North Korea's calculated escalation helps us educate China toward the ultimate solution set
Monday, October 9, 2006 at 7:13AM The Bush administration's decision to rerun the whole WMD drama with Iran was a big mistake, not just for what it costs us in the Middle East and in particular within Iraq right now, but because it also emboldened North Korea, a country that has actual nukes and not just the beginning capabilities to build them.ARTICLE: "N. Korea Claims Nuclear Test: Geologists in the South Detect Man-Made Blast," by Anthony Faiola, Glenn Kessler and Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, 9 October 2006, .
ARTICLE: "Leaders of Japan, China Agree on North Korea Threat," by Sebastian Moffett and Mei Fong, Wall Street Journal, 9 October 2006, p. A3.
BLOG POST: "Meanwhile, at the Chinese-North Korean border…," Austin Bay Blog, 8 October 2006.
ARTICLE: "North’s Test Seen as Failure for Korea Policy China Followed," by Joseph Kahn, New York Times, 9 October 2006.
ARTICLE: "U.S. Reviews Response Options for North Korean Nuclear Test: A list of sanctions is ready, but much rests on help from China," by David E. Sanger, New York Times, 6 October 2006, p. A8.
Plus, pushing China on Iran, which proves to be really hard given the bilateral economic bonds growing between the two over energy, forces a sort of "all in or all out" choice on Beijing, which--quite frankly--isn't ready for yet.
Beijing isn't ready, in large part, because we haven't prepared them well to emerge as a trusted great power ally. This administration keeps hedging its bets, sort of treating China like a military enemy, sort of treating it like a diplomatic ally, sometimes demonizing it and sometimes indulging it. Our "separate lanes" policy of trying to compartmentalize our relationship with China has been a disaster in my opinion, keeping us trapped in an immature strategic relationship with Beijing that makes it harder for us to deal with rogues like Iran and North Korea.
That's been the worst strategic failure of the Bush team: as they wade deeper into this Long War, they keep adding enemies without divesting themselves of old ones that should be left behind--in the Cold War. The upshot is that we're undergunned, not outgunned. We don't face bigger threats (on the contrary, they get smaller in aggregate each year), we just suffer from having too small a team on our side.
We tolerate Russia and India and China instead of embracing them as key allies, and we indulge the Japanese and Europeans, when neither has shown much inclination to grow up strategically any time soon (although I have my hopes for Abe as the next iteration in Tokyo). Bush and Co. define the new era all right. They just don't seem to recognize that a lot of players have changed sides in the meantime.
But North Korea also helps us plenty in this process, thanks to Kim's towering ego. Tired, apparently, of Ahmadinejad getting all the negative attention, Kim makes his bid for strategic security (guess what? he wants off the Axis list too, just like Iran!).
And we've given him plenty of signs that it will succeed. The U.S.-South Korean tie looks weak. Japan, under Koziumi, got itself strategically isolated in the region (something Abe now works hard to repair). And the U.S. has focused on China's military containment in the region (our Leviathan looking for a strategic rationale for its continued big budget appetite) while China, in its usual SysAdmin form, has focused on winning hearts and wallets with economic development investment and aid throughout Asia.
But clearly, the Chinese are pissed with this. Beijing doesn't trust the Americans not to screw this up, triggering NK's collapse (they know how well we do postwars), so they wanted nothing more from Kim than the status quo, which he's too stupid to give them.
So, as Austin Bay relays, China is buttressing its military presence on the North Korean border, as its sense of fear and disgust at the Kim regime grows.
But that's just logical hedging of its bets. Kahn says Pyongyang's decision to openly disregard Beijing's wishes on this subject will certainly guarantee further movement into the U.S. camp on the subject, but then he also correctly notes that China will most likely disavow any military solutions and be afraid to push for harsh sanctions (like cutting off the oil flow from China) lest it lead to a collapse that--again--it'll get stuck dealing with.
So here we bump into the limits of our current relationship with China, with Kim in control of forcing the issue, which really sucks. This relationship should be built on our timetable, not Kim's, but such is life with this administration, so we live with the consequences.
But fear not, China's education continues, and eventually Washington will come to realize that until it makes China feel comfortable enough strategically, it won't really do much of anything to bail us out on Kim.
To me, the preferred pathway is still China engineering something inside North Korea on Kim, but that's a level of confidence I just don't see them having right now--until we make it so.
Reader Comments (25)
I'm for giving both N. Korea and Iran, each, a six pack of Hydrogen Bombs . . We have plenty, y'kno. No firing mechanism, let 'em figure that out for themselves . .
And then give 'em the MAD rulebook . . . Rule one being, one of these goes off, so do you . . any other questions, refer back to rule one . .
That will resolve the question about whether they have WMDs, as far as the rest of the world goes, and it (supposedly) would make them responsible to the rest of the world for their usage. Or not.
