In 1961 the Commander in Chief of the South Korean armed forces was Democratic:
John F. Kennedy!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
China's strategy in Korean peninsula
- Thread starter Phead128
- Start date
John F. Kennedy!
of course SK wants that, but so does NK. The treaty is primarily protecting NK, but does has some restriction on NK how far they can go, in the mean time protecting SK as well.What If the SK wants the DPRK for themselves? I mean look at all that undeveloped real estate for the elite to lick their chops. Preferably through peace of course, but they would love have their cake and eat it too. Unification of the Korean the peninsula under their rule without any of the DPRK former regime government in power AND without risking any of their own military lives. That's my opinion.
The reality is that neither NK nor SK is able to swallow the whole cake without paying dearly. So I agree with your opinion, and I see it in no conflict with the treaty.
I remember that. There was a documentary on YouTube, the first few minutes shows gruesome execution of Communists, suspected Communists sympathizers by SK military in public just before the Korean war. I am talking about using sickle to cut throat, seems like IS learned from them.You should remember that the first horrible dictator in South Korea had been murdered in 1960 and replaced with a horrible military dictator as well as the then huge military superiority of US. NK at the time was clearly more democratic than SK.
Here is one extraction from the full version I have watched. See 40 second mark, after fire-squad failed to kill the condemned. search youtube for title "KOREA WAR: Execution of North Korean Spies". I choose not to post the video as it may make some people uneasy.
Last edited:
Think again, I prefer extending it automatically in 2021 so long as the Sino-NK relation does not openly break. The treaty is a leverage and a justification for China's say in the matter regardless who goes nut.
I would disagree on extending the treaty automatically.
If Fatty Kim thinks China will automatically extend the treaty given his behaviour, he should be sorely disabused of that notion.
China has enough leverage anyway without a treaty.
And if Fatty Kim doesn't get a treaty with China, the North Korean elite are going to be thinking that he is a liability.
I do wonder if he has seen the Gaddafi's death march and the lesson that it holds.
To clarify myself (I wasn't clear). I had an IF in that post, so it was meant to be conditional. The automatic part is just the procedure on the surface, meaning no publicity. The condition will be communicated behind the door. If not met, there won't be an automatic extension.I would disagree on extending the treaty automatically.
If Fatty Kim thinks China will automatically extend the treaty given his behaviour, he should be sorely disabused of that notion.
China has enough leverage anyway without a treaty.
And if Fatty Kim doesn't get a treaty with China, the North Korean elite are going to be thinking that he is a liability.
I do wonder if he has seen the Gaddafi's death march and the lesson that it holds.
As of enough leverage, a treaty is needed. What justification for a possible intervention would be without such treaty if Kim's colleague decide to comply while Kim refuses? The treaty grant China's entering the peninsular so long as there is one person who can act as representing NK government. In the worst scenario China can perform a leadership change by performing treaty obligations at the invitation of NK (with Kim out of power in the party).
Last edited:
To clarify myself (I wasn't clear). I had an IF in that post, so it was meant to be conditional. The automatic part is just the procedure on the surface, meaning no publicity. The condition will be communicated behind the door. If not met, there won't be an automatic extension.
As of enough leverage, a treaty is needed. What justification for a possible intervention would be without such treaty if Kim's colleague decide to comply while Kim refuses? The treaty grant China's entering the peninsular so long as there is one person who can act as representing NK government. In the worst scenario China can perform a leadership change by performing treaty obligations at the invitation of NK (with Kim out of power in the party).
Think about the scenario you just outlined.
"A colleague of Kim invites the Chinese Army in, whilst Kim disagrees"
That means Kim has already lost control of North Korea and they are facing a regime change or civil war scenario.
It doesn't matter if China has a treaty with North Korea or not.
No one in the world is going to condemn China for entering North Korea in such a scenario. Most likely, everyone in the world will be applauding how China is removing Fatty Kim, because whatever successor China supports will be far better for the people of North Korea.
That successor will depend on China on his position and there will be Chinese troops in North Korea. And that Chinese influence will be pushing North Korea to modernise and develop on the Chinese model, to give up its nukes and also to talk to South Korea rationally.
---
In another scenario, China actually could just let North Korea be conquered by South Korea and the USA.
And when it is clear that North Korea has lost when Pyongyang falls, Chinese troops will be welcomed when they enter North Korea as they will:
a) create a safe zone for NK soldiers and government officials along the Chinese border
b) secure NK nukes from accidental use against SK/USA
Then there will be a negotiated reunification of Korea subject to the end of the US-Korea security alliance, as the US/SK know they cannot win a land war against China.
Otherwise Chinese troops will just stay in North Korea for as long as it takes, and SK will be subject to economic sticks, rather than the economic carrot of China rebuilding Korea.
Last edited:
North Korea is an independent country and China should not violate the Charter of the United Nations. South Korea should also become an independent state and both should accept China's mediation to achieve reunification.
It is quite unlikely either side will peacefully accept anything more than a very marginal Chinese mediation role in the unification of the peninsula. Both sides wants unification on its own terms. South Korea would also reject any American involvement, but if forced to choose would vastly prefer a bigger role for the US over a bigger role for china. North Korea would only accept a major Chinese role when it is on the verge of being overrun by the south, and Chinese mediation would achieve nothing more than giving surviving members of Kim family a refuge to avoid a destructive nuclear last stand, unless china chooses to fight South Korea.
Without a treaty, your first scenario would be a outright "interference of another country's domestic affair" or "regime change". I don't think the west would be welcoming Chinese intervention, rather they will pick the chance to demand China to hand over NK for a "free election".Think about the scenario you just outlined.
"A colleague of Kim invites the Chinese Army in, whilst Kim disagrees"
That means Kim has already lost control of North Korea and they are facing a regime change or civil war scenario.
It doesn't matter if China has a treaty with North Korea or not.
No one in the world is going to condemn China for entering North Korea in such a scenario. Most likely, everyone in the world will be applauding how China is removing Fatty Kim, because whatever successor China supports will be far better for the people of North Korea.
That successor will depend on China on his position and there will be Chinese troops in North Korea. And that Chinese influence will be pushing North Korea to modernise and develop on the Chinese model, to give up its nukes and also to talk to South Korea rationally.
---
In another scenario, China actually could just let North Korea be conquered by South Korea and the USA.
And when it is clear that North Korea has lost when Pyongyang falls, Chinese troops will be welcomed when they enter North Korea as they will:
a) create a safe zone for NK soldiers and government officials along the Chinese border
b) secure NK nukes from accidental use against SK/USA
Then there will be a negotiated reunification of Korea subject to the end of the US-Korea security alliance, as the US/SK know they cannot win a land war against China.
Otherwise Chinese troops will just stay in North Korea for as long as it takes, and SK will be subject to economic sticks, rather than the economic carrot of China rebuilding Korea.
Without a treaty, you expect SK to welcome Chinese occupation? That is like asking China to do the pacification job of NK and then what? Hand over NK to SK for free? Making NK people to hate Chinese as much as they hate USA? I don't think Chinese are that dumb. I think I had made it clear that China is not going to pay for that, SK has to do it themselves.
I think we have a big gap that you have a very high favorite or trust to SK which I don't have.
Last edited: