http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-08...ea_N.htm?csp=34

If the US troops left than China still would not want a united Korea. They don't want a democracy nearby.

Do you agree or disagree?

It depends.

The grand calculus of regional geopolitics is, in the end, a game of give-and-take. The Chinese leadership certainly doesn't want a vibrant democracy right next doors. But it also doesn't want a militant, nuclear-armed North Korea that's perennially escalating tensions. What they would prefer, of course, is a Korea friendly to Chinese interest, and which doesn't threaten the Chinese regime. That's all there is to it, really.

"China's communist leadership may want to preserve North Korea as a buffer state, rather than see a unified Korea ruled by U.S.-allied Seoul that could bring a democratic government and American troops to China's doorstep."

That pretty much sums it up. There is no way the US troops are leaving, and reunification would allow US troops to set up bases nearer to the Chinese border.
Moreover, reunification = South Korean army + North Korean military + US troops - and no country would want that near their borders.

I don't think democracy is that big a threat for China. China is having friendly relations with many democracies, and its citizens frequently visit/study abroad at other democratic nations.

North Korea as a democratic state would offer both disadvantages and advantages in my belief. The disadvantage of which I can think right now is that North Korea would become a competing cheap labor market that South Korea could exploit. The advantage is that North Korea market would have a greater appetite for Chinese goods.

I'm pretty sure there will be more advantages than disadvantages given the current circumstances of North Korea.
Unified Korea would also means more trade between China/Russia/Japan and Korea.

Unified Korea also brings power balance on the region, so region can be focus on more economic ties than military stand off.
Would you rather have friendly & rich nation next to you? or have poor/desperate and angry nation?

NK regime collapse also means in the shorter term mass of Korean refugees crossing the border and flooding China.

Not necessary don't want a democracy nearby (China don't even care); China don't want an inimcal Country nearby.
Even the korea is not yet united, korean already started claim that Baekdu Mountain is their territory.
China of course does not such imperial nation near by.

On the other hand, If US does not give up their military bases in Korea, China would do any thing to resist reunification

"Imperial nation" ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL.

The most retarded post so far. And mount Baekdu? LOL don't kid yourself.

That pretty much sums it up.

I don't think it's quite that simple. You know it and I know it. China is scared $hitless about a reunified Korea influencing the manchurian region, so it is using the North Korean plight to pursue it selfish interests for hegemony in North East Asia. Chinese interests are opposed to Korean interests, but unlike Korea, China can and will pursue it's interests at the expense of human dignity, rights and moral standard. That's what sums it up.

I wouldn't say scared $hitless, just not within an her interests obviously. As for Korean influence on the Manchurian region, what influence are you talking about? What is defined as Manchuria today (Dongbei region in Chinese) is either Sinofied or Russiafied.

Influence can take many forms in a globalized society. China feels it needs tight control to keep its empire intact, so it fears other influencing forces within its borders. Korea has a strong historical ties to Manchuria, but also has very high potential for economic and cultural influence there as well. Keep in mind that Korean influence in Manchuria is not a bad thing and would probably promote further integration and more dynamic and productive economic and cultural activity in the region. However, since China is after hegemony and is insecure about the stability of her empire, she pursues zero-sum game activities that cause dis-integration and instability without concern for the livelihood of the people, the division of the Korean people or regard for today's moral standards, hence her support for a tyrannical North Korean buffer regime.

Not that I'm agreeing with what your saying but under the assumption that your statement is true, it's not unreasonable for the PRC government to feel that way.



So does China.



Economic influence? Perhaps, trade will always be a form of economic influence.
Cultural? I don't see it. Like I said, the Dongbei Region is already sinified and the Outer region is Russiafied.

Please so keep in mind that having a foreign power with an abundance of influence over a certain region could also be a political powder keg and I think the PRC government's concern in this case is well justified.

