Sunday, July 09, 2006

Why Isn't China Showing Anger at NoKo?

This is an OpEd by Niall Ferguson giving a bit of history on the NoKo situation. He concludes with:
For it is China, not the United States, that has the power to decide the fate of North Korea. It is China that has consistently propped up the regime's basket-case economy. It is China that has hitherto resisted calls from the United States and Japan for tougher action when Pyongyang has broken its word.

It might be thought that China gains little from having a madman as both a neighbour and a dependant. Until now, however, it has suited Beijing quite well - better, at any event, than a North Korean collapse. Moreover, North Korea has been more than merely a buffer state. It has been a useful proxy, allowing China to probe the vulnerability of South Korea and Japan and to assert Chinese parity with the United States in matters of Asian security.

The big question is whether or not this might be about to change. For perhaps the most significant thing that happened last week was that Kim fired his missiles in defiance not just of the United States, Japan and South Korea but also of China. Before July 4, Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Prime Minister, explicitly warned North Korea not to heighten diplomatic tension. By ignoring that warning, the Dear Leader can scarcely have endeared himself to his patrons in Beijing.

The Korean peninsula has seen more than enough bombs and missiles in the past 100 years. But when the Chinese finally ditch crazy Kim, it will be time for some real celebratory fireworks.

At this point I'd almost think that even having China take over NoKo would be a more stabilizing action than any other. I'm thinking it won't happen just because China sees some benefit in having NoKo as a thorn in the side of the US. But then, that may not counteract the changes that Japan will move into if something doesn't secure the situation. The Japanese are already moving toward their own military autonomy, and it should be no surprise if they move toward a nuclear weapon. (Though I think this is less likely with their countries very strong aversion to nuclear weapons.)


No comments: