Nick Eberstadt weighs in with his take on the latest round of the six-party talks. As you could guess, he wasn’t impressed:
The geopolitical charade known as the six-party talks–the international diplomatic game in which North Korea pretends to consider denuclearizing, while five other countries at the table pretend to believe Pyongyang is serious–seem to have entered a new and surreal phase. By many yardsticks (to pick just one: the amount of plutonium in Kim Jong Il’s nuclear arsenal), the North Korean nuclear problem is decidedly more acute today than it was before the negotiating process began two years ago. Thus far, the fourth round of talks has been as fruitless as the previous three. After 13 days of meetings without substantive progress, negotiations were recessed until the week of August 29. The participants–North Korea, the U.S., South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia–have yet to reach even the most basic accord. Still, none of the governments committed to this exercise in conference diplomacy is willing to admit failure.
Read the rest on your own.
Note: Dr. Eberstadt doesn’t rule out diplomacy, but says diplomatic efforts should stress “mending the relationship with Seoul and establishing better rapport with Beijing, North Korea’s two main financial backers.” Off hand, it would seem to me that getting tough with the North would entail tanking our relationships with Seoul and Beijing, so I’m keen to know how the two could be pursued simultaneously.
(Hat tip to One Free Korea, who has his own comments to make)
36 Comments
Given China’s hosting of the Olympics in 2008 - What is the current estimate for the North Korean implosion?
I mean, even with “under-the-table” aid from China… can the North hold it together that long? Or will the pre-China games be held hostage to a round of “negotiations”?
Get Off The Ferris Wheel!
The most important aspect of the recessed six-party talks to remember is, that its a six-way street. No one country is to blame for the current impasse. All are to blame collectively and equally. Hankoryehs editorial at this point is…
I thought the first line down to “-seem” was perfect.
More and more, I don’t buy the “acute” and “plutonium being the yardstick” argument.
NK doesn’t need 100 nukes for a deterent.
NK would most likely invite sure death, regardless of the cost in lives, if it was caught selling a nuke.
Another nation buying a nuke would have to let the world know if had one before it would be a deterant. Having a secretly hidden nuke does what for a nation?
A terrorist group buying a nuke would not announce it or strongly hint they had it, until they used it. But, once a nuke goes off somewhere, North Korea would be 1st on the hit list.
I really don’t believe NK is going to sell a nuclear weapon unless it absolutely has to. The risk of the sell becoming known or suspected enough is too great. And if regime survival is the key to North Korea, which I think it is, selling nuclear bomb grade material or a bomb is extremely risky.
So I just don’t buy the argument that the situation is “more and more acute”.
I do agree that the only way real progress is going to be made in ending this situation is what the US does with SK and China. But, the US has shown no desire or stomach for beating those two over the head with carrots and sticks to get them to cut North Korea off enough to make it collapse or fear collapse so much it does what it believes it can’t do for fear of collapse (thus a catch-22) — open up.
Right now, containment is the only real policy in effect, and when they won’t admit it, it makes me fear they aren’t taking the nuts and bolts steps that would make containment work — like cutting off the shipments that have military hardware or fake dollars or meth and so on.
On North Korea collapsing…..I think they learned themselves in the 1990s that they can survive as is far into the future. They should also have great confidence South Korea and China will help them, even help them significantly more, if things start to look too dire.
South Korea and China, unless the US somehow makes it too difficult for them, are going to stick with a primary NK foreign policy being “avoid collapse at all cost.”
I thought that jaw-jawing was a good way to placate China and SK whether or not it was only formalities. In the meanwhile, DPRK’s own incompetence seems to be its own “tough” punishment.
Sometimes DPRK points guns at other people making demands. At other times… like when DPRK threatens Russia to close down its “valuable” railroad program with SK because of America’s “intransigence”, it’s like they are pointing the gun at their own feet and threatening a random stranger that he’ll shoot unless he forks over all his money.
This insistence that DPRK is a rational actor doesn’t make any sense to me at least. But then again, I’m not so learned.
It’s rational if you consider “North Korea” limit to a certain narrow strata of the people — the regime - those whose current state of fair health depends on the regime maintaining tight control or at least not loose enough to threaten upheaval.
The sad thing is — in the 1990s, North Korea got a good lesson to learn how much abuse North Korean society can take without breaking up.
But, it hasn’t learned how far it can open up and still maintain the regime. So, it fears opening up in minimal ways….
usinkorea wrote:But, it hasn?t learned how far it can open up and still maintain the regime. So, it fears opening up in minimal ways??. Wait a minute, back in 2002, China quashed what appeared to be a genuine attempt by North Korea at experimenting with “opening up.” North Korea, without China’s permission, designated the far northwestern city of Shin?ญiju as a free-trade zone with a foreign governor, and China responded by throwing that governor (a Chinese-born Dutch citizen) into jail.
It’s China that controls the switch, not South Korea. Not even Japan controls the switch, despite being the buyer of one-seventh of all North Korean exports–over half of what alleged “sponsor” South Korea took in in 2004–and the biggest exporter to North Korea, after China and Thailand and ahead of South Korea. (Hmm… with all this economic activity which could be helping prop up the Pyongyang regime, why isn’t Tokyo considerd a North Korean sponsor state? Why is only Seoul bashed for this? Hmm…).
If the U.S. wants to really do something about North Korea (it’s human rights, its regime’s behavior, etc.) to change North Korea, lean on China because they’re the ones controlling the switch, not South Korea (or even Japan).
I agree with Kushibo. If any nation holds influence with North Korea, China does. Kushibo, you mentioned that, if the US wishes effect change in North Korea, it should ‘lean on China’. Do you (or anyone) have thoughts on how this could be reasonably accomplished?
I agree with Kushibo that if any nation holds influence with North Korea, China does. Kushibo, you mentioned that, if the US wishes effect change in North Korea, it should ‘lean on China’. Do you (or anyone) have thoughts on how this could be reasonably accomplished?
I agree China, more so than Korea, could cause North Korea to reach a moment of decision — force them to either collapse or open up enough.
But, I disagree with the characterization of the Shin?ญiju area.
North Korea’s free trade zones, from what little I’ve read about them, are like its Mt. Kumgang “opening up.”
They tried to make them a quarantined area where it gives up very small amount of exposure in hopes of getting a return of much needed resources. And the free economic zones, from what little I’ve read, have failed for this very same paranoia.
On the foreign guy who was supposed to run the one you mentioned, I also remember he got into some confusion and/or hot water with Pyongyang when he said foreigners would be able to move in an out of it pretty much freely - or something like that.