Fully expect Japan and South Korea to formally join the nuclear weapon club within 3 years. They really have no choice.
US strategic doctrine needs updating fast. The toughest coming issue will be WHO LAUNCHED? Within a decade we will be dealing with non-state actors that are nuclear capable. This was predicted for 20 years and now that it has happened when does the US make clear its targeting shifts? Do the analysts think that North Korea will moderate now? That is a pipe dream. Expect the blackmail game to become really intense. Oh and by the way hasn't North Korea crossed the 50 mark on submarines already? Where is Australia in all this turmoil? Indonesia?
The DPRK floods the PRC with fake $100 bills, lowering the dollar's value and defrauding many, many chinese, increases insurance coverage rates for shipping bound for PRC ports, and exports all the pathology of the Gap to the PRC and if the PRC doesn't pull the trigger, it's them refusing to bail us out? What's mandarin for cutting your nose to spite your face?
The status quo is never an option with totalitarian regimes. They will either cease to be totalitarian or they will degrade over time to barefoot savagery as the economy never stops shrinking.
The PRC is North Korea's implicit villain. They are the ones who choose to expel illegal migrants to N. Korea and not S. Korea. They are the ones who choose to keep little Kim on economic life support. They are the ones who have the best shot at pushing for reform, but aren't. They are the ones who put up with all the pain and humiliation of doing this (like when N. Korea seized PRC rolling stock and made the train crews walk home) to gain their buffer between S. Korean free markets and free polities and their own inferior spot on the J curve.
The US has the PSI running essentially an economic war against N. Korea because all that little Kim has left to sell is his nukes, missiles, and other nasties like fake/illegal drugs. That should continue to hold down the damage, creating a ceiling on global pain that N. Korea can inflict while letting little Kim run roughshod over his neighbors' interests.
This is a recurring theme and, I would argue a winning strategy for maintaining our current status as the sole superpower. We provide a ceiling over which all pathologies may not rise. There is no interest in regional powers to rise much above the pathology threat level and a US hands off approach to local and regional affairs makes the US Leviathan a less scary beast than any other conceivable hegemon.
It is a brutal, unsentimental, but I think durable way to shrink the Gap. The US will not rush in where angels fear to tread unless it absolutely has to. The Big Bang will not be repeated but with this strategy, it will never have to be.
I'm curious, when you talk about Japan becoming isolated in the region under Koizumi, are you referring to things along the lines of his Yasukuni visits, or about other types of things? Do you think Abe is likely to spurn such visits, and do you think he should?
Furthermore, some argue that these latest move by the DPRK will prompt Japan to start build up its military power and work towards becoming a nation with a “normal” military- something that Abe has already expressed interest in. While such moves will likely strengthen their relationship with America, as it means Japan would be able to assist us in military operations in a much more viable capacity- some say it’s quite likely to unnerve China and Korea and throw a monkey wrench in diplomacy there. Perhaps this is one of the goals of Kim Jong Il at this point- to attempt to derail cooperation between Japan and Korea/China.
If the Chinese committ an act which scotches NK's nuclear program I will bite into a large crow sandwich, but I just believe that THEY believe if we are busied with these things, and weighed down, or even if the worst occurs and NK does something eventually REALLY stupid and a few hundred thousand americans croak, and the economy here is severely damaged for a while, then China benefits from the USA being taken down a few pegs.
It's stupid.
It's wrong.
But history is not made of logic.
It's made of idiots taking chances based on incorrect assumptions and incomplete information.
Tom,
Would it be fair to say that a strategic decision by Bush to aggressively reach out to Russia and China would have raised hackles in both parties? Remember how much grief he received for the Crawford ranch "I looked into Putin's soul" comments in August 2001? Does anyone in D.C. care anymore that Putin was the first world leader to call on 9/11 and offer military bases and overflight rights?
http://www.russiablog.org/2006/08/kommersant_mideast_war_means_m.html
"The legacy of the Cold War inside the Beltway seems so strong, and the fallout from the Yukos case so radioactive, that even President Bush has not been able to fully pursue his post-9/11 agenda for an energy partnership with Russia. Instead, many of the people Bush considers his supporters have claimed that Russia is a neo-imperialist power ruled by an evil KGB officer who is conspiring with Hugo Chavez, Hamas, Syria and Iran against America. As Russia Blog noted in a post about the recent nuclear deal negotiated between Bush and Putin, the U.S. President clearly wants a rapprochement before he and Putin leave office. Yet for all the talk of Bush and Cheney being oil men who supposedly don’t care about human rights, this hasn’t happened. Why?"
