I hear your words, but what are you saying. Are you saying Japan would suddenly develop nuclear weapons because it could not rely on the US to help ensure retaliation against North Korea?
Are you suggesting that the US will pull out of South Korea and turn a blind eye if North Korea nuked them? Is this your point?
I doubt it. Mutally assured destruction is in place whether or not North Korea has nukes. The question is who is in danger and who has incentive to defuse the situation. I’d suggest that North Korea is putting pressure on the USA and her allies.
From China’s point of view, nobody is going to be stupid enough to attack them, so what difference does all of this pissing and moaning make to them? I do realize our concerns, but nobody has convinced me that China shares our concerns in a meaningful way.
The bigger the stakes the better the bargaining position – this has traditionally been the way the world works.
The stakes are getting pretty damned big. China has been able to simply not play the game… waiting for the US, her allies and North Korea to do whatever it is they are planning to do, if anything.
Who, if anyone, will benefit if there is armed conflict in the region? Perhaps more importantly, who will or won’t lose?
I know what you are saying, but that is entirely from our point of view. Perhaps China doesn’t give a crap whether or not we consider them a respectable world economic power.
Their size, capabilities and economy are simply things… whether or not we appreciate them having very little to do with their continued operation.
[/quote]
You’re wrong, vroom. To merely dismiss, out-of-hand, the economic implications of what is going on wrt China and N. Korea is very, very short-sighted.
Look at your monitor. Look at the pieces that make up your computer. Look at your watch. Hell - look at everything in your house that is either electronic, made from plastic, or you wear on your feet. Now multiply those items times 280 million. That’s how much work (read money) the U.S. throws China’s way. The U.S. has been a very major player in the economic boom in China. That’s a pretty big chunk of change to label as ‘just things’.
Money talks, bullshit walks. If threatened with losing a substantial cog in their economic machine, or standing up and taking care of N. Korea - money should win. Trade is a much, much bigger stick than you want to admit.
China doesn’t have to spend a dime to fix the problem - a simple phone call will force N. Koreans to make a very important choice. If China were to make that call, they would undoubtedly have the full support of the International Community.
I hear your words, but what are you saying. Are you saying Japan would suddenly develop nuclear weapons because it could not rely on the US to help ensure retaliation against North Korea? [/quote]
Essentially, yes. Though not necessarily because it couldn’t rely on the US – more to make the threat to NK seem more immediate, and to placate a population that is faced by a relatively unstable regime that has demonstrated it has the technology to send a missle as far as Japan that is suddenly a nuclear-armed regime. Not to mention that historic relations between Japan and Korea are not what one would consider friendly.
Not at all. The point is that Japan and Taiwan, and perhaps even South Korea, would cease to be willing to rely solely on U.S. power as a deterrant.
They aren’t unintelligent actors. The Japanese, Taiwanese and South Koreans all realize that while perhaps North Korea could threaten Alaska with a missle – eventually – they are all within an immediate danger zone. That makes for differing incentives on how to face the problem than we would have – and they would want the precise same incentives, given that they are the ones in the kill zone. Our main concern with North Korea is the threat of proliferation – Japanese, Taiwanese and South Korean main threats are mushroom clouds.
China and the U.S. have been providing stability. But if China allows North Korea to go nuclear, that will change to calculation too much.
Yes – though much more pressure on our allies, given the above. The key calculation is how to put the pressure back on North Korea, and that answer seems to be through China. How to put pressure on China? The threat of nuclear-capacity escalation in East Asia.
First, Japan, Taiwan and S. Korea are essentially depending on U.S. good graces. While this might seem fine to us – Hell, I think they can trust us – it might not seem enough for them.
S. Korea has taken the appeasement line, mostly because North Korea has a much bigger army and the South Korean capital is within spitting distance of the conventional forces at the North Korean border. South Korea might decide that an Israeli strategy is much better defense – have nukes and threaten to use them – if North Korea is nuclear armed.
Japan is faced with an unstable regime of a traditional enemy going nuclear – and one that has fired missles over Japan “just for testing purposes.” If it envisions a re-unified Korean peninsula dominated by North Korea and nuclear armed – a possibility it would be foolish not to consider – then it might be inclined to arm itself. When one considers that Japan has basically no conventional military, that incentive grows tremendously.
It’s not so much that China would worry that some other country would attack it – it’s more the tremendous decrease in the value of the superiority of its conventional forces if the other countries in the area have nukes as a weapon of last resort. This is particularly a concern with Taiwan, a country toward which China has been rattling its saber since the Communist revolution. The recent Taiwanese election and the belligerent dialogue directed at mainland China seem to indicate Taiwan would be happy to acquire nuclear technology if it could – and it could with U.S. acquiescence and/or aid.
[quote]The bigger the stakes the better the bargaining position – this has traditionally been the way the world works.
The stakes are getting pretty damned big. China has been able to simply not play the game… waiting for the US, her allies and North Korea to do whatever it is they are planning to do, if anything.
Who, if anyone, will benefit if there is armed conflict in the region? Perhaps more importantly, who will or won’t lose?[/quote]
Exactly. And what would be bigger stakes for China than the threat of a nuclear build up in East Asia?
Japan and Taiwan haven’t decided to go nuclear yet – but they could, quickly.
Japan is classified as a “Virtual Nuclear State”. They have developed a complete nuclear fuel cycle (including plutonium breeding and extraction) but have only refrained from developing nuclear weapons because of the cultural stigma involved. North Korea’s antics over the last decade have been eroding this cultural taboo at an ever-increasing rate. Serious analysts of Japan’s nuclear industry argue that Japan could go nuclear within six weeks of deciding to do so.
Also, Japan has several delivery systems, including a orbital rocket that could be developed into an ICBM rather quickly.
I don’t know about Taiwan’s capability, but if we were to imply to China that we would help, that changes the perceptions rather quickly.
Fear is a dangerous thing. Especially when you are a couple of hundred miles from a madman.
[/quote]
I have been reading this waiting for somebody to mention Japan.
Based on figures from 1995, China actually has a greater presence in the Japanese market place, in terms of market share, than in the US market. (@18% vs. 11%)
In terms of trade, Japan arguably carries a big stick in convincing China to assert itself against North Korea, as well.
[quote]apwsearch wrote:
Based on figures from 1995, China actually has a greater presence in the Japanese market place, in terms of market share, than in the US market. (@18% vs. 11%)
In terms of trade, Japan arguably carries a big stick in convincing China to assert itself against North Korea, as well.
The question is their willingness.
[/quote]
I think Japan’s pie is a lot smaller than ours, though. But if enough of the Pacific Rim joins the U.S. in flexing their economic muscles, China would be hard pressed to ignore them, and choose to be an enabler to a mentally short-handed N. Korea.
No question. Particularly when you factor in US manufacturing in China.
But from a regional standpoint, Japan is in a position of relative strength.
We are partners in 4 manufacturing facilities in China and are also trying to develop a presence in the export industry. China is just getting started.
Sigh, I’m not a moron guys, I understand the arguments… really. I just question whether our assumptions of the situation are valid.
The economic impact would indeed be huge, but is it something the US is really willing to undertake? Severely punish China because some other country is misbehaving? This is a strange course of action to take… if you really think about it. What responsibility does China reasonably have in this situation?
Also, the arguments for why China would prefer not to see nuclear proliferation sound rather like talking points manufactured to butress our own position. Is this really the way the Chinese see the situation?
Do they really care about the “dilution” of convential forces due to the availability of nukes in the area? That is a significant statement and would reflect an understanding of the concepts of military might within the Chinese viewpoint that I don’t think we have here. Are they planning on being an expansionist country beyond their current concepts of repatrioting wayward regions?
I’m thinking the Chinese are laughing at our problem. They don’t have much stake in it, they aren’t at fault for it and we want them to put on the pressure and solve it for us. What are we going to offer them for this assistance, other than a lack of some new punishment?
