China's strategy in Korean peninsula

delft

Brigadier
It's a scary prospect for SK, as the people are accustomed to relying on the USA.

So realistically, SK needs to fill in the gaps in military capability, in order to be confident enough to do so.
There are no gaps in military capability. And not the people but the state has relied on US mostly against the people. SK has only introduced the forms of democracy in the late 'eighties and it is still very corrupt. The previous president was removed for that reason signalling that there is a tendency to improve.
Also the economy is in pretty dire straights. Investing in rail, road and pipeline connections with NK, China and Russia makes sense, spending more on the military does not.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
There are no gaps in military capability. And not the people but the state has relied on US mostly against the people. SK has only introduced the forms of democracy in the late 'eighties and it is still very corrupt. The previous president was removed for that reason signalling that there is a tendency to improve.
Also the economy is in pretty dire straights. Investing in rail, road and pipeline connections with NK, China and Russia makes sense, spending more on the military does not.

No, there is a gap in military capability.

SK (both the people and the state) is worried about NK sending nukes on ballistic missiles.

So the 2 courses of action are:

1. Build better relations with NK to reduce this likelihood.
2. Increase its military capability with better missile defence and also the ability to hit back at NK.

There needs to be both carrots and sticks to change the calculations of NK and SK.
 

delft

Brigadier
No, there is a gap in military capability.

SK (both the people and the state) is worried about NK sending nukes on ballistic missiles.

So the 2 courses of action are:

1. Build better relations with NK to reduce this likelihood.
2. Increase its military capability with better missile defence and also the ability to hit back at NK.

There needs to be both carrots and sticks to change the calculations of NK and SK.
NK is developing it missiles and nukes to deter US, not to murder its brothers and sisters in the South. Look at the types of missiles being tested.
Building better relations with NK is the way to go and the first step is to declare independence from US. That alone would would already reduce tensions to a very large extent. And when you see Catalonia trying to become independent from Madrid which is a few hundred miles away why would SK be afraid to reject suzerainty from Washington DC many thousands of miles away. And if the rulers in Seoul are still afraid they can ask help from their most important trading partner.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
There is not a gap in absolute military capability. North Korea has nukes but South Korea's conventional forces are by far superior. Right now, NK seems to be acting very aggressive towards the South but it is out of weakness, and frustration for why their Southern brothers cannot shake off foreign chains and come meet the North as a truly sovereign country for negotiation. South Koreans often cheer for the North Korean team when they play sports against any other country. There is a lot of brotherhood there and I don't believe they could come to blows if really left to work things out.

But they will never get that opportunity due to America's poisonous council of the South Koreans. It is the US that wishes to wash out any brotherly feelings between the two to drum up its excuse that it's needed there for peace when in reality it is the reason for the hostilities. The US doesn't care, of course, about the damages it inflicts on Korea because it wants to encircle China.
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
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."

I think your thought is centered to how we should interpret Deng's (and therefor Chinese) stance. So I just share my thought on that.

I think Deng was talking about Soviet and US's monopolies only when he justified China's nuclear weapons. I don't think He or any following Chinese leaders favored more nuclear countries or interested to defend any later comers' "right" to have nuclear weapons, here the NK. It is because of that, China is serious of Non-proliferation.

Deng Xiaoping's 1975 quote was not about US or USSR monopoly on nukes... more on Indian monopoly of nukes on South Asian subcontinent. The Deng Xiaoping quote was dated in 1975, just one (1) year after India's first detonation of nukes in 1974, and 4 year after Pakistan's dismemberment in the civil war and Pakistan's loss in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

Deng Xiaoping allegedly granted help to Pakistani nuclear program in 1982 to offset India's first nuke test in 1974. Pakistan was recieving Chinese nuclear scientist exchanges as early as 1976.

So in China's calculations, if there is a nuclear monopoly in South Asia, then arming Pakistan with nukes is reasonable to check it's joint chief geopolitical rival (India).

