North Korea (Superthread)

[a_majoor]

Reading very murky tea leaves:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/north-vs-south-korea-how-bad-could-a-war-get/?print=1

North vs. South Korea: How Bad Could a War Get?

Posted By Stephen Green On May 27, 2010 @ 11:25 am In Asia, China, Column 2, Koreas, Politics, US News, World News | 130 Comments

“As we enter the summer of 2010,” writes Austin Bay [1], “the risk of all-out war on the Korean peninsula is quite high, and possibly the highest it has been since the armistice was signed in 1953.”

The good news: It’s unlikely that North Korea has enough gasoline to fight for more than a few days.

The bad news: they could really mess up the South in less time than that.

The worse news: nobody knows what would happen after the inevitable North Korean collapse, but everybody knows that nobody could afford it.

The downright scary news: even a wildly unspectacular North Korean invasion would serve as a test of our CINC’s mettle — a test we can’t be certain he’d pass.

Let’s go through these points one at a time.

The Good News

An army, Napoleon said, travels on its stomach. But a modern army travels on POL: petroleum, oil, lubricants. It’s doubtful Pyongyang has enough POL to grease their tanks much further south than midtown Seoul. Also, an army needs lots of ammo and tons of spares. How many new tank tracks do you think the North has been able to beg, borrow, buy, or steal in the last 20 years? Answer: not many. And ammo needs to be replaced every couple of decades — even bullets have a shelf life. The situation for aircraft is even more critical, so it’s a good guess that the North’s air force is in even worse shape than the army. The DPRK navy can still pack some punch, as we learned last month, but sneak attacks don’t guarantee victory — just ask Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.

Another bit of good news is that China is giving North Korea some small diplomatic cover over the sinking of the Cheonan. That might not seem like a good thing at first blush, but as long as China maintains influence over the DPRK, the odds of war are reduced.

The Bad News

North Korea has special forces up the Pyongyang. This tiny, starving, impoverished nation has tens of thousands of special forces — and they have a reputation for being tough, skilled, and deadly. They’re also expected to swarm the South’s airports and seaports and do a pretty savage job of knocking them out of service. They also might have a pretty easy time of blending into the civilian population (or even disguise themselves as ROK soldiers) and continuing to wreak havoc until found and killed, one by one.

Another bit you should know. Seoul is in range of thousands of DPRK artillery tubes and missiles — many of which are in hard-to-bomb mountain hideaways. It would take hundreds of aircraft sorties, and an untold amount of counter-battery fire, before Seoul would be safe again — and the damage could take years to repair. An unprovoked attack at pre-dawn could serve up death and destruction unseen in any major city since World War II.

And I’m not even factoring in the possibility of the North kicking off the festivities with a nuke, because I like to sleep at night.

The Worse News

Yes, there’s worse news. Now, I’ve written about a North Korean collapse pretty extensively [2], and going back seven years. If you don’t want to go through the archives, just know this: it would be the biggest humanitarian crisis since The Flood, only with loose nuclear materials.

The Downright Scary News

So, yes, North Korea could seriously mess up the South, after which the North would cease to exist as an independent nation. And I believe that China would move to intervene in the DPRK long before ROK or U.S. troops (technically, UN troops) could get through the DMZ. Then what’s so downright scary?

It’s almost certain that the South could handle the North without much in the way of American help — and a Chinese coup de grace would certainly bring hostilities to a quick end. (Let’s assume that China would find it much more beneficial this time around to stop a Korean War than to enlist in one.) But: if President Obama did anything less than to order a full and immediate reinforcement of South Korea — on land, sea, and air — our other enemies and rivals would read much into such inaction. They might read too much into it, but they would read it just the same.

More importantly — most especially — is the message our allies would receive: that America is no longer a reliable ally.

Turkey has already de facto left NATO, in favor of rising Persian power. Obama has personally handed Israel its hat and coat, and shoved it towards the door. Britain has been insulted, India snubbed, and the French ignored. It wouldn’t take much more to see what remains of our alliances blown apart. In fact, it wouldn’t take anything more than the slightest wobble in dealing with a Second Korean War.

And as this administration continues to do little or nothing as “the risk of all-out war” reaches historical highs, the signal being sent is most un-American.

