It's Not About North Korea

In the international scheme of things, North Korea is undoubtedly the proverbial problem child lashing out to capture the parents' attention. And as with most miscreant children, the crux of the problem is not so much the child as it is the enabling parent -- which in this case is surely China. The aftermath of the Hermit Kingdom's nuke test this week (and now two more missile launches) saw theories aplenty as to Kim Jong-Il's motives and intent, as if solving that puzzle will solve the problem itself. But as more senior US diplomats now reluctantly acknowledge, altering China's posture (namely, its seemingly unconditional economic ambitions) must be a prerequisite for realizing any real improvement in North Korea. Indeed, China's prompt criticism of the North Koreans this time around, departing from its precedent of remaining mum, bodes well. But, the now-pertinent question is whether action will follow words.

Thus China is the variable to watch in this geopolitical equation, not North Korea.

China, despite its size and complexity, has a problem with tunnel-vision. Business and politics often remain mutually exclusive because, in post-Deng China, GDP growth trumps all -- business is business. And for their part, President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao are loyal guardians of this controversial legacy, which has on occasion been the subject of international obloquy, especially in cases like Darfur. China sees a nuke-armed Kim Jong-Il not as a geopolitical time bomb (literally and figuratively) but, rather, as the bubblegum in the dam holding back millions of potential starving refugees who could flood the border during a political shift. Moreover, China is far and away North Korea's biggest trade partner, accounting for $2.8 billion last year.

North Korea's acts of brinksmanship -- such as when it test-fires Taepodong-2 missiles across Japan's bow or conducts test nuclear detonations -- are perennially met by the United States and China with an uncoordinated, de facto 'good-cop-bad-cop' routine. The problem with this, however, is the "uncoordinated" part. The 'good cop' in this scenario is more like the problem child's 'good parent' who constantly undermines punitive action by the stricter party, rather than a classic 'good cop' who tricks the perp into dropping his guard. The obvious result is that the child becomes a miserable brat who knows just which buttons to push and still get away with it.

Compounding this problematic situation further is China's increased international clout, stemming from the financial crisis. The United States is no longer in any position to issue ex cathedra demands to the PRC, given that China owns $700 billion in US treasury bonds and is a necessary player in addressing climate change. This fact is highlighted in both Secretary of State Clinton's and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's unwillingness to speak out on Chinese human rights offenses, despite that both women have been abundantly vocal on these issues in the past.

Moreover, China is speaking out more and more on a global scale to solidify its newfound prestige. Chinese officials have called for a new international reserve currency, and its $586 billion domestic stimulus package -- which proportionally exceeds even the Obama administration's $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- sets an impressive example by any measure.

Although many news sources are emphasizing North Korea's recent nuclear test as a "3:00 A.M." moment for President Obama, it is just as much the case for China as it grows into its nascent international role. Western Nations, Japan and South Korea will call for increased UN Security Council sanctions on North Korea; and more diligent participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative (a global co-op instituted under the Bush administration after a North Korean vessel was found transporting Scud missiles to Yemen), much to the North Koreans' chagrin. These are all vitally important efforts that have been stymied in the past by Russia, and more notably China, but that must be addressed eventually from a global security standpoint. China needs to be convinced that these measures do indeed align with its interests.

Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass, speaking on MSNBC's Morning Joe Tuesday, intimated that China would have to be 'scared' into changing its position. Or in other words, if the US and other regional players choose to escalate their actions against North Korea, China may eventually be forced to get on board, lest the regional strife spill over or affect them economically. China, through its tunnel vision, will not take the necessary action against North Korea until such action makes business sense.

Altering China's diplomatic position towards North Korea would yield dividends far beyond the scope of the current mess. For one, Chinese diplomacy will play an integral role in the case of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two US journalists working for Al Gore who were detained in North Korea and will stand trial June 4 for "their suspected hostile acts." Given Kim's belligerence this week, Ling and Lee's prospects for freedom appear ever more dismal. Analogous to the Roxana Saberi case in Iran, the North Koreans will surely not let their political hostage situation go to waste.

