Nukes and North Korea

[quote]apwsearch wrote:
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.[/quote]

They have a greater incentive to be able to do this than the surrounding countries - their labor costs are dirt. I’m not a labor expert, but I would wager they don’t fund retirement plans over there. If greater incentive were given to other countries (pay more) the quiality would come up.

I used the bracelets as an example, maybe a bad one, but my point is still the same. We can jerk our trade with them. It will drive consumer costs up, but faced with higher costs, or a nuclear threat - I’d pay more.

[quote]I perceive us to be alot more reliant on them than most people think.

IMHO.

[/quote]

I wouldn’t say we are reliant on China. There is not a job done over there that can’t be done somewhere else. It will cost more, but it can be done with the same quality and through-put. Their selling point is their cheap production costs. They don’t have any raw materials that are unique to their region, like the middle-east does. Their commodity is cheap labor/mfg costs.

I will agree that the U.S. has become fat and lazy, which might give the appearance of a reliance on the Chinese. But we can get the same production from other parts of the world, or domestically, if push comes to shove.

vroom,

[quote]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.[/quote]

It’s not the fact they provide food aid. It’s the fact they provide oil and other items to the regime. If it were humanitarian aid, for some reason I don’t think they would be forcibly repatriating those poor souls who try to escape from North Korea.

Simply put, without specific Chinese aid, the Kim Jr. regime would implode. North Korea is basically a vassal state to China. China had to make a little gesture to remind them of this a few years ago – they simply turned off the oil pipeline for a couple days. The Chinese wouldn’t even have to “crush” North Korea – all they need to do is turn off the oil, or open their gates to the refugees who would love to escape (the U.N., by the way, has tried to get the Chinese to quit returning the North Korean refugees, at least some of whom are surely tortured and/or killed – the Chinese have politely listened and then ignored those requests).

North Korea might not be an official Chinese province, but given that China is the reason that regime can survive, it is effectively a Chinese province.

RJ, overall agree. Cost is the issue. Which has huge implications in a global market place.

“They don’t have any raw materials that are unique to their region, ike the middle-east does.”

I do take exception to this statement. Steel, baby.

[quote]apwsearch wrote:
“They don’t have any raw materials that are unique to their region, ike the middle-east does.”

I do take exception to this statement. Steel, baby. [/quote]

In case you didn’t notice it, there was a huge steel shortage here in the U.S. last summer, or the summer before that. The shortage was so severe that some of my clients would bid on jobs and would only honor the bids on the day they were submitted.

Where did all the steel go? I’ll give you three guesses. I don’t know much about China’s mining reserves, but if their iron reserves were very good, why would they rape and pillage the world’s scrap iron supply?

RJ, you are referring to supply, I am referring to cost.

The difference b/t the presence of pervasive unions and intensive regulations, and essentially none.

That’s one thing that I’ve yet to grasp. It’s cheaper for us to round up coffee cans, and old roller skates, sell them for scrap, sell it, ship it to China, have them process it, make stuff out of it, and sell it back to us cheaper than we can do it ourselves. Thanks AFL_CIO.

Rainjack,

Look, I do get your point. I just don’t believe it is in our interest to totally embargo China. I don’t think it is realistic to expect that we will actually do it. I’d expect some type of action to be levied, but it would be far short of a complete embargo.

So, yes, I see your point, but do you really believe it is going to be done? This is why I said we’d have to actually use the stick, not just wave it around.

By the way, a full embargo is hard to do. If you send ships to stop commerce from other nations via force, this is actually considered an act or war - not an economic sanction. I’d suggest finding ways to befriend China would be more productive than finding ways to make a nice big enemy.

Friends are more likely to listen to you when you have concerns.

Boston,

I really think that is all it would take to incent China to solve the problem. Instead of this “de-facto” Chinese province bullshit, give China the thumbs up to officially integrate North Korea as a part of China.

China is turning into a serious economic trading partner with everyone in the region, whereas North Korea is just a boil on the pimple on the worlds ass right now. If none of our allies mind and we don’t care, then offer the damned land to China and be done with it. Beats the hell out of sending out boys into another democracy spreading exercise.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,

Look, I do get your point. I just don’t believe it is in our interest to totally embargo China. I don’t think it is realistic to expect that we will actually do it. I’d expect some type of action to be levied, but it would be far short of a complete embargo.

So, yes, I see your point, but do you really believe it is going to be done? This is why I said we’d have to actually use the stick, not just wave it around. [/quote]

You say you understand. You say you get my point. Then, you proceed to completely miss the point yet again. Trade is a carrot. Not a stick. If we take the carrot away from China, it is not an act of war. We can effectively control who trades with China by simply imposing tariffs on those countries that won’t listen to us.

We have a huge trade deficit, no? That gives us a lot of clout when it comes to ‘convincing’ countries to do what we need them to do wrt the Pacific Rim.

I don’t think I ever advocated a naval blockade -

[quote]
Friends are more likely to listen to you when you have concerns. [/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean by this. If you are talking about China - that tactic hasn’t worked so far.

Is it your contention that China won’t do anything about N. Korea because they’re waiting on the U.S. to do something?

If so - are you of the opinion that if the U.S. acted unilateraly to ‘take care’ of the N. Korea situation, China would let us?

Rainjack, I don’t see why you think I don’t get it. Perhaps becuase I disagree with your precise viewpoint?

You are advocating punishment. That is a stick! Imposing tariffs does not stop trade, it simply “impacts” trade.

I’m not sure that imposing tariffs on countries to force them into doing your bidding is a good way to do things. I’m suggesting the reason China has done nothing about North Korea is it simply has no reason to care. North Korea is not a Chinese problem.

I’m concerned that the US is simply going to throw it’s weight into whatever “sticks” it has available to force other countries to do what it prefers. Exercising might, either military or economic, is not a way to coexist peacefully in the world.

No, I’m not a tree hugging peacenik, but you do understand there are consequences to swaggering around the world stage as if you own the entire world, right?

Finally, I’ve never suggested the US should go into North Korea. What I did suggest is that the whole shitbox could be handed to China as a gift.

Disagree with me all you like, but don’t be such an ass as to assume I don’t understand you. My lack of agreement is not based on not seeing what you are saying, it is on drawing different conclusions than you.

I’ll assume you understand that.

vroom - answer the questions that I asked. You have laid out no postion other than to disagree with what has been said by me and others.

Disagreement does not reflect comprehension. You have given no reasoning for your disagreement.

I’m not trying to be ‘such an ass’, but you have demonstrated very little understanding of the region.

You deny China’s influence over N. Korea, and in doing that you ignore China’s responsibility that goes along with their influence.

Answer the questions I laid out to you. Try to avoid the global kumbaya-isms, and honestly answer the questions.

[quote] vroom wrote:
Boston,

I really think that is all it would take to incent China to solve the problem. Instead of this “de-facto” Chinese province bullshit, give China the thumbs up to officially integrate North Korea as a part of China.

China is turning into a serious economic trading partner with everyone in the region, whereas North Korea is just a boil on the pimple on the worlds ass right now. If none of our allies mind and we don’t care, then offer the damned land to China and be done with it. Beats the hell out of sending out boys into another democracy spreading exercise.[/quote]

That would be fine by me. The South Koreans may not like it – and the Taiwanese may not like it either, just because they don’t like the PRC too much – but it would definitely be an improvement from both the perspective of the average North Korean citizen and the Chinese government (unless they felt obliged to actually fix all the North Koreans’ problems, in which case they might view it as an unnecessary expense), and it would solve the most crucial problem.

Interesting analysis:

Beijing’s Stance on North Korea

By ANNE WU
February 18, 2005

North Korea’s declaration that it has nuclear weapons and withdrawal from the six-party talks on the issue amounts to a slap in the face for China, which had worked hard to facilitate these difficult negotiations. All sides agree that the key to resolving the deadlock now lies in Beijing’s hands.

China’s strategy rests on trying to get Pyongyang back to the negotiating table, as Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing made clear in a weekend telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He said Beijing would press for another round of the six-party talks, which bring together the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan.

Traditionally China has been reluctant to put strong pressure on Pyongyang to achieve such goals, arguing that wielding sticks against the Kim Jong Il regime would only prove counterproductive. Although Beijing has previously been prepared to privately caution North Korea, support a resolution in the International Atomic Energy Agency accusing it of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and even briefly cut off oil supplies for three days in 2003, it has generally opposed economic sanctions or any other form of international pressure which might risk shaking Kim’s regime.

Beijing doubts the effectiveness of sanctions against its hermit neighbor, which has shown substantial resilience and pride. Whenever any country or institution has threatened it in the past, Pyongyang has simply responded by stepping up its rhetoric. Moreover, the spillover effects of imposing sanctions on a neighboring country could be severe. China fears that sanctions could leave it shouldering a heavier economic and social burden, including a greater influx of refugees that would pose both humanitarian and diplomatic dilemmas. It also fears that if sanctions did lead to the collapse of the Kim regime, there would be still worse consequences – potentially even including a geopolitical realignment in Asia.

However North Korea’s declaration of nuclear weapons may have changed the equation. It runs counter to China’s long-declared desire for a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. And it threatens to cause all manner of undesirable effects, not least the risk that Japan, South Korea, and even Taiwan may seek to follow suit.