OK, so we're in agreement here. lol. Once again, we both know what's going on and the world is also learning the truth and will pursue their own interests for a balance of power in the region. China can join the global community or it can forever be ostrisized, which will eventually, as it always does, lead to history repeating itself.

Manchuria is pratically han territory so whatever influence a unified Korea would bring/have will be very limited in my opinion...

I have a hunch that China already knows this.



You make it seem as if China is some outcast that's been exiled by the rest of the world. Sorry but that's far from the truth. While the country has indeed butted heads on several political issues, there is also plenty of cooperation, politically and economically between China and other regions of the world. China also has her fair share of clout/leverage in this world. Trust me, China has no intention to ostracize herself from the international community. Your repeat of history comment is mainly based off of wishful thinking.

Imo China has two primary political objectives concerning Korean reunification. The first objective is the removal of USFK and termination of the US/ROK alliance. This would create a vacuum. The second objective is to fill that vacuum instead of having the void filled by a strong and independent Korea. In some ways I suspect the Chinese would like to go back to the future, i.e., return to the Middle Kingdom with Korea as a tributary state. Imo if these objectives can be fulfilled the Chinese hegemon would be amenable to Korean reunification.

More or less. It is the pragmatic stance to take with regards to zero-sum geopolitics. A strong, independent Korea would likely ally with similar-minded nations to oppose Chinese dominance, thereby threatening to the stability of the Chinese regime. Thus, even such a scenario is unfavorable for China, much less an US-allied "unsinkable carrier" right next doors.

Since Asian integration isn't likely to happen, I feel that the future of Korea will depend heavily on the domestic politics of the North Korean regime.

^ Well, if this is the case, shouldn't that make China Korea's greatest enemy and threat?

Found this story on the internet that talks about what the problems China could face if Korea was united.

Threat at stability of the Chinese regime. LOL. Aparrently China is just another Iraq waiting for the mighty 'coalition of the willing' to come in and change it's 'regime'.

'Unsinkable aircraft carrier'?. Koreans it seems are more then willing to play at being a TOOL. Are willing to go farther than i had imagined.

Not necessarily. Like baal said, there are conditions under which China would support Korean reunification and prosperity. All you have to do is accept "beta" status.

Nation-states are like a pack of wolves. They'll abide by one alpha for a time, but as soon as they detect weakness, the competition is on.

Imo that depends on who the Korean people want to be. There is a high price to be paid for independence. The Korean people have not always been prepared to pay that price. More often than not Koreans have accepted Chinese suzerainty. Sometimes vassalage has been beneficial. Think Imjin War.

Edit: Are the people of Korea as brave as the people of Cuba?

Found this part particulary amussing:

"Third, remember all that South Korean investment in China? We're talking billions. It would all go home, into building a united country. (China is South Korea's biggest trading partner, by the way)."

South Koreans do tend to over-estimate their self worth! Apparently Korean billions are not invested in the PRC to take advantage of the excelent infrastructure, stable governement, tax incentives (former) , cheap labour and huge comsummer market? In other words, at making a PROFIT. The person making this point has obviously mistaken INVESTMENT as AID. How is pulling your 'billions' out when they are generating good return beneficial for united Korea?

A more likely scenario is that a United Korea will need huge monetary input from institutions like the IMF, world bank or Asia development Bank. In this case, Chinese money will likely play a huge roll.

What make you think united Korea need IMF help? when they can easily obtain foreign investment.
What China is afraid is their foreign investors might moving into North Korea once South Korean govt take control over North Korea, also united Korea means North & South Korean military + US allies which China doesn't want that.

Also, many Chinese seeking political silence will have safe haven in Korean boarders... not only this, Euro-Asia or Trans siberian railway line will be establish by passing China.
and China's leverage with USA will be reduce once North Korea out of game zone and Koreans will access to Siberia's oil/gas pipes.

By looking at current status of North Korea, North Korea won't be able to keep up with South Korea even with China's support.
Which mean, unification is eventually happen, what China want is unification with Taiwan to happen before this happen.