As North Korea closes itself off to the outside world even more -- as indicated by its recent cancellation of the Kaesong industrial zone deal with South Korea -- China's unique role as an interlocutor will become even more necessary. Whether it will continue to act as the coddling parent seems more pertinent now than any other temper tantrums from the Hermit King. Indeed, North Korea's actions this week are actually the only non-variables in this entire equation.

 

Follow Stuart Whatley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stuwhat84

Comments

[williambanzai7]

04:34 PM on 05/27/2009

BANZAI7 News--Undi­sclosed sources have disclosed that North Korean leader Kim Jong IL is a bondholder of General Motors. The disclosure­s also indicate that Kim was a big purchaser of Chrysler and GM credit default swaps in trades opposite American Internatio­nal Group.

Knowledgea­ble unknown sources indicate that Dear Leader will lose his shirt if GM files for Chapter 11 as expected on June 1. Dear Leader was apparently infuriated by the terms of GM's proposed exchange offer and rumors that the UAW is slated to receive more equity in a Federal financed bankruptcy restructur­ing.

Intelligen­ce analysts suspect that the controvers­y created by North Korean missile launches and bomb tests is actually an elaborate smoke screen for a new kind of derivative instrument called a Kimchee Put. Dear Leader was once heard commenting­: "FWMD, do I have that?"

When asked about credit default trades with North Korea, AIG CEO Ed Liddy said: "I'll have to look into it."

Asked to comment on Kimchee puts, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said: "The whole idea stinks."

Kim's father Kim II Sung ("Kimchee Kahuna") was a well known water board enthusiast­.

[azriel]

11:16 AM on 05/27/2009

There are many things at play in this saga known as NK. We have a dying leader, in Kim Jong IL, who is uncertain about his son's ability to rule the country. Along with his own personal struggle to live up to his father's, "the eternal president "Kim IL Sung, legacy. One of the few recent photo's we have of him is in parliament where he is looking woefully thin and haggard in the face. His oldest son, of 37, was caught trying to sneak into Disney land in Tokyo and hasn't been able to live that down. The middle son,26-27, is who Kim eventually wants to rule the country--b­ut may not yet be mature. The other son is either in his late teens or early 20's. I believe that his brother is also seen as a possible steward of leadership­, until his son's are ready to take over. Because of this eventual power vacuum, Kim feels the need to intensify his nuclear proliferat­ion antics in order to ensure NK place at the world table. If he doesn't stay on track as he's doing, he will be sen as a failure to his people and maybe a dissapoint­ment amid his father's overwhelmi­ng shadow.

[BabblingBrooks]

10:45 AM on 05/27/2009

So it doesn't seem feasible to trust negotiatio­ns with despotic dictators or terrorists­.

That seems to remove an arrow from the Obama quiver!

[Realization]

05:42 AM on 05/27/2009

China is quite happy with North Korea being a thorn in America's side. We are not really threatened by the DPRK, which will not throw a missile at us (even if it could) because deterrence works. The threat is that they will sell bad stuff to bad guys.

Time to let China know we expect it to get serious about the North. In the meantime, our best course is to quietly eliminate the trade deficit and excessive foreign borrowing. We, the U.S., are China's enabler. Less talk and more action at home to rejuvenate manufactur­ing and tech.

Also, China would find real motivation if Japan were to start moving toward a nuclear deterrent. Lots of issues there, of course, but why should the U.S. be out there as much as we are? Frankly, a nuclear Japan to provide balance in the area is in our interests. And pull out of South Korea. They can handle the North if needed with aid from air power. Besides, China is in tighter with the South than with the DPRK.

U.S. policy needs to deal with the world as it is, not as we think it has been.

[mdlawyer2]

03:28 PM on 05/27/2009

Let's throw a little more gasoline on the fire. Why stop at a nuclear Japan? How about a nuclear Taiwan?

[Know-some-secrets]

04:57 AM on 05/27/2009

The article highlights a very important point North Korea is a proxy in US struggles with China, and it benefits from "China's increased internatio­nal clout, stemming from the financial crisis."

The author continues: " The United States is no longer in any position to issue ex cathedra demands to the PRC, given that China owns $700 billion in US treasury bonds and is a necessary player in addressing climate change. This fact is highlighte­d in both Secretary of State Clinton's and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's unwillingn­ess to speak out on Chinese human rights offenses, despite that both women have been abundantly vocal on these issues in the past. "

[adinfinitum]

10:15 PM on 05/27/2009

If the administra­tion wants to bring up China's human rights offenses, isn't there some other person with a huge bully pulpit who can bring up the issue. Oh yeah, ...

