For now, China's not really cut anything off to North Korea. Everything I heard in Beijing said they would pursue a slow motion approach. But they readily admit they have little idea where this will take them. There is this vague--and rather naive--hope that bilateral talks between the U.S. and North Korea will make this problem go away. But most experts can't sustain that line of reasoning for more than a moment or two of debate and then their words trail off.ARTICLE: "Sanctions Don't Dent North Korea-China Trade," by Jim Yardley, New York Times, 27 October 2006, p. A1.
THE WORLD: "Tension, Desperation: The China-North Korean Border," by Norimitsu Onishi, New York Times, 22 October 2006, p. WK14.
LINK BY LINK: "The Internet Black Hole That Is North Korea," by Tom Zeller, Jr., New York Times, 23 October 2006, p. C3.
ARTICLE: "In '97, U.S. Panel Predicted a North Korea Collapse in 5 Years: Difficulties in gleaning intelligence from a closed society," by Mark Mazzetti, New York Times, 27 October 2006, p. A6.
There is a clear desire for this whole mess to go away, but in both capitals there is the dominant belief that it's more the other guy's duty than their own. China feels not yet up to it, whereas even the Cheney-Bush White House recognizes the need--ahem!--for "diplomacy."
This symmetrical perception of asymmetry is so commonplace throughout the Sino-American relationship right now, but officially, up on top, my sense is that the dialogue remains horribly laden with officialeze. Official positions abound, but little shared truth is discovered, and that's too bad, because all these circumstances (North Korea, Iran, Africa) should be the basis for building this strategic relationship up right now.
But perhaps just as well. Stuck with Hu and Wen on their side and Cheney and Bush on ours, we simply lack the talent to make this happen right now. But the questions remains, How bad can this opportunity cost grow over the next two years?
Meanwhile, China will fortify its border and prepare for the worst, which I told them is the best they can hope for given our approach and their inability to pick up the job for themselves (Kim's disposal at their hands seems beyond their imagination at this point, though no one shies from the discussion, which is telling in that we seem firmly in reel #1 of this film noir, where Barbara Stanwyck is just beginning to rope in Fred MacMurray for the nasty task ahead [or think "Body Heat" if that reference is too far back]).
If we do the slow squeeze, which I think we will and should do in the meantime, then Kim will suffer and survive, and that estimated 300k of refugees already in China will only continue to grow at a faster rate.
The more we squeeze, the more likely Kim will do something the Chinese simply can't stomach. At that point, either the Chinese and ROK invade, along with our stationed troops, and China has the refugee problem big time, or the Chinese wait for the U.S. to strike and if that happens, it will be a barrage (Cheney can't abide any comparison to weak-kneed Clinton and cruise missile strikes) that likewise sets off the big flow.
Either way, China gets it big flow, on top of whatever flow occurred slo-mo across the sanctions.
We've predicted the DPRK's collapse for a long time, but our intell community doesn't have a clue. We're the drunk who looks for his car keys under the street lamp instead of over near his car "because the light's better over here." North Korea is a real black hole. Either it will be filled by a reluctant ROK and a slightly less unrealistic PRC, or it will draw their forces in at the time of its choosing.
But one thing is for sure: so long as China refuses to take control and America simply can't, control of this situation has been handed over to Kim.