“Tread on Me.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/north-vs-south-korea-how-bad-could-a-war-get/

URLs in this post:

[1] writes Austin Bay: http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20100525205853.aspx

[2] North Korean collapse pretty extensively: http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2010/05/13/its-deja-vu-all-over-again-all-over-again/

 

[Edward Campbell]

The "Downright Scary News," above, is the most likely outcome: "China would move to intervene in the DPRK long before ROK or U.S. troops (technically, UN troops) could get through the DMZ ...  a Chinese coup de grace would certainly bring hostilities to a quick end ... But: if President Obama did anything less than to order a full and immediate reinforcement of South Korea — on land, sea, and air — our other enemies and rivals would read much into such inaction. They might read too much into it, but they would read it just the same ...  the message our allies would receive: that America is no longer a reliable ally ... Turkey has already de facto left NATO, in favor of rising Persian power. Obama has personally handed Israel its hat and coat, and shoved it towards the door. Britain has been insulted, India snubbed, and the French ignored. It wouldn’t take much more to see what remains of our alliances blown apart. In fact, it wouldn’t take anything more than the slightest wobble in dealing with a Second Korean War."

Obama doesn't have enough forces to order a "a full and immediate reinforcement of South Korea" and it is not clear, to me anyway, that, faced with a Chinese coup de main, South Korea would even accept, much less seek American reinforcement.

If the Americans cannot prevent another Korean War then they will, most likely, find themselves expelled from the Asian Mainland.

 

[tomahawk6]

Technically a state of war still exits on the Korean peninsula. Only unification will end the war either with a communist takeover or an economic collapse in the north,of the type faced by Germany. Once the ROK unified with the North there wouldnt be a need for a UN or US military presence - something the PRC could live with. The US could still support the ROK from its bases in Japan if necessary. The PRC would be able to focus its military on its border with Russia.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Everyone claims that if the North collapses, havoc will ensure. You mean like mass starvation, shortages of essential goods, lack of jobs? Maybe I am missing something, but that sounds like present day NK already. I don’t see a lot of starving NK making much of a march considering their current caloric intake.
If the collapses is internal and civil war starts within NK, all sides involved would be trying convince China that they will be the best leaders for the country. Once China picks a horse in the race, the fighting will end as the losing side will not have the fuel, food and ability to fight the other forces being freshly supplied by China. I would then foresee a quick and nasty culling of old guard and people that jumped into the wrong bandwagons. Life for the average NK would still suck, but I suspect that China would then use it’s influence to force the new government to improve things so they won’t have a mass of refuges coming over the border. From there I would expect gradual improvements as many governments would give aid in hopes of getting the new government up and running to improve life for the people. 

 

[TCBF]

- Fastest way for North Korea to cripple South Korea would be for North Korea to surrender:

" Good morning, comrades - we surrender.  It is 0800 hours.  We will be hungry at lunch.  Bring food for 24,000,000 people.  See ya !"

- North Korea does not have to nuke another country - it only needs to nuke itself.  One warhead detonated near the DMZ when the prevailing winter winds are from the north or north west: " Hi! We are going to have a test.  Surface or shallow sub-surface burst. We apologize for the inconvenience."

- Then what?  If nothing, a week later: "Hi! We are going to have another test..."

 

[Marlowe]

Everyone claims that if the North collapses, havoc will ensure. You mean like mass starvation, shortages of essential goods, lack of jobs? Maybe I am missing something, but that sounds like present day NK already. I don’t see a lot of starving NK making much of a march considering their current caloric intake.

SKor fears the collapse for financial reasons. As I recall, after studying German reunification, and considering East Germany was fairly affluent as Warsaw Pact countries went, SKor decided maybe reunification could wait. Like until NKor at least had a functioning economy.

As for China, you totally answered that yourself:

. . .but I suspect that China would then use it’s influence to force the new government to improve things so they won’t have a mass of refuges coming over the border.

 

[Marlowe]

Apparently, NKor’s Supreme People’s Assembly will be meeting for the second time in two months on 7 June. This is odd because the SPA usually only meets annually. There might be a number of reasons for this. I’ve seen strengthening the succession and resolutions to legitimize military actions as possible causes for the meet.

Given what China has said, might there be something else? Is it possible that China has let it be known that NKor has gone too far this time, and that China would rather spend the money to seal up the NKor border rather than have to clean up KJI’s mess yet again? KJI might be trying to rein in elements that he had previously allowed to run rampant. Maybe they are deciding who to throw under the bus for the Cheonan.