But North Korea clearly wanted to wall these economic zones off from the rest of Korea.
To me, rather than being signs of a North Korea willingness to open up gradually or quickly —- they are somewhat pathetic signs that North Korea is incapable of taking the steps to really open itself up.
I agree China, more so than Korea, could cause North Korea to reach a moment of decision ? force them to either collapse or open up enough.More so? Completely so. South Korea could cut off all economic ties with Pyongyang today and the regime would still survive. South Korea could break off all communication with North Korea and human rights abuses would still be rampant, with China helping out by rounding up North Koreans and sending them back.But, I disagree with the characterization of the Shin?ญiju area.
North Korea?s free trade zones, from what little I?ve read about them, are like its Mt. Kumgang ?opening up.??It’s existing free trade zones, in Kaes??ng and Najin, yes, but what was planned for Shin?ญiju was much more sweeping and included the entire city, not just a slided-off area.They tried to make them a quarantined area where it gives up very small amount of exposure in hopes of getting a return of much needed resources.Initially, what else would you expect? China was somewhat tight with control, too, but then SEZs were everywhere. I would expect it to happen more slowly with North Korea, but would you realistically expect that a hermetically sealed country would jump off the deep end into this kind of thing without sticking a toe or two in the water first?And the free economic zones, from what little I?ve read, have failed for this very same paranoia.Has Kaes??ng failed? Here at Marmot’s we keep reading that it’s propping up Pyongyang.On the foreign guy who was supposed to run the one you mentioned, I also remember he got into some confusion and/or hot water with Pyongyang when he said foreigners would be able to move in an out of it pretty much freely - or something like that.Got in hot water with Pyongyang? It was the Chinese who arrested him. He barely had a chance to do anything to get in hot water with Pyongyang over. Now some businesswoman from Orange County is supposedly running it, but I’m not sure.But North Korea clearly wanted to wall these economic zones off from the rest of Korea.Testing the waters. After so long an isolation, what else would you expect? Historically, Korea, China, and Japan were always like that. Give them a chance to get comfortable with it. Give them a chance to realize that, contrary to what they’ve learned, interaction will not lead to personal destruction.To me, rather than being signs of a North Korea willingness to open up gradually or quickly ?- they are somewhat pathetic signs that North Korea is incapable of taking the steps to really open itself up. I think you’re putting too much blame on Pyongyang for the Shin?ญiju “failure” and not enough on Beijing.
gbnhj wrote:I agree with Kushibo. If any nation holds influence with North Korea, China does. Kushibo, you mentioned that, if the US wishes effect change in North Korea, it should ??lean on China?. Do you (or anyone) have thoughts on how this could be reasonably accomplished? For starters, recognize and state that China is a full and willing accomplice in the human rights abuse situation in North Korea. This nonsense of bashing Seoul, which has taken in 99% of all escapees from China and North Korea and given them homes and stipends and whose citizens are up in China helping more get out, is to blame for the human rights situation is ludicrous. Despite Roh and Chung going into low-key mode in the interest of fostering better relations with the dangerous neighbor to the north, Seoul still does more, outside of lip service, than anyone else.[ Japanese citizens may collectively do more than American citizens, too, though I'd have to check that claim out.]
Anyway, recognize that Pyongyang couldn’t get away with imprisoning and terrorizing its population if Beijing didn’t ACTIVELY round up and repatriate DPRK citizens it knows will be imprisoned, tortured, and killed.
Why do we give Beijing a pass on this? Is it because we make a lot of money from trade with China? F–king hypocrites.
Let’s see Bush threaten to boycott the 2008 Olympics if China keeps up its efforts to hunt down and repatriate the tens or hundreds of thousands of DPRK citizens in the PRC.
Then, recognizing that South Korea can’t possibly absorb 300,000 refugees on its own, start a concerted international effort, initially with South Korean, American, and Japanese money, to resettle these refugees. Maybe in Mongolia, some in Korea, some in Japan, some in Arizona, some in Canada. At least a few in Washington’s US-bashing allies, who are being shamed into following the U.S.’s lead on human rights (because, yes, this would put the U.S. on top again).
Let’s leech North Korea of the people it can’t feed. Let the regime collapse when 5 percent or so walk out.
“…some in Arizona…” Haven’t the North Koreans suffered enough already?
I doesn’t matter to me whether the ineffectual steps by Pyongyang to open up are “understandable” due to the amount of paranoia and isolation it has had in its history. To me, the ineffectual steps don’t mean anything important until they lead to more significant steps that I can see are a real change.
I’d have to go back and look for it, but as I remember it, the man who was going to run the zone you mentioned did cause some problems for Pyongyang by telling the outside world the zone was going to give a lot of free access to and from the outside world and it, and then Pyongyang said, “No it isn’t” and it looked like there was some miscommunication and/or butting heads about it, but the issue never got clarified, because the guy was taken by China not too long after. And as I remember it, whether the zone was going to include the whole city or not, North Korea was still sealing it off from the rest of the society. Proving it is terrified of exposure to the outside world. Thus telling me the economic zones, where it is allowing badly needed currency into Korea but desperately trying to keep this limited exposure from infected the bulk of the Korean people, is not a great sign of progress on North Korea’s part. Again, it doesn’t matter to me whether I can understand this given North Korea’s history or not.
I think what we are getting at is found in your phrase “testing the waters.”
That is the key to interpret.
If this limited moves by Pyongyang…that are so ineffectual the economic zones have flopped, because foreign companies don’t believe they can come in and make a profit…are testing the waters — that if they open the zones and don’t have their universe explode, they will push the doors wider open and faster, then they might be worth congradulating on the ineffectual steps.
But, if these ineffectual openings turn out to be pretty much the extent of the “reform” North Korea is willing to make, and it becomes satisfied with the amount of resources they brought in, and it decides to keep things as is rather than risk further exposure, this ineffectual steps that, in my opinion, too many people have applauded like the invention of sliced bread, will turn out to be assess for what they are —- ineffectual and doomed to failure.
The Kaesong zone will be interesting to watch. But, South Korea is the one making it work. Maybe that doesn’t matter. I’ll have to think about it…
It is South Korean companies that are gung-ho about it, and it is the South Korea government that is paying for the infrastructure.
And I would like to how much of the companies that have moved up there or are in the process of moving up there are doing so due to S. Korean subsidies. Are these companies moving up because it is profitable, or because the South Korean government is making it profitable?
Susidizing it initially isn’t a bad thing outright. If it ends up being profitable on its own, then it is a plan that works.