The political stability of Chinese territorial integrity is itself the cause of regional instability and suffering for many oppressed peoples under Chinese colonial rule. China's much like the Japanese Empire in early 20th century, except that China's rise is much more gradual.

Korea IS an "Unsinkable aircraft carrier" in a sense. This doesn't mean Korea's a tool. It simply denotes the strategic advantage of Korea's location in attacking China's eastern coasts and its capital, Beijing. Of course, this will serve as a great merit for us to make and maintain military alliance with countries that want to keep China at bay.

The rise of China creates instability in the region in the sense that a change in power dynamics is shifting the power balance.
Stability will eventually return creating a scene that better reflects the new power balance. This new balance is not necessarily better or worse than the previous, it just happens naturally.

I don't think it's in Korea's interests to be an "unsinkable aircraft carrier." It can only be an aircraft carrier from the perspective of a foreign country taking advantage of it's proximaty to the foreign country's military targets. This pretty much means that Korea would be used as a tool for that foreign country; being an aircraft carrier places Korea in the hazard of being drawn into conflicts it otherwise would have avoided.

As a result of Korea's geographical location it cannot escape being drawn into conflicts. Northeast Asia may be the bloody fulcrum of the 21st century. Russia, China, Korea, and Japan have issues to resolve.

Right. An 'unsinkable-aircraft carrier'. LOL, do you even read what you write! Because what you have(in mind) written frames your beloved future United Korea perfectly and exactly that; a tool.

"United Korea" always ready at Uncle Sam's disposal.

Meanwhile you are setting up your military alliance, China already got the SCO. If I remember my history correctly, one of the main causes of WW1 and WW2 is alliance colliding with eachother. NATO, SCO, and now korea wants another alliance. Looks like WW3 will be in time for 2012.



You forgot US interests in the region.

I didn't forget US interests. I just didn't mention America's possible interests. That's because I think there is disagreement among Americans about what those interests might be.

Former SK President Roh had an impact on my perception of the US/ROK alliance. Then the Mad Cow Riots in SK soured me on the alliance. Then Obama came along and my focus is now primarily domestic.

But that doesn't mean I would be unwilling to sell arms to the states of NE Asia so they can conduct an arms race with each other. America might as well sow dragon's teeth.

id say the Russian CTSO is a far bigger counter to NATO than SCO is.

No. This is where you are mistaken in an otherwise spot-on analysis. The Japanese Empire was an aberration - Japan's one shot at glory, and can be entirely understood within the context of the destabilizing effects created by the West's geopolitical games in Asia. The Chinese Empire, by contrast, is an indigenous tradition of Eastern civilization, dating back some 2,200+ years, when an age of strife ended with one kingdom mustering the strength to crush all the others. Its historical effects were stabilizing, not destabilizing. This is due to the very nature of China - a land of warlords, tribes, and clans constantly vying for supremacy (this, in turn, is due to the lack of a rigid social hierarchy across China - the Chinese belief in meritocracy implies that any person with the will and the ambition can contend for "All Under Heaven"). Every time the center collapsed, the entire region fell into chaos. There was not a single period, throughout Chinese history, when division didn't result in constant warfare between the resultant pieces.

Judging by history, China cannot be stabilized except by a strong central power, composed of either internal (Han) or external (Manchu, Mongol) forces. The US might be able to play this role if China collapses today; but soon, this window of opportunity will close, and once that happens, a fragmentation of China would be uncontrollable in its destructive potential.

You don't think CCP is a strong enough central power?

Nice history lesson but is only true for the Eastern & Central portions of China. This is why Tibet, East Turkestan and Mongolia sought for independence at the drop of a hat. I believe SantaKlaws point has much to do with these minority filled outer territories of China and their oppression and not about the context in which they (China) sought to conquer (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Korean influence in the Northeast? What influence is that? I was born in Shenyang and I'm of Han and Manchurian descent. I can tell you that Koreans in the Northeast often try to hide their Korean heritage, preferring, instead, to be called "Zhongguo ren". When I think of Koreans living in the Northeast, the phrase "gaoli bangzi" often comes to mind. Sorry, just telling it as it is.