It’s also becoming much harder for China to resist the growing pressure from the international community to take a tougher line against Pyongyang. U.S. President George W. Bush was quick to share with Beijing the alarming intelligence that North Korea may have sold uranium to Libya, sending Michael Green, the senior director for Asia at the U.S. National Security Council, to China to deliver a personal letter to President Hu Jintao earlier this month. China has so far refused to accept Washington’s assertions that Pyongyang is conducting a secret uranium-enrichment program, or support a U.N. Security Council resolution criticizing North Korea’s behavior. But in the face of increasing pressure from the U.S. and the international community, China may have no choice but to take bolder action. A change of stance on both issues is now possible.

But any new policy will still be a far cry from Washington’s formula of “hawkish engagement” with North Korea. Instead the policy that China is likely to adopt might best be described as “dovish containment.” That means continuing to understand North Korea’s concerns and refusing to consider any punitive measures until all possible peaceful means of resolving the crisis have been exhausted. But it also means making it clear to Pyongyang that, if it continues to take advantage of Beijing’s support to act in a way that undermines China’s credibility and national interest, then there will come a point when Beijing will have to take a tougher stance.

That’s a message which Wang Jiarui, head of the Chinese Communist Party’s international liaison department, will have an opportunity to drive home when he begins a high-level visit to North Korea tomorrow [Friday]. Beijing needs to be more straightforward in making it clear to Pyongyang that its support is not unqualified-as summed up by a Chinese idiom that refers to those who refuse a toast being forced to drink a forfeit instead.

But China will only be prepared to take bolder action if Washington too is prepared to show flexibility. Beijing’s view remains that placing too much pressure on Pyongyang without offering it a way to climb down gracefully will only push North Korea in a corner that could lead to war. That means pressuring Washington to show flexibility over such issues as offering measures to satisfy North Korea’s economic and security needs, and being prepared to accept an initial freeze of Pyongyang’s plutonium program without immediately insisting on its ultimate objective of “complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization.”

China knows full well that both Pyongyang and Washington want its support, and that puts it in a powerful bargaining position. As Sun Tzu said in “The Art of War,” “Those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him.” It’s time for the other parties to seize the initiative from North Korea and jumpstart the talks. And by slightly shifting its policy toward one of dovish containment, China can play an important role in that process.

Ms. Wu, a former official in the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is a fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

My View,

If it isn’t clear, my view is that China has an ability to stand back as a third party, whether or not is has influence or has used influence in the past in this situation. Sure, we’d like them to be accountable, but they can avoid this easily.

I’d suggest that we are in the situation we are in because it serves China’s interest for this situation to exist. This is a potential opportunity for them, with very little downside.

If the US goes to war in North Korea, then China gains some small measure of political capital. If world opinion supports it, China could get involved afterwards and help rebuild, thereby earning more political capital.

If the US will not go to war, or does not have the stomach for it, then China might be given the opportunity to annex North Korea through some type of deal with the west to make this problem go away.

This looks like a win, win, win scenario for China, although various people are suggesting we should beat them with a stick and have them solve the problem.

China has a rock-solid alibi if it can’t achieve results. So, it can “try”, avoid sanctions, and nothing changes. We still have a problem.

It also has a rock solid alibi if it decides to not do anything for humanitarian reasons. Hey, we tried, but the general citizens in North Korea were suffering, so we quit. Again, nothing changes. Since we harp on them for human rights issues, how can we complain if they show concern for humanity in North Korea?

If we invoke a big enough stick to force China to take either failed action, they again get political capital. North Korea is simply not a problem to them. They can slip past the sticks we can wield – avoiding severe sanctions if they are more than threatened – without harm.

I don’t think we are in a position to push China, and I think they are pretending to care about out concerns when the whole situation is simply not a problem to them. If they wanted to solve the problem, it would have been solved.

We have a problem, our nickers are in knot, and we would appreciate it if they could make it go away for us. What do you think we will give up to avoid having to go to war with North Korea? Any guesses?

Rainjack,

I’m not here to have your discussion on North Korea. The questions you are asking have nothing to do with what I’m talking about… and there are zero kumba-ya’isms in anything I’ve said.

Basically, there is probably no point to you and I discussing this… as you would wish me to discuss your view while I am proposing a different view. We both think the other is totally off-base, so be it.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,

I’m not here to have your discussion on North Korea. The questions you are asking have nothing to do with what I’m talking about… and there are zero kumba-ya’isms in anything I’ve said.

I’m concerned that the US is simply going to throw it’s weight into whatever “sticks” it has available to force other countries to do what it prefers. Exercising might, either military or economic, is not a way to coexist peacefully in the world. [/quote]

No kumbaya-isms, huh?

Fine - let’s both agree to admit that the other is in left-field.

But with that said, I’d really be interested in your ideas to fix the nuclear threat in the Pacific Rim. Do you even think there is a problem?

So far you’ve disagreed with everything presented. Do you think that, since China doesn’t have a dog in this fight, the U.S. has a right, or responsibility to remedy N. Korea?

Or is is it your opinion that, if it doesn’t bother China, it shouldn’t bother anyone else?

I don’t think N.K. has made any threatening gestures towards China, but Japan is right in Kim’s cross hairs. Do we not have a duty in the region beyond what you consider our own selfish interests?

My two cents. Whatever the Chines do will be in their own best interest and the rest of the world be dammed.

That is why we need to leverage our trade status with them. RJ is absolutely correct, they don’t manufacture that stuff for shit’s and giggles. They make it because the US buys it. Reagan said it best in the 80’s re: Japan. He said “Japan will listewn to us…we are their best customer”.

The big problem that NK faces is that we will not fight them using conventional forces, in my opinion. I think we will shock and awe them and they will fire off a nuke…probably at Japan. Then all hell breaks loose for them.

It would be better for all concerned if China effected a “regime change”.

If you really want to force China’s hand, and maintain an image of neutrality, I think you do what BB was alluding to.

If we encourage Japan and Taiwan to go nuclear, China will squeal like virgin on prom night.

[quote]
I’m concerned that the US is simply going to throw it’s weight into whatever “sticks” it has available to force other countries to do what it prefers. Exercising might, either military or economic, is not a way to coexist peacefully in the world.

No kumbaya-isms, huh?[/quote]

Is the concept of political capital a little too advanced? You think there is absolutely no harm done by pushing people around? I’m not stating a kumbaya-ism because I’m not saying we should all just love each other and have peace at any cost.

Being prudent or responsible or reasonable would not represent a kumbaya-ism.

[quote]Fine - let’s both agree to admit that the other is in left-field.

But with that said, I’d really be interested in your ideas to fix the nuclear threat in the Pacific Rim. Do you even think there is a problem?[/quote]

What makes you think this isn’t a problem. I’ve stated repeatedly that WE have a problem, that our nickers are in a knot. What part of that sounds like I don’t recognize the issue?

My suggestion is that we either handle the issue ourselves, which is suggestive of military action or perhaps even a clandestine regime change. These are very risky and dangerous choices, so there is another possibility.

Give the Chinese appropriate incentive to take care of the situation for us. The only thing I’m doing different is saying that I doubt we can push China, but they might just be waiting for us to ask them to take care of it in a way they may already prefer to take care of it.

[quote]So far you’ve disagreed with everything presented. Do you think that, since China doesn’t have a dog in this fight, the U.S. has a right, or responsibility to remedy N. Korea?

Or is is it your opinion that, if it doesn’t bother China, it shouldn’t bother anyone else?[/quote]

I’ve disagreed about peoples interpretations of China’s position. If you choose to extrapolate that into our concerns, you’ll have a tough time understanding what I’m talking about.

Again, threats to Japan or South Korea probably don’t keep the Chinese up at night. They are OUR allies. Do we have a duty to protect or support OUR allies, of course we do. Does China have a duty to care about our allies? Probably not.

I’m suggesting that there are ways, other than threats, intimidation and violence, to coerce people. Perhaps the US should consider being a bit more sophisticated. Perhaps it should incent some other countries take the political heat from time to time – with a carrot, and not a stick.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Is the concept of political capital a little too advanced? You think there is absolutely no harm done by pushing people around? I’m not stating a kumbaya-ism because I’m not saying we should all just love each other and have peace at any cost.

Being prudent or responsible or reasonable would not represent a kumbaya-ism.[/quote]

I think you are the one needing help comprehending ‘capital’, whether it be political, or economic.

No one has done anything wrt North Korea except negotiate, and the U.S. has purposely steered clear of unilateral talks.

Who in the hell have we pushed around?

WTF? How much more ‘prudence’ do you want? You are blaming th U.S. for something it hasn’t even done yet. Sounds a bit peace-nikish tome.

How, exactly is our ‘knickers’ knotted? You see a problem but you’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Your ‘blame the U.S. first’ bias is really showing here. We’ve done nothing in the Pacific Rim that would suggest the problem that you’ve manufactured. Name something - anything - that would hint at the U.S. unduly flexing their muscles.

Once again your ‘blame America first’ colors are bleeding through. What have we done in that region that would give you reason to say this? How much more sophisticated can we get? We are letting the International community negotiate. We’ve refused to take a seat at the table. Hell when we were involved we even let Bill Clinton’s own Bill Richardson represent us.

Geez - We do it one way in the middle-east and that’s the wrong way. We’re taking a completely different approach with North Korea and IT’S the wrong way.

But you suggest ‘clandestined regime changes’. Isn’t that the ultimate in abusing our “sticks”?

Rain, Hedo,

Let’s have the international community (France, Germany, Canada) solve this problem.

They are the only ones morally qualified to make a judgement on international affairs.

What a triumvirite!!!

Let’s sit this one out and see what happens!!!

JeffR