The purpose of China is a peacefully reunited Korea. That necessitates that South Korea becomes an independent country, an end to US suzerainty and US garrison. From there China can help negotiations on reunification and even before that is achieved rail, road and pipeline connections can be built between South Korea and both China and Russia.
Propaganda wrt KJU is a distraction by Western media.
Exactly. I agree. We both agree that as far as China is concerned, the Kim Dynasty hereditary system of governance in North Korea is replaceable. However, if forced to choose between a pro-US/SK faction ruling NK or pro-China faction ruling NK, China will easily choose the latter, regardless of whether to give Kim dynasty exile or not. To China, if Kim dynasty loses the mandate, it has lost it's purpose and must be replaced by someone INSIDE NK, not anyone from south of DMZ.
You are absolutely correct. Offering exile and pardon doesn't serve much purpose because if it gets to that point, then KJU would be on the brink of losing most if not all of his power. China would probably rather directly negotiate with the most powerful (pro-China) faction directly, bypass Kim dynasty, and let the Kim dynasty be scapegoat by NK rivals, and pre-empt US-SK unification by sponsoring a pro-Beijing puppet state or pro-China leader in rival faction. KJU would lose it's value at the point which he needs exile, and it's better to let he be punished by NK rivals than offer pardon/exile. But to your bigger point, he sure as hell won't run to US-SK for protection.
Precisely, I agree 100%.
I wouldn't place so much emphasis on China's insistence on non-proliferation and denuclearization. It is the official policy of PRC for the "denuclearization of Korean peninsula" and "denuclearization of the world" eventually... but as Deng Xiaoping says "[China does] not advocate nuclear proliferation at all, but we even more strongly oppose nuclear monopolies."
So to summarize everything in a succint statement:
China's official stance on denuclearization allows it strategic flexibility - when NK state is unified + strong, it's nukes are aimed at US+allies, China can pay token lipservice to denuclearization because it strategically pins an adversary while China focuses elsewhere. On the Contrary..... When NK state is weak or collapsed, it's nukes are in uncertain hands during collapse (rogue general, sold to terrorists, lost in chaos), China can actually use it's official policy of denuclearization in real world by intervening to secure "rogue nukes", (but the True main focus is to set up refugee camps inside NK and provide humanitarian aid, pre-empt US-SK land invasion, and prop up a pro-China faction among NK elites) while the official reason for intervention is "denuclearization and securing rogue nukes". It's brilliant, even if US/SK sees through China's plan, China isn't being a liar or inconsistent with previous official policy proclaimations.
What do you think?
generally agree. just some small comment.I would add the following.
I think "blood alliance" is too strong a description of the relationship between North Korea and China.
North Korea is only a strategic asset because it is a buffer that keeps US troops away from the Chinese border.
If US troops are removed from the Korean peninsula, China has very little reason to support North Korea, and many reasons to get SK and NK to work together.
I wouldn't place so much emphasis on China's insistence on non-proliferation and denuclearization. It is the official policy of PRC for the "denuclearization of Korean peninsula" and "denuclearization of the world" eventually... but as Deng Xiaoping says "[China does] not advocate nuclear proliferation at all, but we even more strongly oppose nuclear monopolies."
So to summarize everything in a succint statement:
China's official stance on denuclearization allows it strategic flexibility - when NK state is unified + strong, it's nukes are aimed at US+allies, China can pay token lipservice to denuclearization because it strategically pins an adversary while China focuses elsewhere. On the Contrary..... When NK state is weak or collapsed, it's nukes are in uncertain hands during collapse (rogue general, sold to terrorists, lost in chaos), China can actually use it's official policy of denuclearization in real world by intervening to secure "rogue nukes", (but the True main focus is to set up refugee camps inside NK and provide humanitarian aid, pre-empt US-SK land invasion, and prop up a pro-China faction among NK elites) while the official reason for intervention is "denuclearization and securing rogue nukes". It's brilliant, even if US/SK sees through China's plan, China isn't being a liar or inconsistent with previous official policy proclaimations.
What do you think?
South Korea is spending vastly more on its military than North Korea. Why should it spend more still?Yes.
But what would it take for South Korea to become independent and not worry about Trump forcing SK into a war against NK.
They would need to fill in the gaps in military capability that the US currently provide.
At the moment, SK is spending $36 Billion per year, which is 2.7% of GDP. But they could increase that by 50% to 4% of GDP.
generally agree. just some small comment.
The "blood alliance" was accurate in the 1950s and 1960s. It gradually faded when and after the Sino-Soviet split when NK choose to remain equal distance between China and USSR (China expect more from NK as China shed blood for NK) while NK played both USSR and China to not to be dominated by either. After repeatedly refuse to follow Chinese path of change and the nuke program (China does object), the "blood alliance" is officially over as China openly termed the relation as normal country to country recently.
In case of a US departure, I must say there is NO reason for China to side with either NK or SK, they would remain equal in China's consideration. The only request China may insist is "no violent unification".
South Korea is spending vastly more on its military than North Korea. Why should it spend more still?
Until 2015 the US President was the Commander-in-Chief of the South Korean armed forces. The new treaty says that that situation will return in case of war. And China nor North Korea want war. So perhaps when Trump visits Beijing the presidents can invite the South Korean president and agree that it is good for the security of US that South Korea will abandon the treaty with US and instead sign a security treaty with China parallel to China's treaty with North Korea.
To become independent of US SK doesn't need to spend more on its military but it needs to reject US suzerainty and throw out the US garrison.NK doesn't have the economic capacity to spend any more on the military. It is already beyond maxed out.
In comparison, SK does have the capacity to increase military spending to 4%, which would help give it that sense of military security vis-a-vis NK and help SK become independent of the USA.
To become independent of US SK doesn't need to spend more on its military but it needs to reject US suzerainty and throw out the US garrison.
NK rejected talks with SK because it is not an independent country.