So it's reasonable in China's calculation that if there is monopoly on high-tech (non-nuclear) conventional weapons on Korean peninsula (SK) , then accepting NK nukes will prove an balance of power stabilizer to SK's overwhelming tech advantage, and US overwhelming tactical nuke advantage.
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.

That is your opinion, That is not the opinion of the Chinese President.

This is what Chinese President Xi Jinping said to the South Korean President Moon Jae-in during the G20 summit:

According to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Xi Jinping said, “China has maintained a blood alliance with North Korea. There have been many changes, yet the relationship has not changed fundamentally.” (July 11, 2017)

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This suggests that even if NK launches an ICBM or performs a nuke test, Beijing will do little to hurt the alliance. Xi Jinping basically told South Korean President that China would never abandon North Korea and never accept a pro-US unified Korea on her doorsteps despite nuke and ICBM tests.

generally agree. just some small comment.

The "blood alliance" was accurate in the 1950s and 1960s.

See above quotation,

Chinese President Xi Jinping said the fundamental "blood alliance" relationship hasn't changed despite nuke and ICBM tests, and this wasn't to a domestic audience, it was to the Top #1 leader of South Korea, Moon Jae-in in a bilateral face-to-face meeting.

The policy implications of telling SK President of the "Blood alliance" in his face cannot be underestimated, since word choice is highly symbolic and important in Chinese diplomatic circles.
 
Last edited:

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
China would rather install a pro-Beijing puppet state (or pro-China faction leader) that will be "independently inspired" to follow Chinese-Vietnamese style of economic reform.... essentially becoming a "mini-China" than to adopt a byproduct of US success (SK). Unless China can guarantee an pro-China and anti-Japan/US orientation for unified Korea, it will stick with an unruly neighbor that it can tame, rather than unknown powerful democratic neighbor that it cannot tame.

If the argument of ditching NK and embracing SK is based solely on the propserous SK economy and happiness of SK people, then it would set a fundamental threat to legitimacy of CCP.

China cannot accept the argument of ditching NK and embracing SK based on the prosperity argument alone, then why doesn't China just give up to ROC Taiwan rule since ROC is more prosperous and happy than mainland? It would be a bad precedent to use economics as basis for unification of Koreas or China. It's based on geopolitical reality.

China will decide on geopolitical reality and spheres of influence, not based on economics. China can mold NK into it's image with a pro-China faction in power, it doesn't have to give up on it entirely and let it get annexed.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Deng Xiaoping's 1975 quote was not about US or USSR monopoly on nukes... more on Indian monopoly of nukes on South Asian subcontinent. The Deng Xiaoping quote was dated in 1975, just one (1) year after India's first detonation of nukes in 1974, and 4 year after Pakistan's dismemberment in the civil war and Pakistan's loss in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

Deng Xiaoping allegedly granted help to Pakistani nuclear program in 1982 to offset India's first nuke test in 1974. Pakistan was recieving Chinese nuclear scientist exchanges as early as 1976.

That is a totally new interpretation to me.
So in China's calculations, if there is a nuclear monopoly in South Asia, then arming Pakistan with nukes is reasonable to check it's joint chief geopolitical rival (India).
Correct.

So it's reasonable in China's calculation that if there is monopoly on high-tech (non-nuclear) conventional weapons on Korean peninsula (SK) , then accepting NK nukes will prove an balance of power stabilizer to SK's overwhelming tech advantage, and US overwhelming tactical nuke advantage.
That reasoning is stretching IMO. It is akin to "if you kick my butt, I will kill you, or if one steal, I will cut his arm". When the response is excessive, it is not rational calculation any more.

If that is your calculation, how would you convince SK not to have Nukes? Yes, SK has the superior conventional weapons and US backing, but SK still does not have nukes. And China does consider SK being a valuable neighbor, so SK's concern is in the calculation too. I expect you to bring up THAAD, my answer to that is "US is more responsible for that than SK although SK is not 100% innocent in it".

That is your opinion, That is not the opinion of the Chinese President.

