Most pundits agree that the least bad way to deal with North Korea’s nuclear saber rattling is a continued combination of tight containment and aggressive diplomacy. Fewer, however, have recognized that the least bad military option – the one implied by US President Donald Trump’s insistence that China take responsibility for its dangerous neighbor – is a Chinese invasion, or regime change forced through China’s threat to launch one.
This outcome, which would sharply shift East Asia’s strategic balance in China’s favor, is not as unlikely as most people think. In fact, its very plausibility is one reason why it needs to be taken seriously, including by Chinese military planners. In Trumpian terms, this is a “China First” option that could help “Make China Great Again.”
Any military intervention, Chinese or otherwise, would carry huge risks. But before dwelling on them, consider what a successful Chinese intervention would achieve. For starters, it would put North Korea right where the country’s post-Korean War history suggests it belongs: under a Chinese nuclear umbrella, benefiting from a credible security guarantee.
Mao Zedong used to say that his country and North Korea were “as close as lips and teeth” – a fitting description, given Chinese troops’ role in averting an American victory in the Korean War. But while Japan and South Korea have remained close allies of the United States during the six decades since then, hosting US bases and sheltering under US nuclear protection, China and North Korea have drifted ever further apart.
As a result, China has little control over its neighbor and purported ally, and probably scant knowledge of what is going on there. It could, it is true, tighten the existing siege on North Korea by cutting trade further and blocking energy supplies. But this might achieve little beyond pushing Kim Jong-un’s cloistered regime to look for support from its other neighbor, Russia.
If, as is commonly assumed, North Korea wants some sort of credible security guarantee in exchange for curtailing its nuclear program, the only country capable of providing it is China. No American promise would remain credible beyond the term of the president who gave it, if even that long.
So if China were to combine threats of invasion with a promise of security and nuclear protection, in exchange for cooperation and possible regime change, its chances of winning over large parts of the Korean People’s Army would be high. Whereas a nuclear exchange with the US would mean devastation, submission to China would promise survival, and presumably a degree of continued autonomy. For all except those closest to Kim, the choice would not be a difficult one.
China’s strategic gains from a successful military intervention would include not only control of what happens on the Korean Peninsula, where it presumably would be able to establish military bases, but also regional gratitude for having prevented a catastrophic war.
No other action holds as much potential to make Chinese leadership within Asia seem both credible, and desirable, especially if the alternative is a reckless, poorly planned US-led war. What China needs, above all, is legitimacy, and intervention in North Korea would provide it. Successful use of hard power would bring China, to borrow the distinction coined by Harvard’s Joseph S Nye, huge reserves of soft power.
But now to the 64 billion renminbi question: Could it work? We can’t know the answer for sure, and any military intervention carries great risks. The Chinese armed forces are now well equipped, but lack comparable battlefield experience. Their inferior opponents have leaders who might be prepared to use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, if they did not simply accept Chinese terms and surrender.
What we can say with near certainty is that a Chinese land and sea invasion, rather than an American one, would stand a better chance of avoiding Kim’s likely response: an artillery attack on the South Korean capital, Seoul, which lies just a few dozen miles south of the demilitarized zone. Why would North Korea slaughter its southern brothers and sisters in retaliation for a Chinese invasion that came with a promise of continued security, if not autonomy?
Moreover, while the Kim regime’s nuclear restraint could hardly be taken for granted, China would be a less likely target than the US for North Korean missiles. Were a Chinese military option to be contemplated seriously, some intelligence and missile-defense collaboration with the US might be worth exploring. Given the risks, it would be hard for the US to refuse.
This scenario may well never happen. But it is so logical that the possibility of it should be taken seriously. It is, after all, China’s best opportunity to achieve greater strategic parity with the US in the region, while removing a source of instability that threatens them both.
Copyright Project Syndicate, 2017.
www.project-syndicate.org
For me it looks like NK will continue to follow the way, China did.
1.) Selfcontrolled Safety Guarantee with capabilities of Atomic Weapons
2.) If they feel save and be accepted they will relax and adopt the economical development, after peace treaty with all involved parties are realized.
3.) NK want to have parity with US in order to reach a peace system, which accept the other side as it is.
4.) This would lead to military reduction and again, after that trust comes out through agreements and actual cowork, we can talk about denucleazation of the whole world, not only the Korean Peninsular, but also Japan, China, Russia, USA, UK, France, Israel, India and Pakistan.
Cheers!
US military first strike on NK is still just a theory. The US will remain decent and moral enough to not assume that SK and Japan entertain losing a mere 0.1% of their populations.
The military option will never be clean even if carried out, say if NK strikes first, fatefully too close to American personnel and facilities.
No matter what the outcome will be, military or not, the US will always need China’s cooperation in managing the NK issue, forever.
China needs to be seen by enough important stakeholders to be cooperating to quite significant degree.
China is probabilistically speaking in fine shape and does not have to take any large risk; it has to merely be seen as useful enough to enough decision-making stakeholders.
Emmanuel Adutchay Ahiamadu
I think the best policy should be a negotiated settlement. The countries involved including the UN, should discuss the problem and come to a negotiated settlement that everyone will agree.