The new balance, if it does shift to China's favor, would be worse for most of China's neighbors, including Korea. If being a tool means using another country for your own national interests, then Korea is a tool, but America is a tool too. It's called allies sharing mutual interests.





The current China is an abberration also, as it occupies lots of land that for most of history did not belong in the Chinese empire and have independent natives resisting against Chinese rule. The way China acquired its colonial territories, and enforces colonial rule, is very similar to the Japanese Empire. Chinese nationalism today and Japanese nationalism in the early 20th century have striking commanlities as well.





LOL at SCO.

I would say "Corea", as it exists today, is an aberration. This is one of those times in history during which great "Corea" is not officially in tributary status to another nation. Well done, my Korean comrades! High five!

And the idea of China has always been fundamentally tied to the idea of the empire. I have no idea what kinda bong you've been smoking from.

It's true that Korea for much of history has been a tributary state, but that's because China was the dominant power in the region and forced the tributary system on the region. Now, China's no longer a dominant power, and I doubt China will ever be able to attain the level of regional dominance it had in the past, since improved technology just made the world a smaller place.



Congrats. You just openly admitted that China is an imperialist state, like the Japanese Empire and the British Empire.

I'm not sure what you mean by "dominant", but I see China fast becoming, once again, THE major player in the region. The idea of China is empire, or it is nothing. Wherein does the aberration lie?

High five. This is one of those times when China isn't a slave of the Manchu Qing Dynasty and the Mongol Yuan Dynasty. rofl

The Manchus recognized the virtues of Han civilization. Emperor Kangxi often referred to the Yi Jing and the accomplishments of the ancient Chinese to assert the superiority of Chinese civilization when confronted by missionaries from Europe. The idea that China and Da Qing are separate entities is the result of an uneducated mind. Mongols were in control of a unified Yuan shortly before they were driven out. Whoop-dee-doo. On the other hand, "Corea", in its many forms, has been reduced to a tributary state time and time again throughout its glorious history. That was why I concluded it would be more correct to see the modern, pseudo-independent "Corea" as an aberration. High five!

American interest has been largely consistence ever since the korean war. Not mentioning them is pretty ignorant of modern geopolitics. The US will continued their quest for hegemon until the day they decline from a hyper superpower to a regional power. US interest must be factor in to predict the outcome of NE asia.



CTSO and SCO serve very similar interest. Is just that CTSO are in complete control of the Russian. Whereas SCO is share between Russian and the Chinese.




Really? Using the same logic: lol at Santaklaws SK's ambition? Lol at NATO, LoL at WTO, LOL at UN...

You mean Manchu adopted Chinese culture but clearly they ruled all of China when allowing Koreans to have their own ruler, culture + language.
Who do you to judge others when your ancestors were second class citizen of Manchu land?

China never went tributary relation because there was no China at the time of Yuan and Qing, Chinese ruling classes were cast off by non-Chinese ruling classes.

Ok, I'm not good informed in this matter.
But I believed a few years back the US was the one who didn't want a united Korea. If both Koreas are unified, Korea doesn't need the US soldiers to guard the borders right? Less US GI's is in China's interest...
I always believed the US liked the current situation, because this way they have an extra station to deploy their military.

The "natives" have always resisted Chinese rule. In fact, Chinese have always resisted Chinese rule. This is why dynasties rise and fall. This is why China was, and is, a nation-empire. There was not a moment in Chinese history when there wasn't somebody resisting the dynasty in power. Yet, when they succeed in overthrowing said dynasty, the process simply repeated itself, sometimes with them as the new imperials, and the former imperials as the new rebels. Changing this dynamic requires external intervention - namely, in the form of some outside power that is able to keep the peace in the event of China's fragmentation. I am less and less confident that America is able or willing to do this.

