Articles
Privacy
By Minxin Pei
The death of Kim Jong-il has heightened the chances of the North Korean regime collapsing. The U.S. and China must be careful not to get sucked into the chaos.
The sudden death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il poses another, and potentially very dangerous, new challenge to U.S.-China relations. Possible knock-on effects of Kim’s demise – ranging from a regime collapse to provocation by a weak and insecure successor or other forms of civil strife in North Korea – will force China, the United States, and South Korea to respond. If mutual distrust drives Washington and Beijing to take actions that each believes would serve its security interests, but which might be perceived by the other as provocative and ill-intentioned, the United States and China could be plunged into a crisis neither wants.
Sadly, as the two great powers have little control over the succession process in Pyongyang, factors determining the stability on the Korean Peninsula and the complex geopolitical relations in East Asia are the factional dynamics, leadership personalities, and unknown levels of popular discontent inside North Korean. External influence exerted by great powers may affect the political calculations of North Korea’s ruling elites, but only to a very limited extent. Students of history should find this situation familiar: it’s not the first time that the geopolitical fortunes of great powers are held hostage by the political machinations of the rulers of a strategically located small nation.
Given the huge stakes involved in the future of the Korean Peninsula, the volatility and unpredictability produced by Kim’s death has greatly increased the risks of great power conflict. A reunified Korea will certainly mean the loss of a buffer state for China, which will view a continuing U.S. military presence, particularly north of the 38th parallel, as a grave security threat. Massive refugee flows into China, meanwhile, will spread Pyongyang’s civil chaos into the Chinese border regions populated by ethnic Koreans and create a huge political headache for Beijing. Joint U.S.-South Korean efforts to restore order and security north of the 38th parallel, if undertaken without consultation with the Chinese, will make the Chinese apoplectic and could even trigger an ugly confrontation as Beijing suspects that the U.S. and its South Korean allies are attempting to create facts on the ground first.
Of course, a clash between the United States and China over North Korea needs not happen under the best scenario, in which Kim Jong-il’s designated successor, Kim Jong-un, manages to establish his authority and gain the support of North Korea’s military and security forces quickly. If this is the case, Beijing, South Korea, and Washington will be only too happy to extend aid so that the status quo can be maintained. Unfortunately, the chances for Kim Jong-un doing so aren’t good. No modern authoritarian dynastic regime has succeeded in passing power to the third generation (mostly because of the fall of the second-generation rulers). Unlike his father, who had at least two decades to be groomed into his role as the heir apparent, Kim Jong-un, still in his late twenties, has barely three years of political apprenticeship and, reports suggest, a weak character.
Photo Credit: Uniphoto Press
View as Single Page
Walter
I sure hope that most of you making comments about how the US will have no problem defeating the Chinese have served in the military (which I have), and hopefully in combat (which I have not). This would not be some bloodless computer game. Real people, mostly non-Americans, would end up paying the price for “leaders” on all sides miscalculations and distorted views of reality.
We should remember what happened the last time American forces crossed the 38th parallel (heading north). (Please note that the figure for US forces in the ROK is closer to 28,000 now, most not in combat/infantry roles.) Why should the newly resurgent Chinese be any less sensitive about “enemies” closer to their border than we were when the Russians started building missile bases in Cuba, or the Russians are with us putting anti-missile defenses closer to their borders?
Chris’ comment, “I don’t see the CCP engaging in a war they know they will lose,” seems a little disingenuous. What general in a major military thinks his forces can’t defeat the other guys forces, particularly on his home turf? I don’t recollect that any side “lost” the Korean War (although the North Koreans claim a “victory” over the US) We still have a stalemate almost on the 38th parallel 59 years later. Do we need to go through that exercise again? Let’s wait until the dust settles on Iraq to see how successful our policies and actions were there after 9 years of war before we go talking about “winning” a war somewhere else, even further from home with a volunteer army.
It isn’t clear to me why the US would need to be involved militarily in any “collapse” of the DPRK. It would be a lot more logical, reasonable, and less threatening to the Chinese (and Russians?) to have South Korean “brothers” go in to stabilize the situation than to have arrogant white guys choppering in to “secure the nuclear sites.” Are we really to believe that the South Koreans are not capable of doing that on behalf of the rest of the world (they have had almost 60 years to train and prepare)? At least they could talk to the “locals” who are sworn to fight to the death to defend their regime from the imperialist Americans. Why would we think American soldiers are the only ones who can or should do this job?
Bottom line: Make sure you are ready to serve in the front lines (lead by example) before you are so ready to send someone else’s son or daughter, husband or wife, father or mother to do what you, your father and son don’t want to do because you are so smart you are needed on the policy front.
Thought for the day: To make it simple, if we spent $1.5 trillion on the war in Iraq and there are about 30 million Iraqis, that means we spent $50,000 per Iraqi. Doesn’t it seem possible, as one optional solution, that we could have given each Iraqi $5,000 per year for ten years to “behave?” There would have been a lot less destruction, a lot less bloodshed, a lot less “hard feelings,” etc. Something to think about when it is so easy to just say, “let’s go in and kick some butt” because it makes us (mostly males) feel good.
Chairman Mao
US and the World need people who can think like you.