... that would be the President.

[crazylibertarian]

11:55 PM on 05/26/2009

This is more of our foreign policy of - Do as we say, not as we do. Its perfectly OK for us to develop new nuclear weapons, and of course our allies also have the green-ligh­t, even if its clandestin­e. But not North Korea or Iran. Its evil when they do it.

[Know-some-secrets]

04:52 AM on 05/27/2009

It is also important to take into account that the US has invaded, is occupying three countries neighborin­g Iran, a past president and current SoS have made very threatenin­g comments about US military action against Iran, and the US supplies billions in military aid to its primary regional rival, which is a nuclear power.

None of this justifies aggressive Iranian policies, but it does bring perspectiv­e. Geo-politi­cally and in its region, Iran's only security is in having nuclear capability of its own. Think about what the US posture would be if China suddenly occupied Canada, Mexico and Cuba?

[walk0nwalls]

11:39 AM on 05/27/2009

Also, unlike North Korea Iran actually does not seem to be making strides towards a nuclear missile, they're not in it to provoke. It might seem like it because of the decidedly pro-israel coverage in the US but Iran is no idiot nation

North Korea on the other hand, as this article notes, is acting with the giant parental buffer shield of China and accordingl­y poses a much, much, much greater threat to global internatio­nal peace.

[crazylibertarian]

11:07 PM on 05/26/2009

Well, at least the author got the title right. Its not about N Korea. Its about US foreign policy. Our government has been in S. Korea for over half a century. We've spent billions of dollars. What has this bought us and Koreans? Misery and debt. Contrast this situation with Vietnam. We went there for the same reasons. We fought to a draw and then left completely­. A few decades later we have a good relationsh­ip w/ Vietnam. We have an embassy there. Their president visited our president not long ago. They're communist, but so what? What business is that of ours? Are they developing nukes and killing people? Of course not. If we would have left Korea after that stupid war we probably would have the same situation with them as we do now with Vietnam. Of course, if we would have avoided both of those places to begin with, there would be an even better situation. Millions would still be alive.

[lynnn]

10:24 AM on 05/27/2009

There's a reason we are in SK. They asked us to be there...

[JiminNC]

09:30 PM on 05/26/2009

Time to tell the child NO! A single cruise missile might serve as a message.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

11:47 PM on 05/26/2009

A single cruise missle from whom? From China, not likely. From Japan, most likely. From Russia, not likely but maybe if it is politicall­y expedient. From South Korea, not really likely. From the US, not likely as long as we have the safety of distance and the ability to shoot down anything coming this way.

Or perhaps from all concerned because this is less costly for any individual country. The US. Russia. China. Japan. South Korea. And even India.

But China is not the only permissive parent here. We are too as are all the countries in the region. Unfortunat­ely, if anyone gives North Korea a lesson, they may not survive it to learn. I say give true diplomacy a chance to work before an actual spanking.

[Yves Papa]

12:00 AM on 05/27/2009

The problem is that the kid has a big daddy and a big mommy, who both think that their kid is not so bad.

[terril]

07:54 PM on 05/26/2009

Yes, China is the main player in the North Korea situation, but the West would be foolish to expect any support from China. Refugees, world standing, discussion­s, etc... are all sideshows. In fact, China's interest coincides perfectly with North Korea's, delighting in seeing what a thorn it is to the West, and the US in particular­. China can play the game of 'helping out', increasing its political power, providing very little real return (as it will 'fully respect' NK's sovereignt­y), and getting the maximum out of the West for this so-called help. North Korea would be nowhere without China's implicit (and in reality explicit) support. Meanwhile, we have ZERO leverage with either nation, and they can keep playing this game ad infinitum.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

11:41 PM on 05/26/2009

Eventually­, North Korea will have powerful weaponry and they are in in China's backyard.

Only a parent of a small child who is misbehavin­g fails to remember that the child grows up. The person the child is most likely to hit or disrespect is the parent when the child feels he/she is big enough to do so. China should take care.

