
Why Won’t China Help with North Korea? Remember 1956 - kawera
http://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/viewpoint/why-wont-china-help-north-korea-remember-1956
======
Endama
As a Korean American, this conflict has always been so strange to me.

My family members fought in this war, my grandfather ran from his village, in
the middle of the night, to join the US-led Korean Army so that he wouldn't be
conscripted by NK as they moved south. My mom's father joined as an
intelligence officer and later continued on to work in the middle east for the
US gov. That left his wife (my grandmother) to raise a family of 4 by herself
in a war torn country. My entire cultural experience has been defined by this
"police action". My grandfather who fled would later be awarded the Korean
equivalent of a bronze star and would suffer from PTSD for the rest of his
life. He was violent towards his children (including my father) often, but was
able to raise a future for my family nonetheless.

Now as a native-born US citizen, the narrative I hear is of doom and gloom, NK
is just weeks, if not hours, away from nuking me in SF. China is the only way
to get them to stop and they aren't helping.

What I hear from my Native-born Korean friends is a lot of nonchalance. The
North Korean threat is all bluster, no action. Nothing is ever going to
happen. They are going to threaten, maybe shoot some artillery, but no major
offensive ever happens.

All of this makes for an incredibly confusing experience. I feel like we are
approaching a historical precipice, but my two cultures respond with either
panic or apathy.

~~~
ourmandave
_The North Korean threat is all bluster, no action. Nothing is ever going to
happen._

All that bluster is a very dangerous game and I don't understand why Kim plays
it. It would be Mutually Assured Destruction without the Mutually, unless
China joined in.

My thought is he wants The Bomb so he doesn't go the way of Sadam, Gaddafi, or
Noriega if he's considered "no longer useful."

I think we're on a very short path to a nuclear armed South Korea. But that's
like putting missiles in Cuba. D=

~~~
owebmaster
> All that bluster is a very dangerous game and I don't understand why Kim
> plays it.

It is not difficult to understand. They consider the US and South Korea a
threat to their existence and, as you pointed out, he doesn't want to finish
like Saddam and Gaddafi and NK the new Iraq or Libya.

~~~
vkou
I don't understand why you are being downvoted.

1\. The United States and South Korea are indeed an existential threat to
Kim's government.

2\. Nuclear weapons will guarantee that North Korea won't see a regime change
anytime soon.

------
suhlash
It is all about national security for China. China will not tolerate a unified
Korea that is friendly to America. It is in China's interest to keep the
Koreas divided and have influence over NK. NK not only provides a buffer from
the US army but serves as a threat that ties up the military of USA, Japan and
SK. Kind of like the way they use Pakistan to tie down India. Why would China
help out and do a real sanction of NK. A real sanction of NK by cutting off
food and fuel would collapse the regime. Followed by a unification under South
Korean leadership. The last thing they want. China will continue to pretend to
sanction NK or say that they have no influence over NK. Always ask what is in
it for China to figure out what is going on.

~~~
virtuabhi
I agree with your comments. But who knows, maybe one day China will decide
that it should be a force for good in the world rather than a regional bully.
Thankfully, the one-party-one-leader system of China allows for quick change
in its policies. And regarding what is in it for China? A peaceful,
democratic, free country is in the interest of every person in the world.

~~~
testores
There is no good or bad in politics. Just interests.

If there really were "good countries," then Saudi Arabia would not be getting
any support.

------
Terr_
Attempted TLDR:

China tolerates North Korea because NK acknowledges that China's the big boss
in the region, and restricts _most_ of its bad behavior to places where China
doesn't have to care.

If the US seeks to "pressure" China into reigning in North Korea, it'll
backfire, because that threatens the air of authority that China was trying to
get in the first place.

Lastly, China doesn't want a unified Korea which is in the US' pocket.

~~~
testores
It's like when you decide to do something, but then someone else nags you to
do it and you lose all interest.

------
ams6110
> It was in 1956 that Beijing realized it had to go easy on Pyongyang, despite
> Kim’s maddening obstinacy, because the alternative was to surrender the
> country to the Soviet influence.

Well there is no Soviet influence anymore, so how does that have relevance
today?

> Like Mao in 1956, Xi is tired of North Korea, but he is keen to emphasize
> that China won’t crack the whip on anyone’s behalf.

