| Submit your comments on this article |
| Korea |
| China’s Little Korea Secret |
| 2003-02-25 |
| This makes a lot of sense... Why won't China rein in North Korea in the current nuclear crisis? The answer lies in Beijing's secret goal of getting U.S. troops off the peninsula. The prevailing understanding on China is fundamentally flawed. The consensus is that China shares common interests with the U.S. and nations in the region in denuclearizing North Korea. Therefore, it ought to play an active and leading role in resolving the crisis, especially because Beijing seems to have the most leverage over North Korea. Much to the disappointment of the U.S., however, China has excused itself from the "relevant parties." Beijing insists that this is really a matter exclusively between the United States and North Korea. Furthermore, China does not believe that the U.S.-North Korean dialogue ought to include the United Nations; Beijing has vociferously opposed efforts to bring in the world body to bear on the issue. The question is, why? The key to understanding China's behavior is realizing that exclusively bilateral talks could produce what China secretly craves: the removal of the U.S. military presence from the Korean peninsula. In a multilateral setting, the emphasis would be on North Korea's violation of the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its threat to the region and the world. Thus, various multinational measures to disarm North Korea would be discussed. U.N. involvement would remove the onus on the U.S. to negotiate on its own. However, if the situation were framed solely as a dispute between the U.S. and North Korea, the focus would be shifted to what North Korea is demanding in exchange for nuclear disarmament. North Korea, with its far-reaching missile capability, would then be perceived as a direct threat to U.S. security. Combined with South Korea's strong resistance to taking military action against the North, the U.S. could well be cornered into conceding to North Korean demands, namely, a nonaggression treaty and a military withdrawal from South Korea. China would then have achieved its short-term goal of removing U.S. troops from the peninsula. Ejection of the U.S. military presence is an essential first step toward China's ultimate long-term goals: reunification with Taiwan and reassertion as the dominant regional power. After a U.S. withdrawal, China would be likely to find two friendly Koreas on its southern border. Post-Cold War South Korea is no longer a hostile country but an important trading partner. And if a united Korea emerges, it would probably be amicable toward China. Further, if Japan rearms and goes nuclear in reaction to the new circumstances on the Korean peninsula, the rationale for the U.S. military presence there may be diminished as well. In this best-case scenario for China, with American forces removed from Korea and Japan, Far East geopolitics would enter a new era. China could reassert its historical status as the dominant regional power and eventually reabsorb Taiwan. This crisis may well drive the U.S. off the Korean peninsula. With this in mind, why should China help the U.S. to maintain its military presence in South Korea by pressuring North Korea to give up nuclear weapons? That China appears constrained by anxieties over the potential flood of starving refugees that would be created by North Korea's economic collapse only serves as a cover for China to prop up North Korea's bargaining position. China's sales of a key chemical ingredient for nuclear weapons development to North Korea, as recently as December, should be understood within this context. China wants North Korea to maintain its strong leverage in any bilateral talks with the U.S. Only when viewed from this perspective are China's inaction and stubborn insistence on direct talks between Pyongyang and Washington comprehensible; indeed, it is a profound and brilliant strategy. The chances of North Korea attacking China are damn near zip. As far as the refugee issue, it's a non issue. If the problem gets too large, you send them back to the tender mercies of the DPRK. What does China care about refugees? I think it's a smart move for them to sit back, do nothing, and see if they can pull this off. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #6 I believe this commentary is deeply flawed because its basic assumption is that China is most concerned about American troops. This is inaccurate. The Chinese are fixated on Japan, and while Americans are more than willing to let World War 2 fade into the past, the Chinese suffered horribly at Japanese hands, and they are much less willing to forgive or forget. They view us as the ones who can best keep the Japanese under wraps. Of course, if the Japanese decide to undertake a major rearmament program or announce a shift away from a "self-defense" military policy, then look out! |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2003-02-25 16:28:41 |
| #5 Remember the basic issue for the Party to control the population. No control, no party. It is currently threatened by the corruption within its own ranks. This is the historical base in which many of the prior Chinese dynasties started their fall. The provincial governors became more powerful through the economy as not to be dependent upon the central government. The corruption compounded the effectiveness of the central government and alienated enough of the people, so as to reduce the obedience of the masses. When someone would revolt, the monies and the bodies were not forthcoming to defend the center. Now with the Chinese economy in the still early stages of development a large portion of the population has moved to the cities and are less and less under party control. One of the major engines driving the conversion of the economy is the huge trade deficit with the US. A total economic embargo would start the collapse of the current social structure. Remember the Chinese are not kept in the dark about the outside world like the North Koreans. They are now in the cycle of rising expectations which is a very volatile social state. If the trade collapes, very large numbers of people are suddenly out of work and have zero means for the basics of life - food, clothing, shelter. That historically breeds major instability in the governing ability of those in power. While the government could blame foreigners for their self-created problem, they can't sustain that as the basis for keeping the hungry in line. Self interests of both the people and regional authorities, those officals becoming wealthy upon the corruption, will once again threaten the current dynasty's hold on power. That is not a good strategy for Beijing. The viable solution for the Chinese is to saleout the N.Koreans and agree to joint occupation of the North with the South and the reduction of the American forces to a Military Assistance Group level. That would create the fastest and safest transition which in the end accomplishes their overall goal in the penisula. However, that would be too simple. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-02-25 16:02:02 |
| #4 "As far as the natural alliance goes, do you really think these countries would put it on the line if China makes a move on Taiwan?" You mean whould they all go to war - I doubt it. But they would either support the US, or make it clear to China that the consequences in diplomatic and economic isolation would exceed the benefits of retaking Taiwan. Depends on the circumstances, too. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-02-25 14:15:21 |
| #3 I don't want to diminish militant Islam as a threat to western civilization, but China is an 800 lb. gorilla in the background. All the more reason we need to solidify real friendship with our natural allies, Russia and India. Otherwise our children will all be studying Mandarin Chinese in less than 25 years. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2003-02-25 13:58:03 |
| #2 Liberalhawk. Granted, it's a theory. But they've got a chance at getting what they want in Korea, seeing that a lot of their younger generation seem to think we're facist occupiers opposing unification and a lot of people over here seem to think the SK's are ungrateful bastards who don't deserve US protection. Concerning Japan, we may not withdraw, but we might be asked to leave someday. I know they weren't too crazy about us in Okinawa. As far as the natural alliance goes, do you really think these countries would put it on the line if China makes a move on Taiwan? They may not get all they want, but they might get some of it. And without a lot of effort on their part. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-02-25 13:37:13 |
| #1 i dont see why the US would withdraw forces from a nuclear Japan. And i have difficulty with China wanting a nuclear Japan in preference to US forces in the region. The problem with any expansionist China scenarios is that the alliance to contain China is so natural - US-Japan-India-Russia-Viet Nam- ASEAN, as well as Taiwan. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-02-25 13:10:12 |