…
Japan is faced with an unstable regime of a traditional enemy going nuclear – and one that has fired missles over Japan “just for testing purposes.” If it envisions a re-unified Korean peninsula dominated by North Korea and nuclear armed – a possibility it would be foolish not to consider – then it might be inclined to arm itself. When one considers that Japan has basically no conventional military, that incentive grows tremendously.[/quote]
Great discussion. I mostly agree with your evaluation. Interestingly enough, the jieitai (Japanese Self Defense Forces) are actually quite big, although they are - for constitutional reasons - not an official army:
"The Self Defence Forces, created under the SCAP in 1950, caused an as-yet unresolved argument over their existence being unconstitutional.
With 231,500 men and 8,000 women soldiers, it is one of the biggest armies in the world.
6.1 percent of government spending or one percent of GDP was spent on defence in 1999.
The Treaty of Mutual Co-operation and Security, 1960 (confirmed in 1970), allows US bases all over Japan still causing protests by Japan’s considerable peace movement." http://www.amrc.org.hk/5207.htm
And for further reading:
This article argues that the big and very modern, but until recently pretty much useless - in terms of international action - army is slowly gaining the ability to act. Which is good from a western view, but tends to make its Asian neighbours (including North Korea) nervous.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sigh, I’m not a moron guys[/quote]
The jury is still out on that one, vroom
[quote]I understand the arguments… really. I just question whether our assumptions of the situation are valid.
The economic impact would indeed be huge, but is it something the US is really willing to undertake? Severely punish China because some other country is misbehaving? This is a strange course of action to take… if you really think about it. What responsibility does China reasonably have in this situation?[/quote]
China is the last bastion of the cold-war. Remember the old Soviet Union? What did we call the countries in Eastern Europe? Do you remember? That’s right - the Soviet-bloc countries. Why do you suppose they were referred to as such? I’ll give you a hint - if you look at an old map, you’ll see a hyooge country just to the east of the Soviet-bloc nations. What country do you think that is? Right again - the U.S.S.R. - or the Soviet Union.
Now - when anyone needed any of the Soviet-bloc countries to do anything, who did they call? East Germany? Poland? Czechoslavkia? No. They called on Mother Russia. China’s responsibility for North Korea is the same thing. When you deal with North Korea you are, by default dealing with the Chinese to a large extent. China has a huge responsibility in this matter.
They are at fault for it, ultimately. You give the impression that you think China is just a bystander without a dog in this fight. You can believe that if you want to, but watch where you step, the Pacific Rim is full of Chinese dog shit.
Rainjack, considering we rely on much Chinese technology and production, are you saying that we wouldn’t hurt at all if we suddenly turned a blind eye to all economic dealings with China for this situation? I have to agree with Vroom, I don’t see what the incentive truly is aside from us hoping they take the “good buddy” position. Perhaps we slightly overestimate our position in this one?
Also, did we just suddenly become the World Police? USEPD (United States Earth Police Department)? When did we pick up this title and how long do we plan to run with it…until we depleat our military forces? How big are those doughnuts?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sigh, I’m not a moron guys, I understand the arguments… really. I just question whether our assumptions of the situation are valid.
The economic impact would indeed be huge, but is it something the US is really willing to undertake? Severely punish China because some other country is misbehaving? This is a strange course of action to take… if you really think about it. What responsibility does China reasonably have in this situation?
Also, the arguments for why China would prefer not to see nuclear proliferation sound rather like talking points manufactured to butress our own position. Is this really the way the Chinese see the situation? [/quote]
vroom,
The point is that we need to make sure China sees it that way. This can be done through some coordinated diplomacy to make them realize, “Whoops, Japan and Taiwan may be serious about acquiring nukes, and acquiring them quickly.”
Yes, they do. Because military superiority is not good only for using it militarily. It is quite valuable simply for the threat of using it – and nuclear arms in Taiwan and Japan would severely reduce that value.
They have the responsibility of a country that has acted to keep the North Korean regime in power – they have done so directly with financial aid and by keeping the starving population from leaving via the northern border – China forcibly repatriates refugees to North Korea. That’s enough in my book.
To get them to act, however, they need to believe that it is in their best interests – it’s up to us and our allies to make them see it that way.
That was a very interesting article – especially since it attributed most of the resurgence of the Japanese military that has occurred thus far to the actions of the North Koreans (and a little to the hinted cut-backs in U.S. military presence that occurred under Clinton).
It seems that I haven’t been paying close attention to the Japanese build up – they have a very large navy (maybe as big as the third most powerful in the world), and have been building up their army as well.
However, even with that, I do think they have an added urgency to go nuclear – firstly just to balance the North Koreans with their own power and ability to project it (rather than relying on us), and secondly because they’ve got to wonder what a 50-year layoff has done to their military culture w/r/t the conventional forces they have built.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Rainjack, considering we rely on much Chinese technology and production, are you saying that we wouldn’t hurt at all if we suddenly turned a blind eye to all economic dealings with China for this situation? [/quote]
We rely on Chinese labor not their technology. China is our unskilled labor - for lack of a better analogy.
Say that you were the Chief Administrator at your hospital. You have the custodial duties contracted out to a custodial firm. For the last month and a half, the custodial crew has been stealing stuff out of the patients’ rooms. You’ve talked to the contractor about it, and he acts as if it’s really not that big of a deal. In fact he could care less. For the safety of your patients - what would you do?
You would probably void your contract with that contractor and find someone else to do the job. Who feels the largest economic damage? You might end up paying more for your custodial work, but the guy you just fired feels the impact more than you do.
Then you and vroom are adrift on the sea of confusion. I’ve explained my reasoning time and again. Yet you and vroom seem content just to say that you disagree. I’d really like to see some reasoning behind your argument. I’d like to see you explain away China’s dependence on our money. I’d like to see some logic on WHY China has no incentive to work with the U.S.
Have you picked up a newspaper since 1945? More recently are you aware that the United Sataes is the only remaining world superpower? Are you aware that we have the largest economy on the planet? I don’t think the word ‘suddenly’ can be used to describe anything regarding our role on the Global stage. And as far as I know we haven’t lost a soldier in the Pacific rim since the mid 1970’s.
Have you picked up a newspaper since 1945? More recently are you aware that the United Sataes is the only remaining world superpower? Are you aware that we have the largest economy on the planet? I don’t think the word ‘suddenly’ can be used to describe anything regarding our role on the Global stage. And as far as I know we haven’t lost a soldier in the Pacific rim since the mid 1970’s.
[/quote]
I do realize that we are the remaining superpower. However, I also know that if we take the role as “the world’s big brother” we have the risk of creating enemies, not with countries who fear our military power, but with individuals who will turn towards more “terrorist related” activities. In essence, we run the risk of creating the very thing we are supposed to be fighting if we don’t approach our role with an added sense of unity rather than fear of retaliation. I understand that our military power and economic standing are what create our current place in the world…however, we were not always the world’s super power and your claim of lives lost at the Pacific Rim could easily change in the future based on our approach here as well.
I won’t claim to understand all of the inner workings of the situation we are involved in with Korea. However, I do understand human nature and the response to “control”. We are still playing a chess game. We haven’t gained so much control that we can just toss out the whole board and declare ourselves winners over the world…at least not yet.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I won’t claim to understand all of the inner workings of the situation we are involved in with Korea. However, I do understand human nature and the response to “control”. We are still playing a chess game. We haven’t gained so much control that we can just toss out the whole board and declare ourselves winners over the world…at least not yet.
[/quote]
The funny thing about this situation is that the U.S. has purposely tried to distance itself from the negotiations - to stay above the fray, if you will. It is the North Koreans who are begging the U.S. to the table.
Where the U.S. money being spent in the Middle-East is on a tangible commodity - one we can’t get anywhere else, the money that is spent in the P.R. is for a ‘commodity’ that can be found anywhere on the globe - cheap labor.
This gives the countries in the Pacific Rim an incentive to want to get along with us. If the region gets to dicey - we will find a safer place to have our “Livestrong” bracelts made. On the flipside of the coin, the middle-east can hate us all they want - we need their oil and they know it.
Based on these disinct differences between the two regions, our diplomacy must be distinctly different as well. I don’t think you’ve heard anyone except me and a few other hawkish cheerleaders championing the use of the strongarm tactic. I think the State Department has a little better grasp of the global pulse thatn a punk-ass accountant stuck in the middle of no-where.