But, I wonder, now that I think about it, are we seeing South Korea moving to replace what China and the Soviet Union were before about 1991?
A good number of people around the world used to say of North Korea that whatever suppression of human rights it had, it was at least more developed than South Korea which was supposed to be a capitalist democracy. That argument got weaker in the 1980s as South Korea’s economy took off and the society also moved away from the Park Chung Hee’s constitutional changes of the early 1970s.
But, it really hit home in the 1990s when Russia, having imploded itself, and China both cut the free gravey train off and started making North Korea at least barter for resources. When that happened, the great lie of “Juche” or North Korea’s power stemming from in part its establishiment of self-reliance came crashing down like a meteor. It became obvious that North Korea’s economic development was totally dependant on hand outs from China and the Soviet Union.
Right now, to me, we could just be seeing South Korea deciding that it will attempt to replace the loss of China pre-1990 and the USSR by giving away what resources it can.
And I agree China is the one who could force the moment in North Korea while South Korea can’t, but South Korea’s pumping resources into North Korea is not insignificant given the North’s weakness. I think you are down playing the South’s position with the North somewhat to much.
And I’ll say what I’ve said here and on my blog often before —-
the fact Pyongyang drives out groups like Doctors Without Borders because it hampers their ability to distribute life giving aid to North Koreans because it is that scared of North Koreans being infected by the outside world tells me more about where North Korea’s mind is at than the free economic zones and whatever “reforms” I’ve heard mentioned before.
When you drive out humanitarian groups that don’t even like the US govermnment much, I find it hard to believe the bulk sum of all these economic and other reforms amount to a hill of beans.
Until I get some convincing signs to the contrary, I will continue to believe they are not even half-hearted steps that are taken to bring badly needed resources in country, and they will remain functioning at a disfunctional level as long as a nation like South Korea and China is willing to subsidize it, but if these countries decide, in a businessman like sense, to stop throwing good money after bad, all these reforms will come crashing down just like the whole of North Korea did in the 1990s.
But, since China and South Korea’s conclusion is that a collapse of the North is the worst case outcome, they are unlikely to stop giving the amount of subsidies they current do.
usinkorea, do you think that Japan, being the third largest importer of North Korean goods and the third largest exporter to North Korea (ahead of South Korea), is helping to keep them propped up? Do you think Japan wants the North to collapse?
I bring up this point because everybody on this list and his mother seems to make out that China and South Korea are the problem, when in fact South Korea is in same triple-A league that Japan and, arguably, a few other countries are in.
Were it not for China and South Korea, we would be hypothesizing, “Were it not for XXX and YYY, then surely North Korea would collapse.”
I’m just tired of the distortion that gets made on the debate because people are not willing to face up to the realities of the situation:
1. South Korea, for all the accusations that it is propping up North Korea and fears its collapse, is virtually the ONLY country taking in and subsidizing North Korean refugees.
2. The United States government, despite its complaints of human rights abuses in the North, continues unabated trade with North Korea’s willing accomplice, China.
3. At the same time it complains of human rights, the U.S. takes in virtually zero North Korean refugees nor works to help those in a dangerous limbo in China.
4. Japan would become at least #2 exporting and importing partner to North Korea if the pesky (and very, very serious) kidnapee issue were resolved and Tokyo could set up diplomatic relations with Pyongyang. Watch Najin and/or Kaes??ng get infused with capital.
Bashing South Korea by putting it in the same boat as China is a cop-out. China is a willing culprit in the North Korean human rights issue, and the United States pretends that doesn’t happen so it can go about supplying cheap DVD players to Walmart.
The only thing cheaper than a Walmart DVD player is freshly made body-temperature CO2 produced in Washington, where they talk about North Korean human right but do nothing because doing something would actually hurt.
I didn’t vote for George W. Bush, but believe it or not, I do have some positive thoughts about him. I think on human rights issues and on democracy, his heart is in the right place. I think if he were convinced that North Korean lives were more important than cheap electronics, he would say, “Screw the cost!” and put real pressure on China to at least stop actively rounding up North Koreans to repatriate them to certain imprisonment, torture, and/or death.
Talk is cheap, action is hard. Right now the much-derided South Korea is the only country taking in North Korean refugees. Washington and Tokyo both give needed food aid, but so does Seoul. In real terms, what has [insert country here] done about the problem?
As for your doubts about North Korean free trade zones, they don’t sound all that different from the very cautious steps Beijing was taking in the 1980s. Now look at them (yes, there’s need for improvment, but they’ve come a hell of a long way).
Human Rights Watch has a link to sentiments very similar to mine, about China saying there are no North Korean refugees, only illegal immigrants.
If the U.S. wants to really do something about North Korea (it?s human rights, its regime?s behavior, etc.) to change North Korea, lean on China because they?re the ones controlling the switch, not South Korea (or even Japan).
If the U.S. government is making this a priority of its “quiet diplomacy,” the result isn’t evident to me or those foolish enough to tell me things. There are other ways to lean on China, of course. I’m not sure how much a few pesky demonstrators can accomplish, but if the issue becomes high profile, it could help make Beijing ‘08 as great a financial success as Athens ‘04. Congressional aides are even making public speeches to this effect.
I’ll make it as plain as possible: if China does not, in word and in deed, grant refugee status to the DPRK citizens in its country, then boycott Beijing in 2008!
Peaceful sporting events should not be held hostage to politics, so the argument goes, and it’s unfair to the hard-working athletes that they should lose their change to compete.
Weigh that against the terror of a North Korean refugees hiding in constant fear in China. Add to that the horror if he or she is caught. The athletes can wait for London in 2012.
The IOC granted Beijing the 2008 Olympiad with the idea that it might influence Beijing to change (a la Seoul in 1988), but that doesn’t seem to be happening on its own. The threat of a boycott may be the push they need.
And if the governments don’t have the stomach, then NGOs, the blogosphere, private individuals, etc., should make the personal decision to boycott and announce that, as often as possible, prior to the Olympics.
No viewing, no merchandise, no discussing who won, no cheering for your native or any country, no watching of the programs that follow the Olympic games on the host network, etc.
As long as it is sending North Koreans to their deaths, Beijing does not deserve the Olympics and they do not deserve our dollars, yen, won, etc.
Kushibo, do the South Koreans among whom you live and work “plead poverty” when this subject arises (ie say that they can’t do anything about North Korean refugees because the rest of the world won’t assist)?
This blog has actively cataloged the publicly unemphasized or unacknowledged (but nevertheless extremely active) measures that ROK government officials have taken recently ( presumably continue to take) to actively discourage DPRK refugees.
