Indonesia removed its subsidies for oil. They were subsidising it to the tune of 3% of Indonesia GDP. Suharto had tried to remove the subsidy and this, in part, led to the social instability that over-threw his junta-like dictatorship. As a liberal democracy the subsidy was removed without social disturbance. Another sign of how Australia's northern neighbour is maturing as a social and political entity.

War is bad for business. When India and Pakistan were sabre rattling at each other Indian business made their government aware that American companies were canceling contracts because of concerns of stability in the region. Considering that America's lead in technology would not exist without India to a large extent that is not a good thing for either country.

More recently with North Korea shelling South Korea and causing deaths China has finally made some public intimations that it's support for North Korea is not certain.

In what could be a crucial development, state-owned newspapers in China have blamed North Korea for this week's attack; one even editorialised that North Korea could be a country without a future.

There are historical reasons for China supporting North Korea on the world stage. A lot of Chinese blood was spilt during the Korean War in pushing the UN back to the 48th parallel after the United States effectively made it to the Chinese border.

Additionally there was political and ideological reasons for the support. Both were supposedly communist though they were more along crazy dictator lines and policy of similarly poorly thought out and arbitrary forms. North Korea is a basket case for it, on a satellite map only Pyongyang has the electric light foot print of a modern nation.

China has been making the steps toward a liberalized economy and trade is becoming increasingly important for prosperity and political stability. South Korea is first world and like any first world nation imports and exports a lot of stuff. Especially with neighbors like China. What does North Korea have? Nothing really. It is propped up by China.

Why would anyone support North Korea? The history between North Korea and China has diverged by the policy path China has taken to liberalize their economy. Politically the market reforms mean China is closer to South Korea in rationality than North Korea.

The best hope North Korea has is to adopt similar policies that China and Vietnam have done and least trade its way to some semblance of prosperity. It is a pitiful nation at the moment.