I wonder if China is considering backing another horse. Little Kim ain't quite the man his father had been.

 

[TCBF]

Nightmare scenario 347B: Where is Tom Clancy when you need him?

1. China launches ground assault and air strikes on DPRK, announcing to the world it only wants to secure DPRK's WMD and bring about effective regime change. 
2. Chinese special forces kill KJI and much of the top tier, as well as secure many WMD sites, but follow-on heliborne and airborne waves suffer heavy casualties.
3. DPRK recovers, isolate Chinese teams at WMD sites and begins to trade space for time as they become more organized in their withdrawl south from the frontier.
4. Chinese cannot extract or usefully re-inforce their WMD site teams. DPRK does not wipe them out, instead uses them to bait more Chinese avn assets into the areas.
5. Chinese advance south begins to stall despite having flattened all major military targets. China begins to bomb low grade targets in densely populated urban areas. One third of DPRK now in Chinese hands.
6. ROK (and the world) aghast at DPRK civ casualties from Chinese airstrikes.
7. ROK and surviving DPRK leadership announce re-unification, order China to cease operations and withdraw to China.
8. China does not recognize the United Korean Republic (UKR) and warns ROK to stay south of the DMZ.
9. ROK launches ground forces across, over and under the DMZ in order to seize and hold as much ground as possible before directly combatting China. 
10. China launches air attacks against ROK forces north of the DMZ. ROK airforce turns many of the attacks back.
11. China launches air and missle strikes against ROK military targets in South Korea.  Some US facilities hit, causing US casualties.
12. Second wave of PRC airstrikes south of the DMZ encounter USAF fighters and Japanese AWACS aircraft...


Having fun, yet?

8)

 

[vonGarvin]

Nightmare scenario 347B: Where is Tom Clancy when you need him?

1. China launches ground assault and air strikes on DPRK, announcing to the world it only wants to secure DPRK's WMD and bring about effective regime change. 
2. Chinese special forces kill KJI and much of the top tier, as well as secure many WMD sites, but follow-on heliborne and airborne waves suffer heavy casualties.
3. DPRK recovers, isolate Chinese teams at WMD sites and begins to trade space for time as they become more organized in their withdrawl south from the frontier.
4. Chinese cannot extract or usefully re-inforce their WMD site teams. DPRK does not wipe them out, instead uses them to bait more Chinese avn assets into the areas.
5. Chinese advance south begins to stall despite having flattened all major military targets. China begins to bomb low grade targets in densely populated urban areas. One third of DPRK now in Chinese hands.
6. ROK (and the world) aghast at DPRK civ casualties from Chinese airstrikes.
7. ROK and surviving DPRK leadership announce re-unification, order China to cease operations and withdraw to China.
8. China does not recognize the United Korean Republic (UKR) and warns ROK to stay south of the DMZ.
9. ROK launches ground forces across, over and under the DMZ in order to seize and hold as much ground as possible before directly combatting China. 
10. China launches air attacks against ROK forces north of the DMZ. ROK airforce turns many of the attacks back.
11. China launches air and missle strikes against ROK military targets in South Korea.  Some US facilities hit, causing US casualties.
12. Second wave of PRC airstrikes south of the DMZ encounter USAF fighters and Japanese AWACS aircraft...
Having fun, yet?
8)

Who needs Clancy?  He's a pompous....anyway...
1. China launches nuclear assault on DPRK, announcing to the world it only wants to eliminate the DPRK as a threat to Asian economic prosperity.
2. Several dozen low yield tactical nuclear bombs hit targets all across the peninsula.  Within minutes, the DPRK no longer has a functioning government or military.
3. Wave after wave of humanitarian aid flows in, etc. 
In other words, after the nukes, all rather boring.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a pretty fair article about China and North Korea; I agree with almost everything except the penultimate paragraph:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/can-china-keep-its-balance-in-east-asia/article1587071/

Can China keep its balance in East Asia?
If it remains neutral on the sinking of the Cheonan, Beijing risks alienating regional partners

Frank Ching

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Ever since international investigators concluded that the South Korean naval ship Cheonan, which sank in March with the loss of 46 lives, was struck by a North Korean torpedo, China has been under growing pressure to condemn its close friend and ally in the United Nations Security Council.