Yet your response is to say “well ROK does take in a few DPRK refugees (is it mere hundreds or a few thousand annually) while nobody else is doing so…”
And your clear implication is that somehow this is all W’s fault. Ah yes, the ROK government is fiercely nationalistic and will “not kowtow” to the US, until it comes time for actual sacrifices to be made and then the excuse is weepingly “well, we can’t do more because US won’t help”.
Yet millions and millions can be found for subsidies to the north not to mention outright bribery. I sure don’t recall the West Germans weeping and turning out empty pockets, saying “we can’t accept E German refugees and it’s the fault of the rest of the world because they won’t do our job for us…”.
The ROK should take the lead and actively work to help their fellow countrymen, and we shouldn’t be letting them off the hook in this regard. I suppose the whole world is becoming ever more expert in unloading their guilt trips on gullible Americans so why should the ROK be any different. “Blame America first”, it’s a well that never runs dry.
The ROK should be the ones “in the lead” to approach China about the refugee problem, not the US. If President Roh were to mount a public (or private) campaign of diplomacy to do so, and then he approached the US for financial assistance, to both set up large refugee camps in China and then repatriate such refugees to ROK, he would probably find the US generously opening up its treasury to help. And also I’m sure the US would end up taking in a fair share of auxh refugees as well.
Yet you slam your own country for failing to take measures when it is the ROK who is actively refusing to follow its own laws and constitution in this regard. No matter what happens, it’s always primarily America’s fault isn’t it?
Strike that last rhetorical question, I know you don’t mean that, it’s just my frustration showing.
Kushibo, I think you are being unfair towards China. As for Sinuiju project, it just seemed to me that the DPRK was ready to create a Macao, a sort of gambling den for Chinese tourists–an oasis of corruption–for DPRK to mooch money off from Chinese people. I think, that the mainland government had a legitimate reason to shutdown the sinuiju project. I don’t think it’s a case of “dipping the toe”. That’s like saying selling narcotics was DPRK’s initial effort at experimenting with market economy.
I also like to point out the fact that China harbors far far FAR more starving people from DPRK than ROK, US, and Japan combined. ROK, US, Japan all toot that horn of human rights but all are miserable failures as far as accepting refugees are concerned. We don’t need to discuss the utter failure that is ROK’s commitment to this issue. But even in the US, I think we both agree completely that the NKHRA should really be renamed “VOA Appropriations Act” beacause that seems to be it’s real function.
I think Americans have a difficult time really grasping why SK acts the way it does. The conservative Koreans seems to have the view that they have been harping at their northern cousins for the past 50 years what screwups they are. Having worked their ass off for the past 50 years and having achieved prosperity, they feel that it’s unfair now that the DPRK has dug itself a hole that they cannot climb out of, they turn to them for cash. Also, age seems to have taken the fire out of unification through warfare sort of mentality. But they don’t say anthing like this in public, because any anti-unification voice is seen as unpatriotic. Young liberals are deluded and think that holding hands and waving flags will somehow accomplish what KIS’ T-34s could not. But they too wind up working to keep the peninsula divided, that they must work to accomodate their “brothers.”
I just feel very annoyed when certain Americans stand on their moral high horse for “supporting” NK refugees by saying things like, “we pressured China to act kindly.” This sort of thing would be very comical if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s actually very depressing. I also am even more annoyed when Korean people start blaming China when we don’t apply even a speck of effort that China is doing. That’s hypocrisy to an extreme level.
I also want to point out that China’s influence is very limited in what it can do. It’s principal power in dealing with DPRK lies in the fact that it can close or open it’s border. But what can China really do? Stop sending oil? That probably will cause a war. Stop sending food? That probably will kill only people who hate KJI already. Close off the border? KJI will probably become ecstatic if anything that China is helping NK in controlling the flow of information. It’s unreasonable to expect China to open up it’s borders and take the full impact of economic/social/political disaster all by herself. I’d imagine, DPRK already assumes that CHina is really a miliary ally of US and ROK.
I see now that the South Korean Minister of Unification has opened his big mouth again: South Korea’s unification minister has reportedly disagreed with the US on how to end North Korea’s nuclear threat.
God forbid that someone from the foriegn ministry or the president should comment upon the talks, rather, we have the presidential “wannabe”, already keen on the next presidential election. I will be so glad to see Chung Ding Dong gone . . .
And your clear implication is that somehow this is all Ws fault. Ah yes, the ROK government is fiercely nationalistic and will not kowtow to the US, until it comes time for actual sacrifices to be made and then the excuse is weepingly well, we cant do more because US wont help. That’s what you think is a clear implication? I think you’re inferring views I simply don’t have.
I’ve said that Bush’s rhetoric on North Korea, espeically his name-calling aimed at Kim Jong-il, has been ill-advised at times, but a few comments ago I went out of my way to say something rather positive about W, which is that he is sincere on the issue of human rights and democracy, and I think that if he were to be convinced that China is a major culprit, he would put those values ahead of cheap DVD players and do the right thing.
Far from saying “this is all W’s fault,” I am saying that W may be the one person who can solve it.
I have to go to bed now, but I wanted to make that point.
One other thing… I was earlier trying to find the refugee stats for the past few years. I can’t find 2004’s total (only up to July, which was around 750) or 2005’s to date.
Paul, out of a total of 5000 since the end of the war, the vast majority have been since 2000, with it going up annually at least to 2003, when it was round 1500. At 36 million won a pop plus a monthly stipend of 500,000 won, which have been cut to 20 million won and 300,000 won per month, that’s no pocket change.
By the way, Paul, my financial-based proposals were not something solely aimed at the U.S., but something that should be shared by lots of countries, including South Korea, Japan, and the U.S., but also other countries. Why? Because South Korea could not handle an influx of 300,000 refugees (estimated to be the number of DPRK citizens currently in hiding in China).
Mainly what I was saying that the U.S. should do is put pressure on China to recognize NKs as refugees. That kind of pressure is not something South Korea could do alone, but South Korea, Japan, and Washington collectively could do something.
Geez, I can’t see how you can give what I wrote a fair read and think I’m saying the U.S. is to blame for all this? It’s China.. and it’s not only the U.S. that chooses to ignore that… it’s almost every other country that makes them the “factory to the world.” I even made fun of the U.S. basher American allies (Italy, UK, Germany, etc.) in my rant. Geez… next time try to read what I write without prejudging it based on what you assume are my viewpoints.