As for borders, China has held to its current borders for about three hundred years. The empire's expansion was traditionally checked by the presence of powerful northern nomadic powers (in particular, the Turko-Mongols in the Northwest, and the Tungus in the Northeast); but this triangular balance meant that as soon as Tungusic power collapsed in the Northeast (as it did when the Manchus merged with China), it was only a matter of time before China expanded into the north (Mongolia) and the west (Tibet, Xinjiang). Just as the Chinese could not fight both the Mongols and the Manchus, the Mongols could not fight both the Manchus and the Chinese. Only the entrance of the Russians into the great game prevented Mongolia from being annexed and the Qing's borders from being restored.

To this end, whether China's current borders is an aberration is not at all clear. I'd say that once the Tungus joined the empire, most of the Qing's borders could be naturally inducted: a combination of Han China's borders (China proper), Tungusic Jurchen's borders (Manchuria and parts of eastern Inner Mongolia), and the territories that China has traditionally sought, but failed to keep, due to the interference of the northern nomads (western Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang). Tibet is the real aberration, in my opinion, because the remoteness of the Tibetan plateau meant that substantial expansion into it became possible only with modern technology.



I think you can find similarities between the two because they are fundamentally both attempts at combining nationalism with imperialism. But there are some fundamental differences.

China's imperial expansion was accomplished by a Communist regime built upon the Soviet model of a multi-national unity of the proletariat. In fact, China's successes and failures in Tibet were the direct consequence of this policy: it was the principle of land redistribution that alienated the Tibetan landowning elites, and it was the principle of agricultural collectivization that alienated the common farmer. Japanese-style colonial rule, by contrast, was based on co-opting existing elites and, towards small populations like those of Tibet and Xinjiang, Japanization. Seeing what the Japanese managed to accomplish in Taiwan (ie, mass conversion of Taiwanese into pro-Japanese patriots) in just a few decades, it's difficult to imagine that China pursued the same policy in earnest.

No, I think there are and remain some large distinctions that cannot be ignored. However, it is clear that there is an aberration compared to the Qing, especially with regards to the post-Deng years. Xinjiang, in particular, has been subject to mass immigration, both by Mao and by later leaders, which is historically unprecedented. Before, the rulers, whether of Qing, Tang, or Han extraction, only exacted tribute & established military outposts - they rarely if ever took a hand in the local people's everyday affairs. Similarly, in Tibet the Communists implemented wide sweeping economic and social reforms, virtually removing the native elites from power and reconstructing Tibetan society. Both of these policies have had destabilizing effects.

Occupying land that didn't traditionally belonged to your current nation now is not exactly a strong argument. Most nations today occupy land that that wasn't originally theirs. In the eyes of the Chinese, China is unfairly ostracized for this criticism especially when you consider the fact that the other major powers of the world all got their current size via expansion. The US wiped out an entire continent of Native American tribes and the Russians annexed most of the land east of them. Like I said, in the eyes of most Chinese, singling China out is not only unfair but something to get passionately angry about and defensive over. Whether those sentiments are justified based on truth or not isn't really the issue, it is what it is and it is how the majority of the Chinese people feel. From a pure pragmatist's point of view, it's not exactly a bad thing.

You are greatly mistaken if you think the concept of "China" belongs to the Han people alone.

The Chinese Empire has actually shrunk in recent years, but what remains appears more firmly held and closer to the concept of a nation. Hence "nation-empire." Note that in saying that the Qing was a version of the Chinese Empire I do not intend to say that the Manchus thought themselves as Han Chinese, but rather that the state they ruled fulfilled the same function. The idea of the Chinese Empire is embedded in the very fabric of Confucian civilization and its view of the world, to the extent that anyone who is part of this civilization just about accepts it at face value.

For Confucian civilization to make sense, there must be a China, and it must be the center of the ("civilized") world. China is nothing without its imperial glory.