China's strategy in Korean peninsula

Broccoli

Broccoli

Senior Member
North Korea has seemingly made a thinly veiled warning to China of catastrophic consequences to their bilateral relations, as it asked its historic ally not to step up sanctions.

The warning on Saturday came in a commentary titled "Are you good at dancing to the tune of others", released by the state-owned KCNA news agency.

While the commentary did not mention China by name, Pyongyang expressed its criticism of "a country around the DPRK", using the acronym for North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

"The country is talking rubbish that the DPRK has to reconsider the importance of relations with it and that it can help preserve security of the DPRK and offer necessary support and aid for its economic prosperity, claiming the latter will not be able to survive the strict 'economic sanctions' by someone," the commentary said.

It added that if "the country" continues applying sanctions on Pyongyang, "it may be applauded by the enemies of the DPRK, but it should get itself ready to face the catastrophic consequences" in bilateral relations.
Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
taxiya said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Opinion: NK nuclear (issue), how much should Washington expect from Beijing.

A very interesting opinion piece from Global/Huanqiu network. Pretty much the same that I was trying to say all the time. Here I quote their suggestions of China's line.



If one believes that Global/Huanqiu is a mouth piece of People's Daily/CCP, I think one would have to believe what is expressed here is the bottom line of China. On this specific matter I believe it (is the bottom line) regardless.
Click to expand...
It's not hard to believe Zhongnanhai would send in the PLA should US troops cross the 38th Parallel. We saw that movie in 1950, and there's every reason to believe there will be a sequel should it happen again. On the other hand, I could see a situation where Beijing and Seoul strike a bargain where China helps ease the DPRK into the arms of the ROK, in return for a list of demands which includes Finlandization of a united Korea, and US forces off the Korean Peninsula.
 
I

Inst

Captain
Finlandization is basically an American delusion. Between Finland and the Soviet Union, the latter was culturally, economically, and technologically decrepit and had nothing to offer the Finns. China, on the other hand, is technologically competitive, the second-largest economy in dollar terms, and is working on developing its soft power. If the Chinese don't screw up, a Sinocentric order in Asia is inevitable.

China and Korea, as a cultural entity, have no fundamental conflicts of interest. Chinese claims to Kogoryo are merely out of political expediency, and we can point to the Sino-Russian border treaties, as well as the ceding of Mongolia, to see how quickly the Chinese are willing to forget about territorial claims if they're politically expedient.
 
K

KIENCHIN

Junior Member
Registered Member
Blackstone said:
It's not hard to believe Zhongnanhai would send in the PLA should US troops cross the 38th Parallel. We saw that movie in 1950, and there's every reason to believe there will be a sequel should it happen again. On the other hand, I could see a situation where Beijing and Seoul strike a bargain where China helps ease the DPRK into the arms of the ROK, in return for a list of demands which includes Finlandization of a united Korea, and US forces off the Korean Peninsula.
Click to expand...
Don't know about the South Korean government but the Young 30 something Koreans I had a chance to interact with over the years all say they don't want a United Korea as it comes with a price that they are not willing to pay and the fact is they are not West Germany.
 
D

dingyibvs

Junior Member
taxiya said:
If it is really needed (the bud nipping), why not let US do the heavy fighting first and China to take on the fruit in the later stage? The fruit is the occupation, not the rebuilding cost (should be shared by NK and SK, or paid by labors).

Remember last time, China did NOT join the fight on day one, not on the day when US crossed 38 line, not until Kim's main forces were reduced to nothing, not until his own life was threatened (had to hide in the cave near Chinese boarder). That is to let US and SK to do the bud nipping job. The difference this time would be that there won't be a place for KJN in the new NK administration after China saved NK once again.

The critical difference between your thought and some others including myself is that, you want China to do the bud nipping on behalf of the Americans and S Koreans, while we want them to do it for us.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've thought this one through. In order for China to ensure a favorable post-war order on the peninsula, it needs to have troops occupying most if not all of NK. In order for that to happen, the PLA will need to either go through the NK army or the combined US/SK army. It's obvious which army is easier to defeat, and I think you can see now why China needs to do the heavy lifting.