I see now that the South Korean Minister of Unification has opened his big mouth again: South Korea?s unification minister has reportedly disagreed with the US on how to end North Korea?s nuclear threat.A few days ago, the U.S. side was supposedly saying that North Korea could have a nuclear program as long as it accepted very tight scrutiny.
From the article:The source said the United States had proposed this week that North Korea could possess a nuclear program for civilian use if it returned to the NPT, abided by all international rules and obligations and accepted full inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency.Still, I agree with your point about Chung and his grandstanding. Most voters I know don’t care much for him (even the leftists).
Virtual Wonderer, what do you mean (#20) that China is “harboring” starving people from North Korea?
How can hunting them down and returning them be considered “harboring” them? If these people fill a need to hide from the Chinese authorities, how can this be considered providing safety or shelter?
I didn’t know the Japan economic exchange stat. What are the numbers? Japan is 3rd. What is the figure of their trade with Japan and what is the 2nd place number? How big a gap is there?
If Japan is funnelling resources into NK on the scale of SK or close to it, yes, it is helping keep North Korea afloat. South Korea is too. And I already agree with you that China is the most important source of what North Korea needs to survive. But, we can also point to the US and say it does too. It still donates food and I think medical supplies either directly to North Korea or to multinational orgs that give it to the North.
I also agree with you that the US could be doing more to put pressure on the North by making China pay a price for its “no collapse” first policy (as I think we should South Korea too).
I have my doubts about Japanese pumping capital into the free economic zones or Kaesong. For one thing, Kaesong is close to SK and makes transporting manufactured goods fairly easy. Japan doesn’t have that advantage. And, before the kidnapping issue hit the fan, Japan was making ovetures to North Korea following SK’s Sunshine policy success (as it was seen then), but these other economic zones were not actually producing an influx of outside financing even before the rise of the nuke and kidnapping issues. Everybody got really excited when NK started setting up these zones and talking to the South, and companies expressed interest in them, but they did not trust it enough to pump in funds. I don’t believe Japanese corporations are holding back just because of the kidnapping issue.
The US hasn’t taken in NK refugees in part because South Korea would go howling mad and China would be pissed off as well. I agree, who cares? Take the North Koreans in, but it isn’t just a US thing. And above all, South Korea is the most logical relocation place for them, don’t you think?
“Bashing South Korea by putting it in the same boat as China is a cop-out. China is a willing culprit in the North Korean human rights issue, and the United States pretends that doesn?t happen so it can go about supplying cheap DVD players to Walmart.”
Wait. You are just a little off here, aren’t you? China is the main reason NK doesn’t collapse, but North Korea’s human rights abuses are not China’s.
You want me to say the US should lay the primary blame on China in what is an effort to take the blame away from South Korea
On note 25 —
It seems to me China is following a mixed activity there.
They do make crack downs, but I also think the crackdowns are limited time wise and between them, they turn a worried blind eye to the refugees that stick in the Manchuria area. I thought the crackdowns became more focused when we where the NK refugees have pressed further into China — especially when they go to Bejing and try to get assylum in a foreign mission.
I am not disagreeing with you about the bad nature of the Chinese crack downs.
But, I do think there is some room for Virtual Wanders point as well.
We might say the US does somewhat the same thing with the Mexican border.
We have a large immigration department that tracks down all illegals and we have border patrol that seeks to stop them — and we spend millions of dollars each year to do it —
but — we also have mass amnesties from time to time and we definately do not concentrate the amount of resources we could to guard the border or hunt down more and more illegals from any nation.
Kushibo, I was just reading a column by Nick Kristof about Dr. Shazia who fled to the UK after escaping from Pakistan. According to his Kristof Respond blog, he states that Canada is refusing asylum to Dr. Shazia who wants to go to Canada, as she has relatives there. Canada’s position is simply that Dr. Shazia is already safe in the UK, and does not need asylum from Canada.
And that kinda boils down the story a bit doesn’t it? So far, from time to time, China allowed a small number of NK refugees defect to SK. If China were to create refugee camps, where do you think will be their final destination? It’s not going to be ROK, I think at this point, it’s pretty clear that the ROK feels that NK refugees are personae non gratae. In the Patriot Act generation, I kinda doubt US would want to harbor some of them especially when mixed in with the regular refugees, you will inevitably get some spys and terrorists. Japan probably feels about the same.
You can say, “your point is moot, as ultimately China does not want the DPRK to collapse by allowing all these refugees to go to another country.” But I think that all the major nations, US, Japan,and the ROK sort of doesn’t use it as a bargaining position to coax the Chinese to allow more of the refugees free.
Let’s say Japan tomorrow offered asylum to 10,000 NK refugees and offered China one thousand US dollars per refugee deliverd, I wonder if China really would turn something like that down. Of course, what philanthropic nation on earth would offer such generous offer is another question.
Refugee problem can be solved if the ROK hanchongryun brigade started to throw some molotov cocktail demanding that NK refugees given ROK asylum immediately. China may not want NK to collapse, but there is no reason for China to support the inevitalbe historical loser that is the DPRK at the cost of losing the inevitable winner of the unification, ROK. But currently ROK and China are like lips and teeth.
The problem isn’t China. The problem is that ultimately noone gives a damn about refugees. Doesn’t matter if they are Koreans or Sudanese…
Good God, you guys are being selective. Usinkorea (#26), we can start making fair comparisons between illegal Mexican immigrants and North Korean refugees just as soon as Vicente Fox starts making it a policy of imprisoning, torturing, and/or killing every returned “illegal immigrant” and their families. (Yes, there is some danger involved, but not at all like with North Koreans).
If we are going to couch this horrific tragedy in American terms, then perhaps the most appropriate thing would be the rounding up of “illegals” from Central American states in the 1980s who might be visited by death squads upon their return. But Mexico? Give me a break!
Virtual Wonderer, I’m sorry, but you are full of shit on this. You say, “The problem is that ultimately noone gives a damn about refugees,” just after you offered excuse after excuse why the democratic world really shouldn’t do anything about China. Look up Human Rights Watch and see what they have to say about it. Or check out what Republican Senator Sam Brownback has to say about it.
The problem is that noone gives a damn about refugees: the problem is that most everyone is willing to blindly ignore China’s role in this because it would force them to make tough decisions. You apparently are among them.
Kushibo I retract my earlier comments criticizing you.
My main point stands IMO. I have seen some commentators (Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard) who have made the point that they think US aid is there waiting to be tapped for assistance to DPRK refugees in China, along the lines of the extensive UN supervision of refugee camps so common elsewhere in the world.