So they would prefer the US go in directly? How does that benefit them? China
could probably get rid of Kim and install a friendlier government and be the
hero of the world.

~~~
boomboomsubban
The US can't go in without either a direct act of war by North Korea or a UN
resolution, anything else would allow China to declare war and that would be
the US start of WWIII.

Removing Kim would just provoke a new round of discussion about a unified
Korea an China loosening control over Burma and other areas. They would be a
five minute hero with negative long term results.

~~~
chibg10
This is a pretty big misunderstanding of the situation imo. The reason the US
won't directly strike NK is because of the risk to Seoul. It has nothing to do
the UN (which is essentially a useless and meaningless body at this point, as
Russia and China don't agree with the West on almost literally anything).
Moreover, China isn't going to risk a war with the US over NK.

~~~
boomboomsubban
Yes, China would take an invasion of a bordering ally as an act of war on
them. It wouldn't be a risk of war, it would be the US declaring war on China,
and much of the world's favor would go to the defender.

And yeah, the UN resolution is incredibly unlikely. That's why it would work,
if China consented to the move it wouldn't trigger WWIII.

~~~
yladiz
No it wouldn't, because China doesn't really consider NK an ally worth
fighting over, especially against USA, because unlike with NK China and USA
are very strong trading partners. Of course China strongly prefers a buffer
between South Korea and itself, but if some action did happen, likely China
would just not participate in the war and then help with the cleanup and new
government since they are a border state and would require any UN resolution
to have compromises. The only way China would get involved is if it involved
or risked their land or people, not NK.

~~~
boomboomsubban
Losing the buffer state would be seen as a direct threat on their land and
people, and the UN would be powerless in a conflict between two security
council members.

Strong trading ties doesn't stop war. This is one of the largest lessons of
WWI, and why an isolationist leader of the US is terrifying. It's sold as
putting America first, but its scarily similar to the mad dash for guaranteed
access to necessary resources before WWII.

~~~
yladiz
Are you joking? I know that China and USA do not have one, but there hasn't
been a single conflict with any country that has a free trade agreement since
WW2.

Also, understand that the US has the backing (and mutual defect agreements) of
South Korea, Japan, and NATO, and India would possibly join in a conflict
against China as well. China wouldn't want a US backed state on its doorstep,
but it would not want war against the US significantly more.

~~~
boomboomsubban
There hasn't been a true war between great powers since WWII, and that's more
likely due to nuclear bombs than free trade agreements.

Mutual defense agreements don't matter if the US invades North Korea, the US
is not the defensive party in the war. And it's easy to say that all of these
sides would back the US now, an aggressive war in the region could change a
lot of alliances.

Invading North Korea is not a sane option for the US unless China consents.
The best case scenario sees China allowing it while preparing for a future
conflict, and all out war is very possible.

------
wangii
all NK wants, according to what I've read so far, is a 'normal' relationship
with US, a promise not to overthrow the leadership/govt. is it a ridiculous
request given US happily has Saudi as an important ally?

here is an interesting review by former Deputy of Chinese Foreign Affair
Minister: [https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-korean-nuclear-
issue-...](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-korean-nuclear-issue-past-
present-and-future/)

~~~
chibg10
NK (and every other autocratic regime in history) has a history of not being
true to their word. We've played the appeasement game with them before and it
failed.

------
Spooky23
Total control gives North Korea all of the leverage. This is the part that the
current administration doesn't understand. Tweeting about your policy goals
undermines the US position.

Why should China give a hoot about intervening and giving Trump a win?

North Korea is a total dictatorship -- they have all of the time in the world.
China wants to be a recognized global power. They won't take any action until
they can do so while undermining the United States (not Trump, which is
child's play). Our loss is their gain.

------
rl3
> _Mao claimed Kim, who “still does the Stalin thing,” appalled him. “He
> brooks no word of disagreement and kills all who tries to oppose him,” Mao
> said._

That's rich.

EDIT: For the assholes who put this comment at -2, have a history lesson: Mao
Zedong was responsible for approximately _40 million_ deaths.[0][1][2]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong)

[1]
[http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Mao](http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Mao)

[2] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2016/08/03/giving-historys-greatest-mass-murderer-his-due/)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It is even richer considering Mao was an ardent follower of Stalin, and hated
Khrushchev for disavowing Stalin's legacy (which, of course, would later lead
to the Sino-soviet split).

