In Slate, WaPo columnist Anne Applebaum wonders if China is pulling North Korea’s strings:
Yet despite the risks, there are good reasons for the Chinese to prod Kim Jong-il to keep those missiles coming. By permitting North Korea to rattle its sabers, the Chinese can monitor Obama’s reaction to a military threat without having to deploy a threat themselves. They can see how serious the new American administration is about controlling the spread of nuclear weapons without having to risk sanctions or international condemnation of their own nuclear industry. They can distract and disturb the new administration without harming Chinese-American economic relations, which are crucial to their own regime’s stability.
And if the game goes badly, they can call it off. North Korea is a puppet state, and the Chinese are the puppeteers. They could end this farce tomorrow. If they haven’t done so yet, there must be a reason.
I agree there’s a reason, but Applebaum is mistaken as to what that reasons is. The funny thing is, she kind of mentions it earlier in her piece:
Not only is China the only country to maintain frequent diplomatic and security contacts with North Korea; China could topple the North Korean regime tomorrow if it wanted to. China could cut off North Korea’s oil. China could shut the border to trade. Or China could take the opposite tactic and open the border: Refugees would flee, and the regime would crumble, much as East Germany did 20 years ago this summer.
Yes, refugees would flee and the regime would crumble, and nobody — least of all the Chinese and South Koreans — wants to deal with that headache. Moreover, while the regime might go the way of East Germany, it could also go the way of Romania — how’d you like to have THAT on your border? For China, this is the real North Korea threat, not North Korean nukes, or even North Korean proliferation to Syria, etc.
Besides, from the Chinese view, there’s no real reason to twist North Korea’s arm when the Americans have seen all too keen to both bribe negotiate with North Korea AND ensure that the natural consequence of Chinese inaction on the nuclear front — the development by South Korea, Japan and possibly Taiwan of their own nuclear deterrents — does not happen. Kim is a perpetual headache to the United States, South Korea, Japan, etc., and the Chinese don’t have to pay a damn thing. Who wouldn’t want to keep such a good thing going?
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
Romania? Besides the sad treatment of its orphans, I didn’t know that country is considered especially problematic. “Please to explain” the comment that a Romania-like state across the Yalu is China’s nightmare. My curiosity is sincere.
What I mean is that the collapse of communist Romania was a much bloodier affair than East Germany.
Thanks.
Bloodier, yes, but if the fall of the DPRK occured at the cost of a thousand lives (the death toll of the Romanian Revolution), I think most of us would be hugely relieved.
To put it in perspective, that’s about 1% of the civilian body count (from IBC, the lowest of the four major estimates) in Iraq since 2003.
I think all parties (except KJI of course) will like to effect a regime change in NK. A stable NK government that remains independent (for the time being), commited to the transition to a free market, removal of all nuclear weapons and eventual reunification with the South with a further commitment that US forces be withdrawn from the Korean pennisula.
No, the greatest fear for China is that they will lose their buffer state. They do not want a united democratic country of 70 million people backed up by the US military, right next to them. Therefore they will do anything to keep the North Koreans going. And no, China does not want to see a prosperous North Korea either.
Per CCP press, regarding North Korea mishandling a test:
Additionally, I would wager that the succession of power, after Kim Jong-Il dies, will be replete with bloody in-fighting. (Mr. Jang’s skills will not be enough; the carrion flies rub their hands quickly before they eat.)
maotai’s the best thing to happen to this blog since yuna.
I wonder if China will be tempted to bargain away a unified Korea, free of U.S. forces, in exchange for a unified China. Question: does China derive any valuable benefit from an independent Taiwan? Or is the PRC eager to remove that thorn from its side as the first real show of its arrival as a 21st century superpower?
Absolutely not. There is no power on earth, not the US military, not the US Treasury, not the UN, not the prospect of global economic collapse or the ill will of the entire global community, that would make China give up on Taiwan. Taiwan IS PART OF CHINA, in their view. Period. China can wait (asymptotically) forever, if need be, to get it back – much longer than the two Koreas can take to figure their problems out.
