China suspends diplomatic relations with North Korea

[bascule]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aT01vl_zTYJ8&refer=home

 

Yeah, this situation isn't getting any better. Is there any resolution in sight?

 

I'm afraid the resolution is going to be: North Korea uses a nuclear device on another nation (i.e. South Korea) and the world will have to forcibly remove Kim Jong Il from power.

[SH3RL0CK]

Interesting. And a bit scary. I hope you are wrong about your prediction, but sadly I find no fault in your logic...

 

I wonder what is going on inside N. Korea (it is quite a closed society)? If there is to be a better resolution, I think it has to come from there.

[Mokele]

Well, there is the alternative resolution: Kim Jong Il suddenly vanishes in a flash of light, shortly followed by Obama's historic "Oh, by the way, we have death rays on satellites" speech.

[insane_alien]

nah, its orbital crowbar dispensers. a crowbar to the head at 7km/s will take out even the most robust zombie or evil despot.

[Sisyphus]

I can't imagine North Korea using a nuclear weapon. The whole point of having nukes is to threaten to use them. Actually using them defeats the point, and has spectacularly negative consequences. It seems they've overplayed their hand even in sabre-rattling too aggressively, as they appear to have (at least temporarily) lost their sole non-enemy, which historically they've relied on for support. I can't imagine that North Korea wants anything more than they have for the last 50 years: aggressively maintaining the status quo.

 

On the plus side, this is good news for China. It's just another step in their moving towards better relations with the West, and away from the Cold War mentality of propping up their bastard to maintain a favorable balance of power. A divided Korea (as opposed to a unified, democratic Korea), with one half bristling at and occupying everybody but you, ensures you'll be the dominant regional power. If they don't feel they need to actively maintain that anymore, that can only be a good sign, IMO.

[john5746]

I have no idea what this guy is up to, but I am guessing he feels some internal pressure and wants to prop up domestic support by this show of power. He gets to shoot off some fireworks and maybe get some aid. Or maybe he wants his name in the history books before he dies.

 

I like that China is finally making some sense - Obama must have turned up the heat. I think we are close to a bombing raid if this crap continues.

[Pangloss]

In terms of the politics, these recent developments would seem to vindicate the Bush administration's earlier North Korea policy (as opposed to its later one following the "we're not even talking to them" pressure from the left).

 

I guess now we're back to seeing what happens when people say "no" to this man. Because, you know, that's worked out so well for us in the past. Almost as well as when we say "yes" to him.

[CDarwin]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aT01vl_zTYJ8&refer=home

 

Yeah, this situation isn't getting any better. Is there any resolution in sight?

 

I'm afraid the resolution is going to be: North Korea uses a nuclear device on another nation (i.e. South Korea) and the world will have to forcibly remove Kim Jong Il from power.

 

I don't think this is Kim Jong Il particularly. He's erratic, but not this erratic. It probably reflects some sort of internal power struggle. The military hierarchy might be flexing its muscles, taking a harder line agenda to smack down anyone in the top echelons calling for detente. I really don't think you can blame this on Obama or congratulate Bush for this not happening while he was in office. We have very little control over the internal power dynamics of the North Korean government. As Kim Jong Il weakens, it's probably only going to get more unstable. We can only respond, and I think everyone realizes by this point that our options for response are rather limited.

 

In terms of the politics, these recent developments would seem to vindicate the Bush administration's earlier North Korea policy (as opposed to its later one following the "we're not even talking to them" pressure from the left).

 

I guess now we're back to seeing what happens when people say "no" to this man. Because, you know, that's worked out so well for us in the past. Almost as well as when we say "yes" to him.

 

To explicate, talking to Kim Jong Il as a hegemon in North Korea might have been productive (and arguably was in the Clinton administration). We don't know who, or what constellation of forces, we're dealing with now.

Edited June 2, 2009 by CDarwin
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

I really don't think you can blame this on Obama or congratulate Bush for this not happening while he was in office. We have very little control over the internal power dynamics of the North Korean government.