The funny thing about this situation is that the U.S. has purposely tried to distance itself from the negotiations - to stay above the fray, if you will. It is the North Koreans who are begging the U.S. to the table.
Where the U.S. money being spent in the Middle-East is on a tangible commodity - one we can’t get anywhere else, the money that is spent in the P.R. is for a ‘commodity’ that can be found anywhere on the globe - cheap labor.
This gives the countries in the Pacific Rim an incentive to want to get along with us. If the region gets to dicey - we will find a safer place to have our “Livestrong” bracelts made. On the flipside of the coin, the middle-east can hate us all they want - we need their oil and they know it.
Ummmm, I don’t know. I can speak from experience in telling you that China is unique in their ability to tool up rapidly, and their facilities are becoming more and more modern.
In terms of cheap labor as it relates to large scale manufacturing, they basically compete with the Eastern block. (Livestrong bracelets are a poor example b/c they are much more portable than alot of the manufacturing that is being outsourced to China and the Eastern Block.) The difference being the Chinese are rapidly improving their ability to manage high throughput, low tolerance processes.
Taiwan is not much of a factor at this point in time as they still lack the sophistication in tooling and the ability to produce a consistently quality product.
I perceive us to be alot more reliant on them than most people think.
I understand your point, about the Chinese wanting to conduct business with us, but even if we were to impose sanctions or tariffs, it wouldn’t end. There would be a reduction.
I believe the Chinese are entering a period where they are so focused on growth and development within their own country that they are not expansionistic or outward focused at this time.
Boston,
As for North Korea, on the one hand stopping the citizens from starving is simply humanitarian aid. Is the US responsible for Africa because it sends a lot of food and money over there?
What I don’t get, is why China is responsible for the actions of another sovereign country all of a sudden. I realize they are big and could crush North Korea at any time.
For example, lets say Canada gets a hair up it’s ass, develops nukes and starts playing rough with Iceland. Is the UN or the European Block going to turn to the US and say, “Hey, you’d better put a leash on Canada or else”?
I’m thinking, if anything, China would love to be given the authority to solve the problem militarily. Blam. Thank you. North Korea is now a Chinese province. No need to worry anymore. Go on about your business.
Other than that, I think you’ll need a pretty damned big stick… and I think you’ll actually have to use it instead of wave it around. North Korea is nothing to them but a minor expense. To all the allies in the area, it is a huge nightmare. If I were Chinese I’d be looking to the allies (that’s us) for offerings, not punishments, so that I’d step in and fix things for them.
Otherwise, piss off, I’ve got an infrastructure and populace to soak up my attention. If you haven’t noticed, China is rapidly becoming a huge economic machine in its own right. It is no longer the home of cheap plastic toys that last a maximum of five minutes.
So, my real question remains, how does our desire for China to take responsibility equate to actual responsibility on behalf of China to solve this problem? We can blame them for it, we can punish them for it, but what are they supposed to do about it?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Otherwise, piss off, I’ve got an infrastructure and populace to soak up my attention. If you haven’t noticed, China is rapidly becoming a huge economic machine in its own right. It is no longer the home of cheap plastic toys that last a maximum of five minutes.[/quote]
You still don’t get it, vroom. They don’t just make these products for their own shits and giggles. They have to have a MARKET. A MARKET, VROOM. If they have no place to sell their wares - the money machine stops spitting out yen, or whatever-the-hell their currency is. They don’t have the domestic techno-advancement to use the products they make at home. They have to export. If a U.S.-led international trade embargo were to be imposed on China they would implode. I can’t make it any clearer than I already have.
I’m not advocating trade sanctions as a first-step cure to the problem, although I think it would be highly effective. I’m just saying that continuing trade relations with China is a huge huge carrot for the Chinese.
Instead of trying to debunk the ideas presented here, why don’t you explain why you think China is immune from any possible action that has been presented? All you’ve said so far is that China doesn’t need U.S. money, and they’re really not scared of the military threat posed by the U.S. and our friends in the Pacific Rim.