You may say that PRC will never permit something like this but that doesn’t mean the attempt shouldn’t be made. Why isn’t ROK taking the lead in publicly raising the issue while appealing to US for support? This is something the entire West could get behind and it should be the leading issue of public debate in current ROK politics.
It’s too late for million of North Koreans, but the problem isn’t going to go away. Quiet diplomacy assuring the PRC that no US troops would ever take up a permanent status in DPRK might begin to wear away at Chinese rock-like resistance to the idea. It depends on how much the senior Chinese leadership really believes in their own Communist ideolgy and their fraternal “solidarity” with DPRK; this has got to be decreasing with every year that passes.
Virtual Wonderer wrote:But currently ROK and China are like lips and teeth.Lips and teeth? Then what are the U.S. and the PRC? The United States takes in nearly ONE-FOURTH of China’s exports (22.8% in 2004), FIVE TIMES that of South Korea and twice that of Japan. And while South Korea accounts for one-tenth of China’s imports, the United States is right behind them at 8% (Japan accounts for one-sixth of China’s imports).
$133 billion worth of Chinese goods going to the U.S.
The PRC and the ROK have a lips-and-teeth relationship, you say? Well, if the U.S. is buying one-fourth of China’s goods, five times the amount South Korea is, then what is that relationship? The PRC and the USA are like di-k-and-mouth?
[I'm not saying that the US is to blame here, just that there are a few countries, including the U.S. and Japan with as close a relationship to China, and that those countries are just as culpable in doing nothing because they put their dollars ahead of human rights, such that this constant bashing of South Korea, while ignoring the bigger issue, is wrongheaded and counterproductive.]
Kushibo, I concede to you that I am indeed often full of bovine excrement and I more often than not, deluge Marmot’s comment section with my ill-informed crazy rants. But on this point, I do think that you are unfair to China and now, I feel that you are being overly critical of me.
Noone here is denying that China has awful human rights record and China is being less than responsible far as HR is concerned. I’m just saying thta China doesn’t deserve to be singled out.
I think that you keep on skirting the issue, including the two links you gave me. If China gives true asylum to NK refugees, would the international community really support the resettlement of these refugees outside China? Furthermore, would the international community give various kinds of compensation for the economic/social/political duress it will be in for creating refugee camps? I don’t really see people jumping up and down for to allow NK refugees to settle in their homelands. Right now, you are insisting that China take the full hit on this all by herself.
To put it another way, US policy towards Cuban refugees isn’t so differnet from ROK’s policy towards NK. The differnce is that ROK, at least legally, views NK refugees as SK citizens. I don’t really expect US to treat NK refugees any different from how US treats Darfur refugees–which is to say, when push comes to shove, we really don’t really give a damn about these people. But I don’t single out the US, because there is a whole hosts of nations that is doing far far FAR less.
Your data on trade figures, doesn’t tell me much. Because, it seems that by quoting trade figures, you are suggesting that we (US) have a responsibiility to threaten China with trade sanctions over HR issues. I think this is counter productive. In fact, I don’t even think I should be going into the details why I think this, because I feel that should be perfectly obvious.
I do feel that we, you and I, care deeply about this issue, and I do think, on a personal level, you must be a great person. But again, I wouldn’t ask of China what I wouldn’t ask from US, Japan, Russia, and least of all, ROK.
I think we are in full agreement that Marmot’s comment section is full of mostly peole who have a very black and white view of ROK foreign policy. A point, that I try not to dwell on, since for them, their perspective ROK foregin policy is often colored by their personal anti-american/anti-foreigner experiences they had in SK.
I thank Senator Brownback for the NKHRA, but telling China what to do without creating incentives for it to do so, seems narrow minded to me. Everyone wants to use the threat of punitive measure to get what they want. Where’s the carrot? BTW, I still don’t know any NK refugees living in the States due to the NKHRA. Only NK refugees I am aware of residing in Japan are the Jenkin’s family.
Paul wrote:My main point stands IMO. I have seen some commentators (Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard) who have made the point that they think US aid is there waiting to be tapped for assistance to DPRK refugees in China, along the lines of the extensive UN supervision of refugee camps so common elsewhere in the world.And it probably should be. But it shouldn’t be just US money, but also South Korean, Japan, and some other countries, too.You may say that PRC will never permit something like this but that doesn?t mean the attempt shouldn?t be made.I’m not saying they won’t permit this, but I’m saying it’s going to take China’s economic partners to push for this. China will likely resist, as it already is doing with international pressure to change the status of the North Koreans in its borders to that of a refugee instead of illegal aliens.
My contention is that China’s economic sponsors (i.e., its major trading partners) have to put pressure on them to do this, because they aren’t doing it themselves. Willingly doing business with someone who you know is regularly and routinely rounding people up to be sent away to be slaughtered is a morally questionable position to say the least. In fact, the United States and Japan are doing the very thing that so many on this list are accusing South Korea of doing: putting money before the lives of North Koreans (and the Japanese are doing this on the same two fronts that the South Koreans are).Why isn?t ROK taking the lead in publicly raising the issue while appealing to US for support?That’s a very fair question, but I think the answer lies in two things.
First, South Korea carries nowhere near the clout of the United States. The U.S. takes in ONE-FOURTH of all of China’s exports, far more than any other country. It is the United States that is first among Beijing’s economic sponsors.
Second, what clout South Korea does have (which is some) is already used on getting Beijing to let North Korean refugees who are in diplomatic missions go to a “third country” before they move on to South Korea. There have been over 5000 North Korean refugees since the 1950s, the vast majority of them since 2000, during the Kim DJ and Roh administrations. Each of those requires a diplomatic dance by Beijing, who knows they can’t extract the NK refugee from the foreign mission (though they’ve tried) but also wants to show Pyongyang that they’re taking their deal seriously. So anyway, that’s where a lot of South Korea’s political capital is spent, even under the Roh administration.This is something the entire West could get behind and it should be the leading issue of public debate in current ROK politics.I think a lot of Roh’s and Chung’s antics are making people think twice about electing a home-grown leftist in the future, but foreign affairs and North Korean issues are not the only thing on the political plate here. There’s also political corruption, taxes, skyrocketing real estate, educational issues, pollution, environmental issues.It?s too late for million of North Koreans, but the problem isn?t going to go away. Quiet diplomacy assuring the PRC that no US troops would ever take up a permanent status in DPRK might begin to wear away at Chinese rock-like resistance to the idea.I agree, but I also know that that is being done.It depends on how much the senior Chinese leadership really believes in their own Communist ideolgy and their fraternal ?solidarity?? with DPRK; this has got to be decreasing with every year that passes.China has turned into an economic wild, wild west, but that doesn’t mean that the Communist leadership is any less ideological. If anything, they may see a need to bolster their ideology, not loosen it. Think of the difference between lay Catholics and the two most recent Catholic priests when it comes to issues like birth control, homosexuality, etc.