The report was issued May 20, just days before top American officials arrived in Beijing for high-level strategic and economic talks. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on China to take part in joint action to deal with the latest North Korean challenge.

This past weekend, Premier Wen Jiabao was in South Korea to take part in a summit meeting involving China, Japan and South Korea. There, he came under pressure to endorse the findings of the international investigators.

The Premier said China had not yet made up its mind on the issue and would make a judgment on the evidence in an “objective and fair manner.” He promised that Beijing would not protect the guilty party.

The summit meeting, the third of its kind, is part of a process to accelerate the regional integration of northeast Asia. The new Japanese government of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, in particular, has emphasized the need for the creation of an East Asian Community.

The Cheonan incident will cause South Korea and Japan to reassess China’s reliability as a political and economic partner in view of Beijing’s closeness to Pyongyang.

It is putting the international spotlight on Beijing, emphasizing the closeness of its relationship with Pyongyang. North Korean leader Kim Jong-il paid a five-day visit to China in May and was fêted by President Hu Jintao.

The Cheonan incident is also underlining the importance of the U.S. military alliance to both South Korea and Japan, both of which have talked in recent years about the need for more equality in the alliance.

Increasingly, voices have been raised calling for greater “balance” in relations. Thus, even though the United States is an ally, some Japanese politicians argue that Tokyo-Washington-Beijing relations “should be equally balanced like an equilateral triangle.”

Even in Taiwan, which relies on the United States to guarantee its security, there are voices calling for the balancing of relations with China and the United States.

It is probably no accident that the Obama administration’s just-released document, the National Security Strategy of the United States, says of the alliances with Japan and South Korea: “We are modernizing our security relationships with both countries to face evolving 21st century global security challenges and to reflect the principle of equal partnership with the United States.”

Mr. Hatoyama took office in Japan after his party, the Democratic Party of Japan, promised to shift the government’s focus from America to Asia. The DPJ election platform called for re-examining Japan’s ties with the United States.

Since the Hatoyama administration came to power last year, it has held four summit meetings with China and five meetings of their respective foreign ministers. “Japan has conducted such extensive bilateral talks with China alone,” Kazuo Kodama, a foreign ministry spokesman, has pointed out. “No other countries have enjoyed such extensive meetings on the political level.”

It is not clear how China is going to reach a determination regarding whether North Korea was responsible for the torpedo attack on the Cheonan.

Russia has said that it would not support Security Council action unless it had “100-per-cent proof of North Korea’s role.” Russian experts have accepted an invitation to go to South Korea and are reportedly sifting through the evidence.

China, too, has been invited to send experts to assess the evidence gathered by South Korea, which includes a torpedo propeller allegedly with North Korean markings. So far, it is not clear whether China has accepted the invitation.

Clearly, China, too is trying to “balance” its relations with North and South Korea. On the face of it, the decision for Beijing should be simple. After all, China’s trade with South Korea is expected to be close to $200-billion this year, about 70 times greater than its trade with North Korea.

And yet, China evidently continues to value its ties with North Korea, which is also under Communist Party rule. Part of this is historical. After all, the two countries were allies against the United States and South Korea during the Korean War.

But China should realize that if it tries to remain neutral on the sinking of the Cheonan, South Korea and Japan will both be asking questions about China’s reliability as a partner.

Frank Ching is author of China: The Truth About Its Human Rights Record.

I think China’s reaction is tailored by a number of considerations, I’m not sure which is more important:

• China wishes, actually needs to maintain its policy of strict respect for sovereignty, including the sovereignty of North Korea, because it insists that the whole world respects its absolute sovereignty and that no one interfere, in any way, with China’s “internal affairs.” What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, etc;

• The status quo, a certain amount of tension between the two Koreas, is better than reunification under American leadership;

• While trade relationships with South Korea are very important they are just part of a larger, longer, Chinese perspective on East Asia. A reunified Korea is part of that visions – so long as it, the “new Korea” excludes America and is beholden to China;

• A stable “peace,” even an artificial peace such as now exists in Korea, is always better than a crisis – even though crises, traditionally, produce opportunities;

• In an almost Elizabethan way, the Chinese make indecision a key element of their policy making. The leadership is archly conservative, cautious to a fault. Decision making is, generally, by consensus and decisions can take a looooong time to materialize. 

 

[Marlowe]

So, China is totally playing the hypocrite condemning Israel regarding the Gaza Flotilla with little to no evidence of what actually transpired.

