China's strategy in Korean peninsula

taxiya said:

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".

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.

Click to expand...

If someone in NK invites Chinese troops in, they will be there at the invitation of someone in NK. That doesn't count as unwanted interference.

Would the US welcome Chinese troops in NK? but what could they do? Unless the US was willing to go to war with China, they will have to accept the presence of Chinese troops.

We saw the same thing happen in 1998 when Russian peacekeeping troops occupied Pristina airport in Kosovo, and NATO troops refused to go to war with Russia and start the escalation chain to nuclear war. Then a political settlement was agreed.

I don't think SK will welcome the presence of Chinese troops in NK, but again, what can they do?

They can go to war with China, or accept a political settlement that sees the end of the US-SK security alliance, and which would mean a neutral SK with closer relations with China. Then everyone in NK, SK and China get on with the job of rebuilding. Remember that SK lacks the capacity to do this by themselves, but China does have ample spare capacity, if it chooses to do so. China will certainly not be handing over NK to SK for free.

And I've previously outlined all sorts of things that China could do, if US troops remain on the Korean peninsula.

taxiya said:

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".

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.

Click to expand...

Not for free, SK will pay for it, and with Chinese troops on NK soil, China will have the leverage to set the price.

dingyibvs said:

Not for free, SK will pay for it, and with Chinese troops on NK soil, China will have the leverage to set the price.

Click to expand...

Yes, but there is no point for China being venal to Korea.

Do we want a spiteful Korea in the future?

Or a grateful one which recognises Chinese leadership and cooperation during the rebuild, which should end up being win-win for both China and Korea.

And look at the effect of China's CPEC investment in Pakistan as an shining example of cooperation.

AndrewS said:

If someone in NK invites Chinese troops in, they will be there at the invitation of someone in NK. That doesn't count as unwanted interference.

Would the US welcome Chinese troops in NK? but what could they do? Unless the US was willing to go to war with China, they will have to accept the presence of Chinese troops.

We saw the same thing happen in 1998 when Russian peacekeeping troops occupied Pristina airport in Kosovo, and NATO troops refused to go to war with Russia and start the escalation chain to nuclear war. Then a political settlement was agreed.

I don't think SK will welcome the presence of Chinese troops in NK, but again, what can they do?

They can go to war with China, or accept a political settlement that sees the end of the US-SK security alliance, and which would mean a neutral SK with closer relations with China. Then everyone in NK, SK and China get on with the job of rebuilding. Remember that SK lacks the capacity to do this by themselves, but China does have ample spare capacity, if it chooses to do so. China will certainly not be handing over NK to SK for free.

And I've previously outlined all sorts of things that China could do, if US troops remain on the Korean peninsula.

Click to expand...

Regarding your first paragraph:
The treaty itself is an existing invitation because it stipulate China's entering without specifying a requirement of another invitation. It is like a blank cheque if China really want to use it. In a sense, China can go in without anybody waiting in NK, install someone who then make an open announcement.

Without such treaty, outwardly China's entering looks bad, a blunt invasion. I won't rely on the uncertainty of other countries opinion especially when UN weighs in. Those opinions will transform to physical oppositions. The treaty serves the purpose to reduce such resistance.

And I would not underestimate the determination of SK and US to take on a fight. The bottom line is neither sides should bet on "others are just bluffing". Last time, US made a bloody mistake, China should not make the same mistake.

The rest of your post is about "do" regardless legal cover/framework. That is raw power game. I don't have much comment as that is not my focus (the treaty).

taxiya said:

Regarding your first paragraph:
The treaty itself is an existing invitation because it stipulate China's entering without specifying a requirement of another invitation. It is like a blank cheque if China really want to use it. In a sense, China can go in without anybody waiting in NK, install someone who then make an open announcement.

Without such treaty, outwardly China's entering looks bad, a blunt invasion. I won't rely on the uncertainty of other countries opinion especially when UN weighs in. Those opinions will transform to physical oppositions. The treaty serves the purpose to reduce such resistance.

And I would not underestimate the determination of SK and US to take on a fight. The bottom line is neither sides should bet on "others are just bluffing". Last time, US made a bloody mistake, China should not make the same mistake.