"At the risk of oversimplifying the problem on the American side, too many Republicans remain locked in the Cold War mentality, while too many Democrats think Russia can still be treated like it was during the Yeltsin years. Foreign policy hands from both sides of the aisle tend to see in every Russian arms deal with the Middle East as part of some grand plan to stymie U.S. interests, rather than "just business". D.C.-based NGOs and think tanks that have old hands from both parties on their boards don’t seem to grasp that the power struggle between the Kremlin and the oligarchs is over, that the 'New Great Game' in Central Asia is largely irrelevant; that the U.S. and Russia both have more pressing concerns. The language that Russians will respond to is not sanctions or threats of diplomatic boycotts, but U.S. dollars. President Bush gets this, while many of the pundits and think tanks who claim to provide the intellectual support for his foreign policy don’t."
Tom, I see a lot of people in D.C. talking about further concessions to the North, but you're one of the few discussing joint U.S.-Chinese regime change followed by relief operations. I'm glad that Kagan put it on the table, it was time to move past viewing North Korea through the prism of Iraq and the "neocons" vs. "realists" debate, and good to see that realists are acknowledging how fragile Kim's regime really is. Without naming names, I have a feeling that some of the dire warnings by some analysts about an Iraq-style Juche insurgency after the collapse of Kim's regime have more to do with people who don't want to pay for the reconstruction than this being a real prospect.
Tom, thanks for another great post. I linked to it on my latest, What Now For North Korea, at The Heart of the Matter.
Cheers
I think it's preposterous to suggest that the U.S. should be making China, arguably its most aggressive rival and one of the world's most oppressive regimes, "comfortable." In fact, the existence and maintenance of the North Korea problem is the fault of China, not the U.S. Arguably the reason it has supported NK for so long is precisely as a wedge to use against the U.S. along with plausible deniabilityi, and to frustrate U.S. policy in Asia, non-proliferation and counteless other areas. And the suggestion here is to reward them for that? I don't get it.
China should be treated as a trusted ally? Not at the moment, and maybe not for a while. NK is China's junkyard dog, kept alive on its short leash solely because its barking annoys and distracts the US. When NK becomes more of a liability to China than an asset, we can expect that to change. As is, China doesn't seem to be playing a very clever game. All it will eventually get out of this gambit is a nuclear SK, Japan, and maybe Taiwan. Then those countries become junkyard dogs which the US can use to annoy and distract China. So the situation is not unfavorable to the US - it's China which is dancing on the razor's edge.
For those who don't buy that scenario, another option is to speed up the demise of NK by other means - other means which don't depend on China's imaginary desire to be a trusted ally. If the Kim regime is as shaky as it seems, that might be feasible.
We tolerate Russia and India and China instead of embracing them as key allies
Apart from what Charles said about the political difficulties of such a move, I think you're too sanguine about Russia and China (India is a different matter) being "key allies".
What I mean is, if they were so inclined, they would make very good allies indeed... but I see no reason to believe they're inclined to be allies as such.
Both are very much concerned with their own interests, which are only sometimes congruent with those of the United States. I'm not sure I can blame Bush for somehow not convincing Russia and China that they need to do what we want them to do (which I think would also be to the general benefit of the world, but I see no reason why the Chinese Communist Party or the Duma and Putin are likely to consider that overwhleming), especially since I see no means by which that could reasonably have been done.
(Now, we could certainly get more agreeable noises from Beijing and Moscow by giving them various concessions on other things, but that wouldn't really make them "allies" in any useful sense, and I don't think that would get them to act against their perceived interests.
China's been propping up North Korea for decades now; it seems unlikely that they'll continue doing it for even another winter if they really don't like his nuclear program. And if they don't dislike it, however, no unspecified diplomacy from President Bush would change that - at least none I can imagine offhand.)
Looking at how the US treats China without looking at how China treats the US is like only watching one side of a tennis match. China is ambivalent towards us for its own reasons, no matter how much of a grand ally we try to make of them.
Part of our ambivalence is that Communist ideology has long advocated communism for the rest of the world, even at the end of a gun (and they have nukes). Although communism is receding, it would be negligent to forget that aspect. Also China is an extremely repressive regime, and we have significant disagreements with its human rights record (which is basically not the case for Japan and Europe). Then there's the little question about Taiwan. Can you really talk about a grand change in how we relate to China without even mentioning Taiwan? China does not necessarily have the same strategic interests as we, and sometimes those interests are extremely opposed to ours. This, perhaps, is changing with its econmic development, but it ain't there yet. So, yes, US policy will involve holding our noses at times, because there are many things about Chinese behavior (e.g., Tibet) that stink.
China is not playing the role of regional sysadmin but rather undermining the American role in that regard. They were using NK as a cutout and spoiler to American "hegemony" but this has apparently backfired on them, at least on initial appearances. It's as if the Soviet Union had given Romania nuclear weapons and then when that country threatened Bosporus oil shipping turned around and said "What can we do? They're a sovereign country." Sure. The problem is China and North Korea is just the symptom. Until China is made to feel some pain for their spoiler policy they will continue with it because to them the alternatives (reunification, refugee crisis, war, &c.) are all worse.
Ron nails it. Exactly right.
The whole key to reigning in NK is China, and China has been playing both sides of the fence.
I actually think that this nuclear test is a good thing. One because it turns out to have been something of a dud, if even a real nuke.
But it is forcing China's hand. China has been able to hold back and use the idea that diplomacy would solve this to basically let NK get away with what it could, keep its hands clean and isolate the US. However, now that NK has crossed the line with this test it has left China with egg on its face.
Which is good. China is now forced to deal with us trying to reign in NK or with NK trying to defy the world and it can't fall back on excuses that they can keep NK in check.
Ron - The PRC should be made comfortable in doing the right thing and discomforted in continuing to do the wrong thing. International relations has a real resemblence to Dr. Pavlov's theories.
good article
I know it may be unpleasant, but the time for an all out invasion to unify the Korean peninsula is NOW. After a nuclear test dud. If anyone in S. Korea has a lick of testosterone left after being emasculated by the US military presence all of these years, they'll be planning a huge, bloody but winnable invasion. Today. Wait 5 more years and weep, Korea.
Bush and our body politic have made it a part of US policy that the United States will maintain absolute military superiority. In that environment, China will never be "comfortable", because they cannot win a direct confrontation, which could arise at a time and for a reason that is not of their choosing. Thus, it is important for them to ensure that the UNITED STATES is "comfortable". I like that.
And unlike Mr. Barnett, I'm not threatened that China spreads some loot around to advance their interests. I would expect no less.
We can get along. There is a way forward. But it has to be a way that coincides with our national interests. Right now, the diseased regime in North Korea, which China has birthed and nursed from infancy to juvenile delinquency, is a problem for we and our allies, and China is going to have to show progress on that front, if they want to increase our level of "comfort". They'll do so, me thinks.
Mr. Coleman,
You may be right about NK being encouraged over the decades; the Chinese government is ambitious, and we humans tend to hold grudges. But is this tactic one they can still afford?
The idea is, if North Korea explodes, China will be hurt at least as bad as we are. At the very least, it'll be up to its neck in refugees at a time when it's already starting to have trouble employing all of it's own citizens. At the worst, if NK does have the bomb, and decides that China is no longer their friend, they may aim said bomb at Chinese cities as well as South Korean, Japanese and American cities. You should also ask how much foreign direct investment China gets from those targeted countries; how much would they get after Seoul, Tokyo or Seattle goes up in smoke?
Tom,
What kind of bargain can we offer China to get them to help us collapse the NK regime? That NK has become an albatros around their necks is probably obvious to most of the Chinese leadership by now, but they're probably mostly interested in saving face in the situation and not look like they're capitulating to the US.
I was thinking we could offer to withdraw our troops from the united Korea (the SK have been ungrateful allies anyway), and reduce our troop presence in Japan by half (much of it was dedicated to support our troops in SK anyway). This way the Chinese could claim some sort of victory, while we get to eliminate part of the gap, free up resources to redeploy to the middle east, and defuse some of the tension between the US and China. It looks like a win-win strategy to me.
That is, if the chinese bite.
I am so grateful that one result of the, maybe, nuclear test, by NK is the greatly increased publicity in the US about the horrendous conditions the people of NK live in. There have been documentaries, but not until now, are they playing and replaying on CNN and other networks. These poor people have been starving and have had to resort to cannibalism to survive. How can we get rid of this government without further harming the innocent?
all newcomers: one of Tom's principals on cooperation with China is 'locking them in at today's price', because that price is only going to grow as China's economy and domination of E Asia grows.
2 negotiating points are: withdrawing our unconditional defense guarantee to Taiwan and finding a mutually agreeable solution on Kim in exchange for an E Asian NATO.
Robert: Tom is not threatened by China pursuing their interests. he often says 'i expect the Chinese to be Chinese'...
"What I mean is, if they were so inclined, they would make very good allies indeed... but I see no reason to believe they're inclined to be allies as such.
Both are very much concerned with their own interests, which are only sometimes congruent with those of the United States"
Sigivald,
Much the same can be said of France, KSA, ROK, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey, Spain, Mexico., Germany - I'm hard pressed to think of any allied state outside of the Anglosphere that does not in its dealings with America, base all of its calculations on self-interest.
Even within the Anglosphere, with Australia and Britain, cultural affinity and traditional friendship only buy us so much credit.
Did anyone happen to hear Brian Williams on NBC news describe a potential USA/China alliance over North Korea as 'utopian' the other night?
The one time I tune into an MSM source was telling as a barometer - Williams (#1 anchor no less) is coaching his Cialis/Depends/Miracle Ear audience what to think about strategic relationships.
The best bargain USA could offer to China is to stop its support for Taiwan.