Make no mistake, the Beijing leadership is communist, and they see little wrong with breaking a few eggs to make a state-stability omelette. What’s happening in North Korea is, to a high degree, acceptable to them.
And that is why we have to question our uncritical economic sponsorship of Beijing.
virtual wonderer wroteKushibo, I concede to you that I am indeed often full of bovine excrement and I more often than not, deluge Marmot?s comment section with my ill-informed crazy rants. But on this point, I do think that you are unfair to China and now, I feel that you are being overly critical of me.Beijing actively rounds up North Korean refugees and sends them back, per agreement, to North Korea where they will almost certainly be imprisoned and tortured, and possibly killed. And by being critical of that and demanding a stop, I’m being unfair how?Noone here is denying that China has awful human rights record and ChinaI’d say the people buying cheap DVD players at Walmart are. The United States is China’s #1 economic sponsor, yet we turn a blind eye to a litany of human rights abuses, including state-sponsored murder.
Back when Clinton decided to end the yearly ritual of arguing about China’s human rights when deciding to renew China’s MFN status, I thought the decision (condemned by many Dems but supported by most Republicans) was somewhat sound, as long as pressure was applied in other areas. But it hasn’t been. We (the United States, where I happen to be a citizen and regular voter) are unabashedly China’s economic sponsor.is being less than responsible far as HR is concerned.What a nice little euphemism for China’s human rights abuses. It almost makes them Beijing sound like wayward children instead of organizers of torture and death.I?m just saying thta China doesn?t deserve to be singled out.Really? The leader of the communist world and one of our number-one trading partners does not deserve to be singled out when they willingly do things that violate international human rights norms?I think that you keep on skirting the issue, including the two links you gave me. If China gives true asylum to NK refugees, would the international community really support the resettlement of these refugees outside China?If China were to really set up refugee resettlement camps, I would say they deserve a lot of financial support for that, but that is NOT the issue here. They are rounding up people in hiding (hiding for fear of being sent to their deaths) not because of the financial costs of those people hiding and working in secret but because of an agreement with North Korea, plain and simple.
All they would have to do is stop blocking NK refugees from leaving.
Let’s take the example of NK refugees tryiing to make a run for the diplomatic missions in Beijing and Shenyang. If these people were to make it to the US embassy, the Japanese school, or the South Korean consulate, after some political backroom stuff involving South Korean promises to face-savingly (for Beijing) send them to a third country, they end up in South Korea. In other words, out of China and no longer affecting the Chinese economy in any way.
Yet the PRC authorities work hard to block such things. They heavily guard the areas around the missions, and they have even invaded the Japanes and South Korean missions, dragging out NK refugees once they were already in the mission and, in the case of the South Korean mission in 2002, beating down the South Korean diplomats (on South Korean diplomatic territory) who tried to prevent them from dragging out the NK refugees.
No, this is not about cost, it’s about political arrangement with NK.Furthermore, would the international community give various kinds of compensation for the economic/social/political duress it will be in for creating refugee camps? I don?t really see people jumping up and down for to allow NK refugees to settle in their homelands.If there really were to be such camps, I think there would definitely be a need for money to be put into it. But you are putting the cart before the horse: Beijing right now would never allow NK refugee camps in its own territory, nor would it allow NK refugees to be allowed to pass through PRC on the way to, say, Mongolia or Russia. That’s the problem: it’s a political deal with Pyongyang, not economic concerns, that are leading China to do what it does.Right now, you are insisting that China take the full hit on this all by herself.No. If China really changed its policies, I would not insist they take the full hit. I’m not even so sure that they are taking a hit now, since even the refugees in hiding are generating economic activity in China.
What I am insisting China do is end their agreement with Pyongyang to send refugees back to certain torture and possible death (it is certain death in the sense that they know many will die, they just don’t know which ones).To put it another way, US policy towards Cuban refugees isn?t so differnet from ROK?s policy towards NK. The differnce is that ROK, at least legally, views NK refugees as SK citizens.That’s a huge difference. The United States does not go to other countries where Cubans are n diplomatic missions and work to get them to come to the United States. I’m not sure if the U.S. has a subsidy system for Cuban refugees like the South has for NKs.I don?t really expect US to treat NK refugees any different from how US treats Darfur refugees?which is to say, when push comes to shove, we really don?t really give a damn about these people.Well, thanks to Brownback’s law, I’m not so sure.
But the situations are not so equivalent as you suggest. The U.S. is the the main traing partner of China, not so with Sudan (interestingly, China is the #1 importer of Sudan’s goods–a whopping 64.3%, while Japan is #2 at 13%), therefore the U.S. has some influence, if not a moral obligation to do something.But I don?t single out the US, because there is a whole hosts of nations that is doing far far FAR less.Far less than who on what? Far less on the North Korean issue? The U.S., South Korea, and Japan all deserve kudos for food aid, but so far the Brownback bill is mere words on paper: something must be done to push the cogs into motion.Your data on trade figures, doesn?t tell me much. Because, it seems that by quoting trade figures, you are suggesting that we (US) have a responsibiility to threaten China with trade sanctions over HR issues.It means that as their economic sponsor, we have a moral responsibility to question our heavy involvement with that country.I think this is counter productive. In fact, I don?t even think I should be going into the details why I think this, because I feel that should be perfectly obvious.Ah, the copout response when pesky moral issues get in the way of economic argument.
Actually, VW, I did hint already that government sanction may not be the answer. I think individual and corporate action would be more effective. The political relationship needs to remain open, even if it includes harsh rebukes. This is why I support an individual and corporate boycott of Beijing 2008 unless China changes these policies.I do feel that we, you and I, care deeply about this issue, and I do think, on a personal level, you must be a great person. But again, I wouldn?t ask of China what I wouldn?t ask from US, Japan, Russia, and least of all, ROK.This is something all should be doing, but te U.S. should be on the forefront, given its whoppingly overwhelming economic relationship.
I also think it’s very telling how the criticism of South Korean engagement with NK is so strong, when the United States has such a strong economic relationship with North Korea’s willing accomplice (and Japan has a strong relationship with both), and virtually everyone is silent.
