North Korea shuns Chinese diplomacy Options

[BigBenChow]

North Korea shuns Chinese diplomacy

Justin McCurry in Tokyo
Thursday July 13, 2006
The Guardian

Hopes for an early end to the North Korean missile crisis were dashed today after China reportedly failed to persuade its ally to stop test-firing missiles and return to six-party talks on its nuclear weapons programme.
Talks between South and North Korea also ended in failure, with Seoul's top negotiator returning home a day earlier than planned.

Attention is now expected to turn to the UN security council, whose permanent members are split on a Japanese motion calling for sanctions against North Korea.

North Korea caused international uproar last week when it test-fired seven missiles into the Sea of Japan, including a long-range ballistic missile thought to be capable of striking the US mainland.
The US assistant secretary of state, Christopher Hill, said Chinese negotiators were "baffled" by North Korea's refusal to respond to diplomatic overtures from its biggest aid donor and closest ally.

"Through this all, we have sought to speak with one voice and make a clear signal on what [the North Koreans] need to do," Mr Hill told reporters in Beijing today. "So far they don't seem to be interested in listening, much less doing anything to address the situation.

"I think the Chinese are as baffled as we are. China has done so much for that country and that country seems intent on taking all of China's generosity and then giving nothing back."

The UN security council had agreed to postpone a vote on sanctions to give more time to China's chief negotiator, Wu Dawei, who is due to return to Beijing tomorrow.

Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the UN, said North Korea had yet to respond to Chinese concerns over the tests.

China and Russia oppose Japan's call for a ban on the transfer of money, technology and materials that could be used for North Korea's missile programme and have tabled a resolution that "strongly deplores" the missile tests but which does not mention punitive measures.

The resolution is being interpreted as a sign that Russia and China are taking a harder line against North Korea; last week they called on the security council only to issue a presidential statement on the tests.

But Japan's UN envoy, Kenzo Oshima, said it would be "very difficult" to accept the Russian and Chinese resolution in its present form.

Mr Hill said he was confident the security council's permanent members could reach agreement. "These are tense times, these are difficult times," he said. "There will be a very strong, very clear message to North Korea."

China, meanwhile, accused Japan of "pouring oil on the fire" after Japan's chief cabinet secretary, Shinzo Abe, said his country should look into the possibility of pre-emptive military strikes against North Korean launch sites. There are question marks over the legality of pre-emptive strikes as Japan's constitution forbids it from using military force to resolve international disputes.

Jiang Yu, a Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman, said of Mr Abe's comments: "This practice is extremely irresponsible and incomprehensible and it will only seriously disrupt international diplomatic efforts and accelerate tensions in north-east Asia."

Mr Abe repeated Japan's determination to push for a security council vote on sanctions now that China's diplomatic efforts appear to have failed. "We can't be twisted around by any attempts to buy time to water down the strong resolve of the international community over the firing of the missiles."

Talks between the two Koreas broke up early after South Korea refused its neighbour's demand for 500,000 tonnes of rice, saying it would suspend all food aid in response to the tests.

The US and South Korea are reportedly considering resuming multilateral talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons programme, even in its absence. "In the event of the North's continued refusal [to attend], a five-party meeting could be an alternative," the Yonhap news agency quoted a South Korean diplomat as saying.

North Korea walked away from the talks, last held in November. It has asked repeatedly for the release of funds in a Macao-based bank frozen by the US Treasury.

This post has been edited by BigBenChow: Jul 13 2006, 08:13 AM

[Suijen]

Cheap-o.

[northwestern_stu...]

doesn't matter. china will support north korea to its bitter end. to china, a divided korea is better than a unified one, or one friendly with the US.

This post has been edited by northwestern_student: Jul 13 2006, 11:21 AM

[ABC in NYC]

I disagree...China wants to keep there $$$ machine going. NK may be getting in the way of that....therefore China wouldnt mind losing ties to them.

doesn't matter. china will support north korea to its bitter end. to china, a divided korea is better than a unified one, or one friendly with the US.

This post has been edited by ABC in NYC: Jul 13 2006, 11:23 AM

[chynagongju]

Both S. Korea and China don't want to see any military action taken against N. Korea. That could easily result in the collapse of the government and tons of refugees flooding into their nations. Which of course, they do not want.

In any case, aren't China and Russia drawing up another resolution but less harsh than the one Japan wrote up?

[mobi3232]

well japan is separated by water so it doesn't have to be worry about refugees. whereas I don't think neither China nor SK wants to see military action. it is going to destabilize the region.

and is NK's military really a walk in the park like some posters make it out to be. you can't just bomb them and expect no retaliation can you?

the end result is NK while defiant is still better than having any military conflict, at least in China's view.

If the U.S. does decide to act militarily, it will be acting alone. China is not going to let the U.S. take off from its bases. I am not sure if SK would support it either but maybe it won't really have a choice if it happens.

This post has been edited by mobi3232: Jul 13 2006, 11:35 AM

[northwestern_stu...]