For China, the issue of Korean unification and the issue of Taiwan are not even approximately comparable in importance. As for the real show of its arrival as a superpower, what else do you want? It seems to me that it’s one US leader after another hopping on a plane to go over and beg for the blessings of Beijing lately, not the other way around.
Leader as in ‘senior official’, not the Pres.
I’m hoping that if they really must demonstrate their arrival as a superpower they spend trillions of dollars sending a man to plant the Chinese flag on Mars.
Why would a united country make any difference? And why would it make any real difference to have the democratic country on the other side of a river, rather than 1 hour by plane, 12 hours by boat or the click of a channel changer away? Why send your students there? One could even argue that South Korea and Taiwan are the best arguments the Chinese have against universal suffrage and elected national assemblies.
I hope the US isn’t stupid enough to try to push forces up to the Chinese border. We already went through that in 1950. The Two Plus Four Agreement stipulates that no foreign forces are to be based in Eastern Germany (and I might add, that the NPT holds in the whole country.)
eujin
Actually I think mainland China will accept unification terms with Taiwan such as that of a fairly loose federation, with the mainland responsible for the overall defense of the realm, so to speak. The talk has been that the Taiwanese can keep their own armed forces. And the political systems are kept separate for the forseeable future.
Linkd
hmm… so who is yuna?
Stay tuned. I’m sure you’ll meet soon enough.
Koehler said:
Who wouldn’t want to keep such a good thing going?
I get it now. The reason why Marmot wants Japan, SK, and Taiwan to go nuclear is because he wants these nation-states to be a headache for China just as North Korea is a headache for the US.
The reality is that this whole affair that is NE Asian geopolitics is a headache all unto itself. China vis-a-vis US. China vis-a-vis North Korea. North Korea vis-a-vis US. South Korea vis-a-vis North Korea. Et Cetera.
The whole confounding thing is more convoluted than the Many-Body-Problem of classical mechanics.
Not only is China the only country to maintain frequent diplomatic and security contacts with North Korea; China could topple the North Korean regime tomorrow if it wanted to. China could cut off North Korea’s oil. China could shut the border to trade. Or China could take the opposite tactic and open the border: Refugees would flee, and the regime would crumble, much as East Germany did 20 years ago this summer.
Likewise, the US could bomb North Korea to kingdom come right now. But we don’t. Why? Because there are consequences.
Likewise, China cutting off North Korea’s oil is an act of war. But they don’t. Why? Because there are consequences.
Both acts can result in the toppling of the regime, anarchy, and refugees pouring through the borders.
It is very easy to talk of sanctions and war when THAT’S NOT YOUR BORDER.
I will pose a question which I have raised in the past: what is the contingency plan for a post-collapse North Korea? The Pentagon has a plan to win the war. What is the plan to win the peace? The answer is: NONE!
The US right now is in no position to have another war. We already have two wars. We really, REALLY don’t need a third one involving North Korea.
The US is in certainly no position to handle a post-collapse North Korea scenario happening in the near term. Will US military personnel be involved in restoring order in NK? That’s a whole ‘nother can of worms right there. A familiar cliche is that North Korea is a buffer state for China. Guess what? North Korea is also a buffer state for the US as well. Remove NK from the equation and suddenly you have USFK facing off PLA across the Yalu. Furthermore, a post-collapse North Korea = Iraq, squared. We’re not even sure if we could handle a post-collapse GM, never mind North Korea. Don’t start something you can’t finish…really, REALLY ought to be the lesson we should have learned from the Bush experience.
I believe Ms Applebaum grossly overestimates the extent to which the Chinese exert control over North Korean affairs. Her viewpoint, which are largely based on speculation not facts, are aggravating from the perspective of maintaining Sino-US cooperation and understanding in the matter.
You must log in to post a comment.