The rest of your post is about "do" regardless legal cover/framework. That is raw power game. I don't have much comment as that is not my focus (the treaty).

Click to expand...

If China goes into North Korea, no one in the world is going to care about a treaty written on a piece of paper.

What will matter is the interests of the parties involved.

Also remember that the US/SK didn't actually want a fight with China the last time around, and didn't believe Chinese warnings were serious.

Given the disastrous consequences from the previous war and how China is so much stronger now, why would the US/SK actually want to fight China this time?

AndrewS said:

If China goes into North Korea, no one in the world is going to care about a treaty written on a piece of paper.

What will matter is the interests of the parties involved.

Also remember that the US/SK didn't actually want a fight with China the last time around, and didn't believe Chinese warnings were serious.

Given the disastrous consequences from the previous war and how China is so much stronger now, why would the US/SK actually want to fight China this time?

Click to expand...

Best to have both; treaty with the Koreas is the "law," and the PLA makes it legal.

Richard Santos said:

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.

Click to expand...

Even after South Korea became independent? Think of the Gwangju massacre of 1980, it was just commemorated, when the Commander in Chief of the South Korean armed forces was President Carter. Just one example.

I noticed as it's Breaking News at gazeta.ru right now ():
Northern Korean vessel, which I think is this one:

will commute between

1. Vladivostok, Russia (in top-right corner in the map below)
2. Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
   , NK (in the red rectangle in the map below)
3. Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
   , China

(I hope the places #2, #3 didn't get lost in translation

the vessel has just arrived from NK to Vladivostok for the first time, the idea is to carry Russian/Chinese tourists to China/Russia plus Northern Korean workers ... says the source I quoted above

taxiya said:

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".

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.

Click to expand...

I really wouldn't put too much stock in such treaties in terms of international recognition. After all, would China recognise any treaty signed just between SK and the US?

The US, SK and Japan will either ignore the treaty or claim it is illegitimate. The biggest determinates on what they will do and say will be what is in their own interests and how much relative power they have to come push for what they want.

The biggest impact signing such a treaty are internally aimed. With such a treaty in place, China is bound to come to NK's aid if prerequisites of the treaty are met irrespective of whether China particularly wants to or not.

That will have an external impact also, as with such a treaty in place, SK, Japan and the US will have to assume China will intervene if they try to take over NK.

But TBH, even without such a treaty, China can easily send the same message.

The tricky thing for China is how to get out of renewing the treaty without sending the wrong message to SK and the US to make them think regime change and annexation is fair game in regards to NK.

I am guessing China may offer the prospect of not renewing the treaty as a bargaining chip with America and SK.

I could easily see China offering to not renew the treaty with NK in exchange for the US pulling their forces from SK.

plawolf said:

I really wouldn't put too much stock in such treaties in terms of international recognition. After all, would China recognise any treaty signed just between SK and the US?

The US, SK and Japan will either ignore the treaty or claim it is illegitimate. The biggest determinates on what they will do and say will be what is in their own interests and how much relative power they have to come push for what they want.

The biggest impact signing such a treaty are internally aimed. With such a treaty in place, China is bound to come to NK's aid if prerequisites of the treaty are met irrespective of whether China particularly wants to or not.

That will have an external impact also, as with such a treaty in place, SK, Japan and the US will have to assume China will intervene if they try to take over NK.

But TBH, even without such a treaty, China can easily send the same message.

The tricky thing for China is how to get out of renewing the treaty without sending the wrong message to SK and the US to make them think regime change and annexation is fair game in regards to NK.

I am guessing China may offer the prospect of not renewing the treaty as a bargaining chip with America and SK.

I could easily see China offering to not renew the treaty with NK in exchange for the US pulling their forces from SK.

Click to expand...

I think SK and the USA will assume China will intervene in NK even if no treaty is in place.

After all, that is what happened in the last Korean War. And we see that today with Russia and all the colour revolutions that previously happened in Ukraine.

As for not renewing the treaty, I think it will be a bargaining chip for China, as both NK and SK/US will be competing against each other for China's favour in this regard.