This is what Chinese President Xi Jinping said to the South Korean President Moon Jae-in during the G20 summit:



Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This suggests that even if NK launches an ICBM or performs a nuke test, Beijing will do little to hurt the alliance. Xi Jinping basically told South Korean President that China would never abandon North Korea and never accept a pro-US unified Korea on her doorsteps despite nuke and ICBM tests.



See above quotation,

Chinese President Xi Jinping said the fundamental "blood alliance" relationship hasn't changed despite nuke and ICBM tests, and this wasn't to a domestic audience, it was to the Top #1 leader of South Korea, Moon Jae-in in a bilateral face-to-face meeting.

The policy implications of telling SK President of the "Blood alliance" in his face cannot be underestimated, since word choice is highly symbolic and important in Chinese diplomatic circles.

The "above" is a story from SK news. I have never heard Xi say so in 2017, not in any Chinese official media. You can search for Chinese source for that quotation of Xi and see if he said so and when and where.

What was broadly reported was Foreign Minister Wang Yi and MoF spoke person repeatedly referring the China-NK relationship as "normal country to country" since 2016. I trust Chinese MoF more than SK news paper.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
China would rather install a pro-Beijing puppet state (or pro-China faction leader) that will be "independently inspired" to follow Chinese-Vietnamese style of economic reform.... essentially becoming a "mini-China" than to adopt a byproduct of US success (SK). Unless China can guarantee an pro-China and anti-Japan/US orientation for unified Korea, it will stick with an unruly neighbor that it can tame, rather than unknown powerful democratic neighbor that it cannot tame.

If the argument of ditching NK and embracing SK is based solely on the propserous SK economy and happiness of SK people, then it would set a fundamental threat to legitimacy of CCP.

China cannot accept the argument of ditching NK and embracing SK based on the prosperity argument alone, then why doesn't China just give up to ROC Taiwan rule since ROC is more prosperous and happy than mainland? It would be a bad precedent to use economics as basis for unification of Koreas or China. It's based on geopolitical reality.

China will decide on geopolitical reality and spheres of influence, not based on economics. China can mold NK into it's image with a pro-China faction in power, it doesn't have to give up on it entirely and let it get annexed.
Generally agreed except that an unified Korea does not need to be anti-anybody. China should and can live with a friendly Japan too, it was better in the past before the flaring up of Diaoyu island dispute, so it can be better than today. People change.

I have been battling the idea of "China ditching NK for SK dominated unification" for a long time in this thread. In the mean time I am against the opposite idea of "ignoring SK's concern" or "fixating Japan as an enemy". Do you agree?
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
If that is your calculation, how would you convince SK not to have Nukes?

because US has supreme command and control of SK military operations during war-time, so how can SK pursue independent nuclear deterrence if has ceded military sovereignty to US?

SK covert nuclear program was shut down by US in the mid-1970's after the downfall of South Vietnam. Park Chung Hee as early as 1976 publicly stated SK's ambition for nuclear deterrence after US withdrawal from Vietnam, but CIA squashed SK ambitions in 1970's. Just as Taiwan's covert nuclear program was shut down by CIA around the same time period.

China doesn't need to convince SK to not go nuclear, the US is already doing it pretty effectively. US doesn't want SK to go nuclear using the "me too" doctrine, because it will set a bad precedent for other US allies and enemies like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey to say "me too" (vs. Israel). US does gain leverage if it denies SK it's own independent nukes.

The "above" is a story from SK news. I have never heard Xi say so in 2017, not in any Chinese official media. You can search for Chinese source for that quotation of Xi and see if he said so and when and where.


The above story cites
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(청와대/靑瓦臺) (ie. "Blue House" or South Korea President's Executive Office) as providing the original transcripts of the conversation between Xi Jinping and Moon Jae-in.

According to Cheong Wa Dae, Xi Jinping said, “China has maintained a blood alliance with North Korea. There have been many changes, yet the relationship has not changed fundamentally.” (July 11, 2017)

It cannot get more "official" than Cheong Dae Wae, which is the South Korean equivalent of the "White House", Cheong Dae Wae is the executive office and residence of SK President.

Why it is not published by Chinese media? There is no official release of transcripts from Chinese MoF to fact check what Cheong Dae Wae has reported, and unofficial Chinese diplomatic channels has said Xi Jinping used the term “xian xue ning cheng" (relationship formed through fresh blood) instead of "xue meng" (blood alliance) but the common Korean translation for “xian xue ning cheng" is “dong maeng,” which literally means “blood alliance.” So, even if Xi didn’t use the word “blood alliance,” it would mean “blood alliance,” when translated into Korean.

Furthermore, the Korean Herald is one of the most reputable newspapers in SK, and if it's published in an Editorial of Korean Herald, and even cites Cheong Dae Wae, it is pretty credible in my opinion.


What was broadly reported was Foreign Minister Wang Yi and MoF spoke person repeatedly referring the China-NK relationship as "normal country to country" since 2016. I trust Chinese MoF more than SK news paper.

Do you read Xinhua or MoF publications? Foreign Minister Wang Yi has referred to "lips and teeth" atleast two (2) times in the start of 2017.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi was quoted invoking the "as close as lips and teeth" as recently as March, 2017 at the beginning of DPRK missile provcations.

"The nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is mainly between the DPRK and the United States. China is a next-door neighbor with a lips-and-teeth relationship with the peninsula, so we're indispensable to the resolution of the nuclear issue."
- Foreign Minister Wang Yi
Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wang said the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is mainly between the DPRK and the United States, but China, as a next-door neighbor with a lips-and-teeth relationship with the Peninsula, is indispensable to the resolution of the issue.
Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Mar, 2017

FM Wang Yi, 'the lips', undoubtedly transmitted an authorized message from China to North Korea: "The offer is (still) on the table and China supports it." The first NK ballistic missile test since Trump's inauguration started in April, 2017. The timing could not be more important.

Now Chinese President Xi Jinping invoked "blood alliance" (to SK President's face no less!) and FM Wang Yi invoked "lips and teeth", it's clear where China's position on the alliance is. China will never abandon DPRK to a pro-US unified Korea.
 
Last edited:

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Generally agreed except that an unified Korea does not need to be anti-anybody. China should and can live with a friendly Japan too, it was better in the past before the flaring up of Diaoyu island dispute, so it can be better than today. People change.

I have been battling the idea of "China ditching NK for SK dominated unification" for a long time in this thread. In the mean time I am against the opposite idea of "ignoring SK's concern" or "fixating Japan as an enemy". Do you agree?

I agree with the latter. Japan can be a friendly state to China once US credibility erodes, it can normalize relations with China and Koreas, remilitarize in a peaceful fashion, and end it's bitter enmity with China. The natural orientation of Japan has always been towards the most powerful state actor in international system, whether it is Imperial China during antiquity, the alliance with British Empire during WW1, the alliance with Nazi Germany during WW2, or the alliance with US during post-WW2 era, the Japanese has always respected and aligned with the most powerful country. China is regaining and emerging. China has awaken. Japan does not have the luxury of treating China as a permanent enemy so reapproachment is inevitable.

With the former, there is nothing really China can do since SK doesn't have an independent foreign policy. US has supreme command and control of SK military operations during wartime, so it can easily be bent to US interests (see THAAD)....I remember one of the US senators during SK President Moon Jae-in's visit to US recently said to SK something to the effect: "If you dare place US troops in harms way by continuing to refuse THAAD deployment, we will end and terminate the US-SK alliance". SK has no spine to stand up to US, too influenced, too dominated and reliant on US security as pillar of it's foreign policy. Of course, geopolitics aside, SK's concern is real from a humanitarian perspective. Nobody wants their capital to be nuked, so China will need to prevent war on SK's doorsteps. Geopolitcally though, SK's concerns can sck it, so it's an emulation of US foreign policy. SK has no spine to stand up to US.
 
Top