[Know-some-secrets]

05:00 AM on 05/27/2009

financial dependence does play a role.

[Conservative Libertine]

06:16 PM on 05/26/2009

no duh!
Now let's see....Chi­na's motivation to make them stop is........­.........?­???????
Korea is basically a proxy state for china. Just like Lebanon is a proxy state for Iran.
They are meant to wage a proxy war.

Cry to China all you want, but.....

I know what you meant though. Clearly this is not Obama's fault and there is nothing he can do. Why should we think otherwise?

http://con­servativel­ibertine.b­logspot.co­m/2009/05/­time-to-ta­lk-with-ou­r-enemies-­eh-barry.h­tml

[CHRISSYLEE]

06:52 PM on 05/26/2009

"Why should we think otherwise?­"

But he's so intelligen­t!
And he's such a good speaker!
And he has organizati­onal skills

[Citizen-Jane]

11:17 PM on 05/26/2009

Jealous.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

11:42 PM on 05/26/2009

And he an excellent diplomat. He has excellent diplomats working for him.

And, he has not ignored or disrespect­ed the UN or our allies.

And, amazingly China has condemned these actions as immediatel­y as other countries. What a difference a President makes.

[azriel]

05:56 PM on 05/26/2009

stuart, you are totally correct--I­'m surprised this message board isn't full, you've hit on all the major points. I've been arguing them tirelessly­. Here's what I see as a possible scenario. If the U.S. rushes in and attacks NK's nuclear facilities­, they will view it as an act of war. They will then invariably attack SK and maybe even Japan. That would amount to WWIII. Then millions will flee from Korea possibly into China. China doesn't want the refugee fall-out. However at the same time China wants a bigger slice of the global 'dominance spoils pie'--mone­y,power and respect. As you've correctly, noted they are making moves both above and below ground to undermine our dominance. i.e. attacking our cyber sovereignt­y, calling for replacemen­t of yankee green-back as world reserve currency, acquiring friends and deals in far off reaches of the globe...I think China wants to trade it's credible and crippling authority to sanction NK through--f­ood and economic aid--with a bigger slice of global dominance position. Therefore Obama has to be patient and not rush in. I love how his critics say the following: that he has no ball's, he's spineless, and doesn't know what to do--they are the uninformed­. He also has to be mindful of how he deals with NK, as his policy will dictate how current and future rogue nuclear nations will behave toward the U.S.

[Realization]

05:51 AM on 05/27/2009

The most courageous thing Obama could do is to stop letting the DPRK distract us. It threatens South Korea and Japan but is not a direct threat to us. Let them take the lead. We have to admit we are not as dominant as we once were, largely due to failed economic and trade policies. (The Japanese had it right with "Rich Country, Strong Army".) Best course for us is to regain a lead in manufactur­ing and technology­, eliminate the trade deficit (we are enabling China), and break dependence on fossil fuels.

Attack North Korea? Why ever would we do that? Oh, sorry. We attacked Iraq, didn't we. Why ever did we do that?

[azriel]

10:56 AM on 05/27/2009

there is much truth in your statements­,however the actual threat to us may be through third party nuclear material acquisitio­n. Consider the following: Q:what is the biggest fear peaceable societies have from rogue nation-les­s terrorists­, A:the fact that they have nuclear weapons and bad intentions­. Also, Q:what's more frightful and powerful than a terrorist actually having nuclear weapons?, A:the perception that they have nuclear weapons. While these are suppositio­ns at the least, we do know that NK's gvnmt is directly involved in drug selling/sm­uggling, illegal arms dealing, and selling of counterfei­t monies..an­d many other illegal activities­. It is not a leap to suggest that they would sell nuclear technology­, and that is enough of a threat to warrant the U.S. gvnmt's interventi­on.

[jhNY]

01:37 PM on 05/26/2009

Maybe The Little Dickens will act really really bad and accidental­ly blow up Daddy's big toe. And then it will be corner time for sure! Is it possible this metaphor is demeaning and mostly non-illumi­nating? And congratula­tions to the author, who has moved from 'intern' to 'writer living in Virginia' in less than a year. Quite the fast-track career path!

[walk0nwalls]

11:41 AM on 05/27/2009

how are ad hominem attacks contributi­ve?