Still on the fence about the Cheonan though.

Seriously, first the Kim Jong-Il visit, now this--are they trying to look like total dicks? If so, mission accomplished.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Hypocrisy is not new to international politics and the Chinese certainly do not have a monopoly on it.

The Chinese may have fallen into a worse trap: smugness which can lead to hubris.

The Chinese are, I think, pleasantly surprised to find themselves in the catbird seat; everything seems to be going their way. The West is divided, the US' leadership is not unchallenged, the US, itself, appears to lurch from crisis to crisis and mistake to mistake, Europe is trembling on the brink of disaster. It is easy to be smug; it is simple to take advantage of yet another crisis to make China "look good" at America's expense. Obama, unlike Hu, is actually being statesmanlike: he's asking for some time to investigate and consider before he jumps on Israel; but jumping on Israel is too easy and too popular so the Chinese have done it. It is also cheap, given that China/Israel trade is only around $5 Billion/year and is unlikely to slow because of all this.

It is wrong, for the Chinese, to misjudge or underestimate America or to overestimate China's rise.

China is rising, without question, but it is dangerous to believe that China can duplicate the 125 "golden years" of US history (1865 to 1990) in 50 or even 75 years without some major hiccoughs. China does not have America's manifold geographic (space and resources) advantage and America never had China's socio-economic disadvantages. China is rising but pulling equal to and even overtaking America as the world's preeminent "power" is not a foregone conclusion.

 

[dapaterson]

I think DND’s reaction is tailored by a number of considerations, I’m not sure which is more important:
• A stable “peace,” even an artificial peace such as now exists in Korea, is always better than a crisis – even though crises, traditionally, produce opportunities;

• In an almost Elizabethan way, DND make indecision a key element of their policy making. The leadership is archly conservative, cautious to a fault. Decision making is, generally, by consensus and decisions can take a looooong time to materialize.

Two minor changes can also describe the situation here at home...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Who needs Clancy?  He's a pompous....anyway...
1. China launches nuclear assault on DPRK, announcing to the world it only wants to eliminate the DPRK as a threat to Asian economic prosperity.
2. Several dozen low yield tactical nuclear bombs hit targets all across the peninsula.  Within minutes, the DPRK no longer has a functioning government or military.
3. Wave after wave of humanitarian aid flows in, etc. 
In other words, after the nukes, all rather boring.

The worlds reaction will be muted,  either through economic fear or invasion fear. Depending on location. However such an action would open up Panadora box in regards to the use of Tactical nukes.

In TCBF scenario one option missed, ROK comes to the aid of the Chineses forces trapped. The NK army caught between 2 forces with total air superiority (assuming NK used up most of it's aircraft against the Chinese.) the NK folds and collapses. China secure and destroys (or takes) the WMD's out of the country. China and ROK agree on a NK based leadership to run the country. Chinese troops withdraw. China wins for being a proactive world power preventing the use of WMD's (Can we say Iraq), A NK state still exist with a leadership in thrall. ROK wins as it prevents the use of nukes on Korean soil destroys the current regime and gets the Chinese to leave Korean soil, plus ROK does not have to absorb the collapsed state.

 

[CougarKing]

Three Chinese smugglers killed at Northern border by North Korean border guards.

Reuters link

Beijing says North Korea killed three Chinese at border

2 hours, 36 minutes ago


BEIJING (Reuters) - North Korean border guards shot and killed three Chinese suspected smugglers and wounded a fourth last week, prompting a complaint from Pyongyang's only major ally, China's Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.

China formally complained to Pyongyang, and the incident was being investigated, ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a regular news briefing in the Chinese capital.


"In the early morning on June 4, North Korea's border defense troops fired at some citizens of Dandong in Liaoning province, because they were suspected of illegally crossing the border to trade," Qin said.


"Three people were killed, and one was wounded."


Pyongyang has a heavily militarized southern border which sees occasional exchanges of fire, and a South Korean tourist was shot dead by a North Korean soldier in 2008 while at a resort in the North.


But attacks on Chinese citizens are rare. The Sino-Korean border, in China's northeast, is quiet and fairly porous, with a steady flow of refugees and traders coming over to escape food shortages or profit from them.


(...) 