 

I tend to agree with this sentiment. Well said.

[Pangloss]

We have very little control over the internal power dynamics of the North Korean government.

 

Indeed that does seem to be the case. But an unfortunate truth of international politics is that political realities bear little relationship with political fault-finding. If he does cook one off, much of the blame will fall on both the current and the previous two White House occupants.

 

I guess my question in all of this is, even with the theoretical improvement brought by getting China on board, why do we feel that even a perfect, 100% embargo of North Korea will be likely to actually change its behavior? Haven't we done the same thing for half a century with Cuba, which everyone seems to pretty much agree now was always a waste of time that never had any chance to succeed?

 

Does anyone feel it will be different with North Korea -- that embargo will have a positive impact? And if so, why?

[JohnB]

China's been having trouble with NK for years, this test was probably the final straw.

 

Rather than being pally with NK it should be remembered that Chinese border Guards have had "Shoot to Kill" orders for quite some time. Refugees from NK have been an ongoing problem for Southern China.

 

Also, a nuclear nut with short range missiles is more of a danger to China and SK than anybody else.

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, I agree an embargo is probably counterproductive. The eventual goal should be a peacefully reuinifed Korea, right? Well the longer and more complete is North Korea's isolation from the rest of the world, the harder that becomes. The embargo with Cuba probably helped keep Casto in power, while more and trade with China has relaxed tensions, helped to gradually liberalize their government, and made the average Chinese person more familiar and receptive to "Western" culture. Instead of an embargo, maybe they should be South Korean consumer electronics and pop music.

[Phi for All]

Instead of an embargo, maybe they should be South Korean consumer electronics and pop music.

I was going to suggest sending refrigerators and washing machines, but part of the problem is a very poor electricity transmission infrastructure. Maybe South Korea could start a black market business selling electricity to the North Koreans to get them "hooked", and eventually NK would become junkies looking for a fix wherever they can get it.

[iNow]

Send them photovoltaic panels.

[GutZ]

nah, its orbital crowbar dispensers. a crowbar to the head at 7km/s will take out even the most robust zombie or evil despot.

 

...and Morgan Freeman approved.

[Phi for All]

Send them photovoltaic panels.

That would make them too independent, and their winter monsoon season may not be solar-friendly.

 

South Korea should offer to give them free electricity if North Koreans buy their electronics.

[Pangloss]

We've all seen those images showing the night-time landscape of the Korean peninsula from space, right?

 

Am I the only one who looks at those pictures and thinks, "For the love of all that's good and holy, can we possibly put an astronomical observatory there?!?!"

[waitforufo]

North Korea's most powerful weapon is their 22 million starving people. No one wants to deal with all those refugees when North Korea collapses. Not China. Not Russia. Not South Korea or its allies. The government of North Korea, if you can call one naval gazing megalomaniac supported by an absolute cult of personality a government, survives mainly on foreign aid it extorts by saber rattling. Dropping a single 500 lb cast iron bomb on a military facility near Pyongyang would likely cause the entire house of cards to fall down. If UN fuel and grain aid were cut off the country would fall apart. But then what would we do with all the refugees?

 

KIM Jong Il wants more so he needs a bigger saber to rattle. We want all those starving Koreans to stay in North Korea at the smallest possible expense to us so we find a way to keep KIM Jong Il in power. If KIM Jong Il dropped dead tomorrow and his son agreed put in place a reform package of democratic government, freedom of the press, and open borders it would be a financial catastrophe for north east Asia. No government really wants that to happen.

[SH3RL0CK]

North Korea's most powerful weapon is their 22 million starving people. No one wants to deal with all those refugees when North Korea collapses. Not China. Not Russia. Not South Korea or its allies. The government of North Korea, if you can call one naval gazing megalomaniac supported by an absolute cult of personality a government, survives mainly on foreign aid it extorts by saber rattling. Dropping a single 500 lb cast iron bomb on a military facility near Pyongyang would likely cause the entire house of cards to fall down. If UN fuel and grain aid were cut off the country would fall apart. But then what would we do with all the refugees?

 

KIM Jong Il wants more so he needs a bigger saber to rattle. We want all those starving Koreans to stay in North Korea at the smallest possible expense to us so we find a way to keep KIM Jong Il in power. If KIM Jong Il dropped dead tomorrow and his son agreed put in place a reform package of democratic government, freedom of the press, and open borders it would be a financial catastrophe for north east Asia. No government really wants that to happen.

 

Surely if the situation is this unstable, isn't a collapse inevitable?

 

I don't know why you say the reform of N. Korea would be a financial catastrophe for that part of the world. I would think reform could be a blessing, both financial and otherwise. Consider that about 50 years ago, China was in a similar situation to where N. Korea is today; and has (partially) reformed to the benefit of everyone. Why couldn't this be repeated with N. Korea?

 

In either event, wouldn't the effects of reform would be less than that of a N. Korea collapse?

[bascule]

I was under the impression that North Korea received substantial aid from China (like trainfulls of food and other supplies)

[Pangloss]

And most of their oil and gas, as I understand it, which could be the most significant element.

 

Henry Kissinger wrote an interesting op-ed piece on this subject for the New York Times today. One of the points he made that I thought was interesting was that he says that North Korea has essentially rejected the entire concept of external influence on their nuclear weapons program, and that therefore the purpose of the talks needs to be restated to focus solely on that goal, without equivocation and in no uncertain terms, so that North Korea will understand that there is only one path that will allow it to return to the community of nations.

 

Not doing so at this juncture, with North Korea making such a bold and dramatic statement, will have the effect of diplomatically legitimizing their nuclear weapons program.

 

He also makes the point that if that happens it will form a model that other nations will use to legitimize their own nuclear weapons programs.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/opinion/04iht-edkissinger.html

[ecoli]

Doesn't anyone else think that a China acting unfriendly towards North Korea is better than a China acting too friendly towards North Korea?

[SH3RL0CK]

Doesn't anyone else think that a China acting unfriendly towards North Korea is better than a China acting too friendly towards North Korea?

 

Perhaps. But as suggested previously, a collapse of N. Korea would be a bad thing. China could over-react and cause N. Korea to collapse; N. Korea is already quite desperate from all accounts. Think of an internal N. Korea civil war, millions of starving refuges in S. Korea; desperate people on rafts trying to reach Japan, being shot trying to enter China or Russia...all with a few nuclear weapons (including delivery systems) in the mix. This scenario isn't what anyone wants.

 

That said, I think N. Korea has given the finger to everyone by their actions. While China (and I believe Russia) had been essentially supporting N. Korea's actions up till now, a real N. Korean nuclear program and delivery system program is a threat to everyone. As is the possibility of a N. Korean collapse. Therefore, China now needs to seriously address the situation.

 

I think Russia can still afford to ignore the situation. But I don't see how an full-blown crisis in Korea benefits them, so I would expect them to be trying to calm the situation as well. Ironically, I would think the USA and EU could also afford to ignore the situation but they are the least likely to do so for humanitarian reasons.

[Pangloss]

Doesn't anyone else think that a China acting unfriendly towards North Korea is better than a China acting too friendly towards North Korea?

 

Probably. But it raises an interesting question: Why is this in China's best interests? The answer may be as simple as wanting to be more cooperative with the international community in this area. But in the past this motivation has apparently been offset by the benefits of having a relationship with North Korea. Something has changed, and it's not entirely clear at the moment (to me at least) what that may be.

 

(Edit: I cross-posted with Sh3rlock.)

[SH3RL0CK]

To reply to Pangloss (post # 21), I've heard the opposite (some commentator on the radio, can't remember who). His point was that the focus should be entirely on humanitarian aid and human rights in N. Korea. He felt the nuclear program was intended to be a distraction from the human rights crisis and that by ignoring the nuclear program, we take away their incentive to build it. Seemed to make sense to me.