I disagree...China wants to keep there $$$ machine going. NK may be getting in the way of that....therefore China wouldnt mind losing ties to them.

that's where you're wrong. it is much more beneficial for china political-wise, and economy-wise north korea stays the way it is. the right now norks give the chinese a monopoly in their markets, and good raw materials. the north korean army also patrols the border, keeping north korean refugees from escaping into china. if that gov't collapses, china will be saying goodbye to their korean colony and be inundated with millions of refugees. not a pretty sight.

[chynagongju]

well japan is separated by water so it doesn't have to be worry about refugees. whereas I don't think neither China nor SK wants to see military action. it is going to destabilize the region.

and is NK's military really a walk in the park like some posters make it out to be. you can't just bomb them and expect no retaliation can you?

the end result is NK while defiant is still better than having any military conflict, at least in China's view.

If the U.S. does decide to act militarily, it will be acting alone. China is not going to let the U.S. take off from its bases. I am not sure if SK would support it either but maybe it won't really have a choice if it happens.

Naw. The US will have Japan for sure. Of course there will be retaliation, but in the end, the government, which is weak, will be toppled.

I don't think N. Korea will let it get to military action anyways. KJI probably knows what would happen if the US decided to go ahead and attack, plus the US isn't even equipped for it ATM. I think they're just holding out until they get offered incentives like Iran.

[Suijen]

In any case, aren't China and Russia drawing up another resolution but less harsh than the one Japan wrote up?

Yeah, they are. But sanctions might still be put in place if N. Korea keeps going loco. I doubt that they're going to pre-emptively bomb the hell out of the DPRK though.

[BigBenChow]

Yeah, they are. But sanctions might still be put in place if N. Korea keeps going loco. I doubt that they're going to pre-emptively bomb the hell out of the DPRK though.

China should bomb NK. Good exercise for the PLA. Actual battlefield experience will do China good.

[Suijen]

China should bomb NK. Good exercise for the PLA. Actual battlefield experience will do China good.

You bash children with hammers.

[BigBenChow]

You bash children with hammers.

I bash children with hammers?
What do you mean?

[epicanthics]

doesn't matter. china will support north korea to its bitter end. to china, a divided korea is better than a unified one, or one friendly with the US.

shortsided view.

current trend in S. Korea is moving away from the US. notice how the rift in the six parties right now is SK/China/Russia <> USA/Japan?

United Korea will pose no more of a security threat than it does now, probably less, since there will be neither US troops nor crazy hypermilitarized regimes to worry about on the peninsula.

maybe beijing has realized this.

[Chinese_Soldier]

shortsided view.

current trend in S. Korea is moving away from the US. notice how the rift in the six parties right now is SK/China/Russia <> USA/Japan?

United Korea will pose no more of a security threat than it does now, probably less, since there will be neither US troops nor crazy hypermilitarized regimes to worry about on the peninsula.

maybe beijing has realized this.

Unless US troops continue to station on the Korean Penninsula.

[BigBenChow]

Unless US troops continue to station on the Korean Penninsula.

For what purpose?

[mobi3232]

For what purpose?

what else, Chinese containment.

unless Korea expressively states in written agreement that it will not harbor U.S. troops on its soil, I highly doubt China will even consider it. The U.S. is sure not going to leave on its own accord. What is in it for the U.S.? Why would it risk its own military and aircraft over NK and just leave right before the dust has settled? Do all the fighting and then leave? no way is the U.S. going to agree to it.

This post has been edited by mobi3232: Jul 13 2006, 03:36 PM

[shaolin01]

Those NK are pushing for a invasion. i doubt they care about it though

[epicanthics]

what else, Chinese containment.

unless Korea expressively states in written agreement that it will not harbor U.S. troops on its soil, I highly doubt China will even consider it. The U.S. is sure not going to leave on its own accord. What is in it for the U.S.? Why would it risk its own military and aircraft over NK and just leave right before the dust has settled? Do all the fighting and then leave? no way is the U.S. going to agree to it.

Because the South wants them out. Oh, of course, China would be the next intrinsic threat after the North is gone on the peninsula. But how many Chinese troops are actually amassed north of the Yalu? Not many. And most of those have their guns pointed towards Vladivostok, not Korea. It's all about Casus Belli. If China does nothing to help the north, Korea will feal less threatened. The less threatened they feel, the less justification for US troops to remain.

Sure, the US can stick around. But against the wishes of an increasingly independant minded S. Korea, and with a force the same size as the one currently posted? What better way to drive Korea further away from the US than an unwanted military presence? Heh.

Keep your troops, lose your face. Save your face, lose your troops. gg.

This post has been edited by epicanthics: Jul 13 2006, 03:51 PM

[BigBenChow]

what else, Chinese containment.

unless Korea expressively states in written agreement that it will not harbor U.S. troops on its soil, I highly doubt China will even consider it. The U.S. is sure not going to leave on its own accord. What is in it for the U.S.? Why would it risk its own military and aircraft over NK and just leave right before the dust has settled? Do all the fighting and then leave? no way is the U.S. going to agree to it.

You think the SK would still want the US around running over little girls with their tanks once NK's regime is gone? No. They would want to control the peninsula on their own without any foreign powers present. Why would the US want to keep troops on the peninsula for? to invade China?

[mobi3232]

well it does sound good to China and Korea but what about the U.S.? it will be the one doing all the fighting and then leaving and then ending up with less influence in E. Asia? why would it possibly agree to that?