Threat of War will not bring all countries together it will only make the country that is threatened to have a strong Army and to build weapons just to protect it self.
Even sanctions will have a negative effect because if that country is not allowed to import Food, Medicine and basic essential items and Export then the Citizens of that country will suffer, then the Government of that country will react in a negative way.
We have examples in History where Japan entered the second world war because of Sanctions and naval blockage. in the end Atomic weapons used by USA destroyed two Japanese cities Killing thousands of innocent people.
Nuclear weapons are much more Powerful and we all know that Nuclear War will only bring destruction to everyone, because any War in the Korean peninsula will be a Nuclear War.
The best solution is not the treat of Invasion or War and not even sanctions of food, drinking water or medicine.
The best solution is peaceful negotiated settlement where the Leaders of all the countries involved including North Korea, South Korea, Japan, USA, China and Russia will feel that their respective Countries are Safe from WAR and Invasion.
The real issue is not N. Korea as any sane person can see even a country like Iran that signed the JCPOA can not trust Americans…Its the American lunatic president and the military Junta (taking orders from Tel Aviv) that is a threat to world peace. Keep in mind that in 1997, N. Korea did stop its Nuclear activities but it was again the Americans (GW Bush) that lumped them into "Axis of Evil"….Bottom line, the big picture is Lunatics in the White House throwing Rocks into the well and the wise man in China and Russia have to find a way to get the rocks out.
Mr. Zarif summed it up nicely "Ignorant hate speech"…indeed, we hare dealing with most ignorant president sitting on top of tons of nukes.
Emmanuel Adutchay Ahiamadu I believe you got it wrong. That boy you are talking about is the President of a Soverign nation. Also that boy and his predecessors have pursued this policy for a long time. The agreements that were made by them were conveniently ignored. Looking at the fate of Saddam and Qaddafi I don’t believe that Boy is going to blink, because either way it is his death. I believe his logic is I am going down in flames and I am taking every one else down with me. (Imagine rockets just bearing down on S.Korea the damage it will cause to the financial system, never mind Japan or US being hit) There is no other solution but a negotiated settlement with all the powers backing it.
Raymond William Tinkler , Mr. Raymond William Tinkler, as the saying goes "Fool me once shame on you" Like Iraq’s WMD then "Fool me twice shame on me" like R2P in Libya. Now we are in a situation like "Fool me thrice….." You can’t trust these Neo Cons hell bent on world domination. So you really think the rest of the world will fall for this?
I think that the use of abusive words won’t solve the problem on ground. Rather than abuse, useful suggestions should be our main contribution to the challenge that is threatening the whole world today. Please, let’s desist from use of primitive and provocative expressions. Such will not help matters.
Dilruhan Fernando Brother what is your line of action in your suggestion on dialogue? How can that boy be brought to the table for talks? I perceive his main goal is to humiliate the US at the detriment of the people He claims to be heading. I suggest China and Russia should calĺ him to order because whatever he thinks he has acquired in terms Nuke wiĺl not work if China and Russia restrain him. He still believes in Him that those two neighbours will come to his support should the US chòose to act irrationally. Please tell us your option to the whole scenerio. The world will remember where it works.
This ploy by USA is to get someone else to do their dirty work. But thinking about it, some one should stop north Korea.
USA wants to finish China and the best way to destroy it is to make China go to war with North Korea.
This is an option that I have advocated. It must be executed by China in co-operation with North Korea’s other supplier, Russia. The former through the land route and the latter from the sea. The nuclear assets must be removed and handed over to the IAEA. China and Russia can provide the nuclear umbrella.
Tandin Shunya Wangdi The problem with your solution is it will never happen. Any thoughts that it will are delusionary. I don’t say that as a backer of US policy, just as a recognition of how it is and will be. Particularly in NK’s case, and the current situation. Of course the problem in NK began with the division of the nation after WW2, with the governances of each supported by foriegn countries and opposing politics. The main resulting problem though with Korea was that the north’s govt decided to try for re-unification by attacking the south without warning, instead of by Diplomacy. China also invaded without warning or declaring war, using so called "volunteers" when it looked like the north would be defeated. They have never declared war on the south to this day. Why would the south, who wished to stay as they were and are now, a prosperous nation, as a result of being in a trading relationship with the rest of the world, as does China also now, want to risk that position to the word of Kim jong un’s style of government, that he and they would not actively seek, by invasion once again, to attain the destruction of the south’s method of govt and replace it with his? Is that the sort of "normalisation"of the volatile situation, you refer to? The situations that were with Iraq and Libya are not the same at all, and have no bearing on Korea. For one thing, the 1st Korean war was fought and brought to a truce, long before Saddam Hussien and Muhamad Gaddafi came onto the scene. All they show is that taking on the US in an armed conflict results in the removal of the incumbent govt. Why would they have been so stupid? I mentioned the original Korean war by the number 1. Pray that Kim jong un does not alienate himself from China to the degree that they remove their support and friendship and either stand back, or actively support his removal by force. Then you will have a war. That basically, is all that prevents it at present.
Other than twiddling your thumbs, it would be interesting to know how differently you’d handle the situation.