 

[Marlowe]

And Russia is weighing in on the Cheonan investigation, basically giving South Korea the middle finger. A real gem from the article:

But while they admitted that there was no possibility that the external blast was caused by anything other than a torpedo, the Russians never said that a torpedo sunk the ship.

Wow. And I thought the Chinese were bad. The only way the Russians could make this conclusion even more insulting is if they said: "there was no possibility that the external blast was caused by anything other than a North Korean torpedo, but we are not saying the Cheonan was sunk by a North Korean torpedo."

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is more on the China vs. North Korea topic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/china-cools-toward-north-korea-as-trade-with-south-heats-up/article1597451/

China cools toward North Korea as trade with South heats up
Pyongyang’s volatile behaviour making Beijing increasingly uncomfortable

Mark MacKinnon

The dangerous crisis over the sinking of a South Korean warship poses an uncomfortable dilemma for China, which finds itself caught halfway between a historic alliance with North Korea and its increasingly important trading relationship with Seoul. And that was before North Korea’s always unpredictable military shot and killed three Chinese citizens.

The case, and Beijing’s rare expression of disapproval toward its long-time client, will heighten a growing debate in China over how to handle the country’s volatile neighbour. Some were already questioning how much longer to continue supporting the regime of Kim Jong-il, given China’s increasing economic ties with Seoul and Beijing’s desire to broadcast “soft power” throughout East Asia.

The reflexive position – to provide backing and cover for Pyongyang, no matter what its actions – had already been discarded as inappropriate before the latest incident, which saw a North Korean border guard open fire on a group of suspected smugglers.

The shooting occurred Friday, but only came to light Tuesday.

The Chinese citizens “were shot by a DPRK border guard on suspicion of crossing the border for trade activities, leaving three dead and one injured,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said, using the acronym for North Korea’s formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. “China attaches great importance to that and has immediately raised a solemn representation with the DPRK. Now the case is under investigation.”

China has grown increasingly uncomfortable with its role as North Korea’s last major ally, particularly since Mr. Kim’s Stalinist regime defied it by carrying out nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009. China accounts for almost 80 per cent of Pyongyang’s foreign income (excluding shipments between the two Koreas, which are currently suspended), and it’s not clear how long the regime could survive without Beijing’s support.

Ties with the North have cooled as economic links with Seoul have strengthened. Bilateral trade between China and South Korea hit $156.2-billion (U.S.) last year, versus only $2.7-billion in commerce between China and the North. China, Japan and South Korea are also in the midst of a push to put historic animosities aside and sign a three-way free-trade agreement.

“China is about to make the choice: whether we should put the ideological interests ahead of the state’s interests, or vice versa. I think this is a major challenge facing Chinese decision makers,” said Zhang Liangui, a North Korea expert at the influential Central Party School of China’s ruling Communist Party.

Unlike 60 years ago, when China fought alongside the North against a U.S.-led United Nations force, Mr. Zhang said that China would now prefer to remain “relatively balanced” and to let the two Koreas resolve the matter themselves. “The situation has already totally changed and is different from the past. … Even if there are some military clashes, I don’t think China will get a foot into it.”

China’s leadership has long viewed North Korea as a strategic buffer against American influence in the region, and there are factions in Beijing that still worry about what the collapse of North Korea would mean. One nightmare scenario might see China flooded with refugees, and facing a newly united Korea on its border, perhaps with U.S. soldiers still based on its soil.

Others now argue that China’s broader goals in East Asia risk being undermined if Beijing continues to back the unpredictable Mr. Kim. After a meeting in Seoul with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao promised that his country would “defend no one” who was responsible for sinking the corvette Cheonan on March 26, an attack that left 46 South Korean sailors dead.

However, China has yet to accept the results of an international investigation that examined the wreckage and found the warship had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo. Mr. Kim was received in Beijing with full honours just days before the results of the Cheonan investigation were made public.

“I think China is not willing to make a choice between its traditional friendship [with North Korea] and its trading relationship with its neighbours. The international community wants China to make a judgment, but China won’t do so unless she has no other options,” said Jin Linbo, director of the Asia-Pacific division of the China Institute for International Studies.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for Beijing to walk that tightrope. Seoul last week asked the UN Security Council to take action against North Korea in response to the Cheonan sinking. Any action would have to be approved, at least tacitly, by China, which has veto power as one of five permanent members of the Security Council.