It's easier to say you want the Americans and the SKs to do the bud nipping, but it's entirely unrealistic.

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

Opinion: NK nuclear (issue), how much should Washington expect from Beijing.

A very interesting opinion piece from Global/Huanqiu network. Pretty much the same that I was trying to say all the time. Here I quote their suggestions of China's line.



If one believes that Global/Huanqiu is a mouth piece of People's Daily/CCP, I think one would have to believe what is expressed here is the bottom line of China. On this specific matter I believe it (is the bottom line) regardless.
Click to expand...

Excellent, that's the type of reassurance I spoke of earlier that China needs to give NK--the unofficial and non-binding type that can make KJU feel safe to provoke a war so the rest of my plan can be set in action.
 
D

dingyibvs

Junior Member
Inst said:
Finlandization is basically an American delusion. Between Finland and the Soviet Union, the latter was culturally, economically, and technologically decrepit and had nothing to offer the Finns. China, on the other hand, is technologically competitive, the second-largest economy in dollar terms, and is working on developing its soft power. If the Chinese don't screw up, a Sinocentric order in Asia is inevitable.

China and Korea, as a cultural entity, have no fundamental conflicts of interest. Chinese claims to Kogoryo are merely out of political expediency, and we can point to the Sino-Russian border treaties, as well as the ceding of Mongolia, to see how quickly the Chinese are willing to forget about territorial claims if they're politically expedient.
Click to expand...

Agreed, "Finlandization" of the Korean peninsula would mean a unified Korea coming into China's belt, especially given the assistance that only China is uniquely positioned to offer to build up NK. This is essentially the goal of my plan.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Inst said:
Finlandization is basically an American delusion. Between Finland and the Soviet Union, the latter was culturally, economically, and technologically decrepit and had nothing to offer the Finns. China, on the other hand, is technologically competitive, the second-largest economy in dollar terms, and is working on developing its soft power. If the Chinese don't screw up, a Sinocentric order in Asia is inevitable.

China and Korea, as a cultural entity, have no fundamental conflicts of interest. Chinese claims to Kogoryo are merely out of political expediency, and we can point to the Sino-Russian border treaties, as well as the ceding of Mongolia, to see how quickly the Chinese are willing to forget about territorial claims if they're politically expedient.
Click to expand...
Tell me something, Inst, what exactly do you think Finlandization means vis-a-vis China/Korea? Keep in mind the US would oppose such an outcome, if it has sufficient power to prevent it.
 
I

Inst

Captain
Vis a vis Finland, it meant that the Soviet Union had effective suzerainty over Finland, which was still sovereign, but had to consult Soviet leadership on foreign policy decisions. Vis a vis China and South Korea, it does imply that a united Korea would be as much in the Chinese camp as say, Belarus is in the Russian camp, but the specific details are more sketchy.

Do remember that talk about tribute to the Chinese is ahistorical nonsense. In most cases, the tribute trade was profitable for the tributary nation in that in return for acknowledging Chinese supremacy, the tributary was bribed off with more expensive return gifts. The actuality of the Chinese tributary system was closer to the Chinese bribing neighbors to indulge their delusions of grandeur than military extortion.

In truth, the Chinese tribute system is a misnomer and is better replaced with something less propagandistic.
 
I

Inst

Captain
@ Blackstone: Check this out:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It's an argument that the American world system is fundamentally the same as the old Chinese tributary system. It'd be informative to you on the old Ming-Qing tributary system, and informative to others in its analysis of American hegemony.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
KIENCHIN said:
Don't know about the South Korean government but the Young 30 something Koreans I had a chance to interact with over the years all say they don't want a United Korea as it comes with a price that they are not willing to pay and the fact is they are not West Germany.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, the young have excessive ideals and passion, but governed by paltry wealth, experience and wisdom. That is why it's usually the old who decides policies and steer the levers of power, while the young pay with their blood and vigor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top