It’s even more disturbing that people are talking up nuclear or conventional strikes that would kill an awful lot of innocent NKs, SKs, Japanese, etc., when the solution to regime change is pressuing China to change some fundamental policies toward Pyongyang.I think we are in full agreement that Marmot?s comment section is full of mostly peole who have a very black and white view of ROK foreign policy. A point, that I try not to dwell on, since for them, their perspective ROK foregin policy is often colored by their personal anti-american/anti-foreigner experiences they had in SK.I thank Senator Brownback for the NKHRA, but telling China what to do without creating incentives for it to do so, seems narrow minded to me.That’s because I don’t think you are fully appreciating the extent of China’s complicity, or their reasons.Everyone wants to use the threat of punitive measure to get what they want. Where?s the carrot?I agree. There should be more carrots.BTW, I still don?t know any NK refugees living in the States due to the NKHRA. Only NK refugees I am aware of residing in Japan are the Jenkin?s family.The thousands of regugees are almost all in South Korea, receiving tens of thousands of dollars each in subsidies. Ironically, South Korea is singled out for doing too little.
I wrote:That?s because I don?t think you are fully appreciating the extent of China?s complicity, or their reasons.I don’t think I focused on this enough, because it is a rather important point.
I think you may be confusing the two different types of North Koreans we hear about. There are the NKs who make it into the diplomatic missions, spend some time there, and then when China sufficiently saves face, they get sent to a third country on their way to South Korea.
Yes, China lets them through eventually, although they get huffy about it. It is also an important thing to note that they ACTIVELY try to prevent DPRK citizens from making it into the foreign missions. They have even gone so far as to dragging NKs out of the Japanese and South Korean missions, and even BEAT DOWN South Korean diplomats who tried to block this.
But then there is the second type. The type that has crossed over and is hoping for a chance to leave to another country, but who cannot make it to the missions because they will likely be caught. They live in hiding, in fear of their lives, as the Chinese police make regular and serious round-ups of people like them to send back to North Korea. As per agreement.
They are stuck in limbo. They don’t want to stay in China (and they are not welcome there by the authorities) but if they go back they will likely die. Maybe their family members will also die.
These are the people who are most at risk, and they are the face of the majority of the refugees trying to leave, not the ones who have made it to the diplomatic missions and then were sent out of China.
Since so much of the part of China closest to Korea is so heavily Korean anyway, it’s not that hard to blend in, when necessary. But without knowledge of Chinese, without proper papers, etc., that blending in lasts only so long. To get by, many of the people end up in situations where their very lives are in the hands of unscrupulous people. There is a lot of sexual violence that goes on. Some women end up marrying people to get paperwork that will allow them to stay. Anything to avoiding being sent back to North Korea and a likely death, if not by torture or execution then by starvation at the hands of a government that uses food as a tool of suppression and loyalty.
These marriages and other things would not happen if the Chinese would allow the NKs refugee status, thus allowing them to leave China or to stay in China with legal papers. China, by refusing to acknowledge the NKs as refugees and instead rounding them up and sending them back, creates the problem of having hundreds of thousands of “illegal aliens” desperately hiding within its borders.
My point is, this is not the nice and neat situation you hear about where one, two, ten, or two hundred NKs sought asylum at an embassy, consulate, or diplomatic school or cultural center somewhere. It’s much more vile than that, and China is a willing accomplice by the path it has chosen in the face of international criticism by human rights groups.
Kushibo, I am not being facetious, but I do really am respectful of your very progressive and altruistic views on NK refugees. You don’t need to tell me about the problems with China’s government. But we are talking about a country that has, in recent memory, underwent the Cultural Revolution. I say this not to injure my chinese friends’ pride, but the vast bulk of China is still very very poor, undeveloped, and well… I’ll stop myself from continuing in case anyone from sina.com is reading this. (don’t flame me!) Not too long ago, China was where the DPRK is now–and I mean this pretty much on a literal level. I mean, I don’t think you really want to go into a debate on whether or not Nixon’s diplomacy had an impact on the develpment on China—to which I would say that it had a very positive influence. Some people might call this Nixon’s Sunshine Policy towards communist China, albeit for a bit different reason than ROK towards DRPK.
As for China, look. I agree that ROK is very generous to the NK refugees who are lucky enough to get there. My US Cuban analogy was to show you that US, like you said, do not go around the world demanding that Cuban refugees be given asylum into US—which SK do time to time with NK refugees. United States regularly turn back Cuban refugees on the highseas, which is a statement of fact. Had there been ocean between China and North Korea, and the Chinese regularly detained NK refugees in the Chinese equivalent of a Guatanamo Bay and sent them back to Pyong Yang to be killed, who would say what? People would say, “tough luck!”
Even in the SK example, every year something like 1500 NK refugees make it to SK. But let’s just “up” that estimation and say a round 2,000. 2000 is about 2 average US highschool class bodies. So essentially, SK houses 2,000, which is pretty small number of people per year. Now, you probably know this better than me, but Hanawon has massive problems. I will probably be villified for saying this, but it’s a statement of fact to say that most NK refugees have a very very very difficult time adjusting to life in the free world.
The reason why I say this is because, you said to me that I, “put the cart before the horse.” I don’t think you are being honest when you say that you think ROK and the international community would really absorb all these refugees or that they would provide some sort of compensation. I don’t think you are being completely honest when you fail to admit that ROK, US, and Japan has been less than robust in it’s diplomatic panderings to China to release these NK refugees. And I think that you might be purposefully blinding yourself to the fact that these other nations, just really don’t want to accept the refugees that China is kicking out.
To say, “I think international community should help China out if it allows NK refugees asylum” is a very differnt thing from saying, “Internation community WILL help China according to binding diplomatic agreements.” How can you claim putting cart before horse, when the Chinese have this very question to answer? When they allow 1000 NK refugees to go to ROK, obviously that will encourage more refugees to come to China. How many of these people will the international community support? This isn’t a case of cart before horse.
Virtual Wonderer, the crux of our disagreement seems to be this: you see Beijing rounding up the NK refugees and sending them back as financial expediency, and I see it as nothing more than a political arrangement between communist ideologues.
The fact that China does NOT try to help get these people out of their own country into other countries, and even blocks them from finding such avenues, tends to support my theory.
A grand deal needs to be worked out, one that takes the financial heat off of China, finds suitable and humane facilities for the NK refugees (Korea spends hundreds of millions of dollars already for the 5000 it has already taken in, and it is swamped), and gets China to end its catch-and-return policy.
China so far has been unwilling to entertain any such deal.