South Korea’s vice-foreign minister Chun Yung-woo was dispatched to Beijing on Thursday in an effort to persuade China’s leaders not to use their veto. South Korea has portrayed the Cheonan sinking as part of a pattern of attacks, rather than a one-off incident, linking it with the 1987 bombing of a Korean Airlines jet, which killed 115 people, and a 1983 bomb attack on South Korean cabinet members visiting Burma that killed 17.

The crisis over the Cheonan has unfolded in parallel with an even murkier series of events inside North Korea that seem tied to the question of who will succeed Mr. Kim, who is 69 years old and in failing health.

On Monday, North Korea’s long-serving premier, Kim Yong-il, was shuffled out of his post and Kim Jong-il’s brother-in-law was promoted to a powerful military post. Both moves were seen as further clearing the way for Mr. Kim’s youngest son, Kim Jong-un, to eventually succeed him.

Here are the factors Mark MacKinnon presents, in his order, with my order of importance shown before them.:

5. Very recent shooting of three Chinese citizens by DPRK border guards;

3. DPRK nuclear tests;

2. Increasingly important China<>South Korea economic ties;

1. Kim Jong-il is increasingly erratic;

4. Sinking of the Cheonan

6. Possible coup in the mill – replacing Kim Jong-il with Kim Jong-un.

More important than all of them is what I think is China’s long term goal: a peacefully reunified Korea, without any US military presence, which recognizes China as the regional (East Asian) hegemon.

 

[57Chevy]

N. Korea tells UN it did not sink ship

Says investigation results part of U.S. conspiracy

By JACK KIM, Reuters June 10, 2010


Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Korea+tells+sink+ship/3134355/story.html#ixzz0qSj4xMeI

North Korea has sent a letter to the UN Security Council rejecting accusations from South Korea that it was behind the sinking of one of its neighbour's navy ships, saying it was the victim of a U.S.-led conspiracy.

The letter, addressed to the UN Security Council president from the North's permanent representative to the body, followed the filing of a complaint by the South last week demanding action by the international community to deter further aggression.

A team of international investigators led by South Korea's military said in May that a North Korean submarine torpedoed the corvette Cheonan on March 26, snapping the vessel in half and killing 46 sailors.

North Korea, through its official media, has already rejected the charge, saying it was a ploy by the South's President Lee Myung-bak aimed at political gains for his conservative government.

"With time it is becoming clearer through military and scientific analysis that the 'investigation findings' by the U.S. and the South, which had been from their announcement subject to doubts and criticism, is nothing more than a conspiracy aimed at achieving U.S. political and military goals," said the letter, signed by the North's permanent representative to the UN Sin Son-ho and carried by the official news agency.

"If the Security Council goes ahead with discussions on the 'investigation findings' ... no one will be able to guarantee there won't be grave consequences to peace and stability on the Korean peninsula."

North Korea has driven tensions to new heights in recent weeks by threatening war if Seoul imposes sanctions. The mounting antagonism between the two Koreas has unnerved investors worried about armed conflict breaking out in the region.

Many analysts say neither side is ready to go to war, but see the possibility of skirmishes in a disputed sea border off the west coast or along their heavily armed border.

Despite the tense confrontation, the South said yesterday it had approved the shipments of baby formula for North Korean infants as a rare exception to the ban on trade, travel and movement of goods across their border.

The United States, the South's biggest ally, said Seoul may not seek a full Security Council resolution because of rising tensions. Seoul said it would hold discussions with its allies to ensure action was taken.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

 

[dapaterson]

Interesting article on the hermit kingdom in the NYT today, built on interviews of North Koreans in China -  some visiting, some defecting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/asia/10koreans.html?ref=world&pagewanted=all

 

[CougarKing]

6. Possible coup in the mill – replacing Kim Jong-il with Kim Jong-un.

More important than all of them is what I think is China’s long term goal: a peacefully reunified Korea, without any US military presence, which recognizes China as the regional (East Asian) hegemon.

Kim Jong-un, the son? He probably might just become a figurehead (probably needed after all those years of indoctrinated, cult-like reverence for Kim Il Sung before his death and then his son Kim Jong Il) for any new regime that takes over.

That is if the new regime does not get rid of Kim Jong Il's whole family in the process and another leader- probably one of the more senior generals- takes his place with the "blessing" of Beijing.

As for a unified Korea, what do you think of what was said earlier about a non-aligned, unified Korea?