Anxiety across the globe is growing by the day as Pyongyang and Washington trade threats of military action. Yet there is insufficent discussion of specifically how the powers concerned would react should the unthinkable happen.
With no agreed upon roadmap for what would transpire in the event of all-out war, leaders in Beijing, Washington and Seoul are placing all their hopes on maintaining a delicate status quo. But the dysfunctional relationship between all parties involved is not sustainable. It is also entirely dependent on avoiding what appears to be the increasing likelihood of an unfortunate misunderstanding.
Since the Korean Armistice Agreement in 1953 there has existed a vague understanding that China would send troops across the Korean border should a full-blown conflict resume. Last April, Chinese state-run Global Times published an editorial suggesting Beijing should show restraint in the event that the US conduct a surgical strike on the North. If South Korean or US troops were to cross the 38th parallel, however, China would have no choice but to follow through with its long-standing commitment to send ground troops in to maintain the integrity of the border.
In August, the same state media outlet further argued that China should stay neutral if North Korea instigated conflict with a missile attack, raising further questions about just how such a series of events would shake out. If war broke out due to a mistake or miscalculation, assigning blame for who started it would not be black and white.
It cannot be ignored that the nature of China’s commitment to support North Korea has changed. Since Kim Jong-un has taken power, Beijing’s pivot towards closer relations with South Korea has deepened. Xi Jinping has had numerous high-profile meetings with South Korean leaders since taking office, but none with Kim Jong-un. A surprise meeting with North Korean envoy Ri Su-yong in 2016 was believed to be the first meeting between Xi Jinping and a senior North Korean official in three years, despite the two countries’ symbolic relationship as committed allies.
So why would China effectively go to war with South Korea should the US and North Korea stumble into a downward spiral of military conflict? From what we know now, that is the logical conclusion of such a sequence of events, but that need not be the case.
Chinese scholar Jia Qingguo argues in a recently published article that Beijing must be more willing to consider talks of contingency plans for a potential war on the Korean peninsula.
Jia notes that the United States and South Korea have long tried to convince China to hold talks on contingency planning. He suggests Beijing’s main reservation is the prospect of further alienating Pyongyang. Today, this line of thinking no longer holds water. Beijing has already accomplished this with increasingly harsh actions against the regime, repeatedly signing on to US-led UN sanctions.
When war becomes a reality, Jia warns “China must be prepared.”
The questions to be addressed are many. For instance, who would control North Korea’s nuclear weapons? How to deal with the ensuing refugee problem? The overarching issue, which would likely decide these other questions is who would restore domestic order in the North and what kind of post-crisis political arrangement would emerge.
One striking aspect of the scenarios Jia lays out is that they take for granted that the Kim regime would be gone as a result of any conflict, while South Korea’s government would remain intact.
“Should international society set up a new government for North Korea? Or should it endorse a UN-sponsored peninsula-wide plebiscite on reunification in preparation for a united Korea?,” he asks
The practical expectation of a dethroned Kim regime from a Peking University scholar highlights just how sour the discourse in Beijing has grown towards Pyongyang. It also underscores Jia’s point that Beijing, Washington and Seoul need to flesh out a roadmap for what comes next.
There is little in Jia’s proposals that suggests such talks would be easy. Anything other than a Chinese-led reconstruction effort in the North would be unacceptable to Beijing, as the US and South Korea are treaty allies. The removal of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system from the South is one bargaining chip to offer Beijing. It would likely be off the table for the US, though South Korean leaders would be more receptive to such an idea.
There is no potential scenario resulting from conflict in Korea that is worth the risk associated — for any countries involved. For that reason conflict remains highly unlikely. Nonetheless, it appears more likely than in the past, and as Jia writes, “China has no alternative but to get prepared.”
NK is a nuclear power, whether USA likes it or not. The only solution to the problem is for USA to remove all its soldiers and military equipment out of Korea, and to compensate the Koreans for all the wrongs done to them. Short of this, the USA is putting at risk the lives of tens of millions of its population.
No military should exploit Asia, Asia is a peace loving people, who only want a. better living standard and connecting and interacting between each others
Henry See, the Korean Peninsula will be peaceful when all American soldiers will have left it, like Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia became peaceful after all American soldiers were kicked out of Vietnam in 1975.
Through out the cold war era and after that in a unipolar world politics, it is a record that USA is not going to attack over that country which is even suspicious nuclear country. So it is out of question that USA or South Korea is going to attack over N.Korea. Therefore Chinese and USA foreign policy can be reactive in the form of further sanctions towards north korea instead of war.
I should ask if anyone has considered what South Korea wants?
So the US is responsible for all that ever happened in Korea and throughout Asia is that it?
It has nothing to do with Russia or Japan or Germany or any other country?
The US just one day decided to charge into Asia and blow everyone up is that it?
Come on guys… I understand that people are looking for a new world with less conflict but you can’t just blame all that ever happened on one nation.
Stuart Budgen The Commission expresses, its belief that those responsible for the crimes committed against the Korean people must be charged as war criminals as defined by the Allied Declaration of 1943 and must be brought to trial by the peoples of the world, as was defined by the same Declaration. The people of Korea are subjected by American occupants to a merciless and methodical Campaign of extermination which is in contradiction not only with the principles of humanity, but also with the rules of warfare as laid down, for instance, in the Hague and the Geneva Conventions. This is being done in the following ways:
a) by the systematic destruction of food, food-stores and food-factories. Forests and ripe harvests are systematically burned by incendiary bombs; fruh trees are destroyed and peasants working in their fields with their animals are killed by machine-gun fire from low-flying planes. By these means the whole people of Korea is doomed to starvation.
b) By the systematic destruction of town after town, of village after village, many of which by no stretch of imagination could be considered to be military objectives or even industrial centres. The aim of systematic destruction is clearly, in the first place, to break the moral of the Korean population and, secondly, to wear them out physically. In these never-ceasing raids, dwellings, hospitals, schools, etc., are destroyed deliberately. Even towns which have already been turned into heaps ashes and in which the surviving inhabitants are reduced to living in dug-outs, continue to be bombed,
c) By systematically employing against the peaceful inhabitants weapons banned by international convention i.e., incendiaries, petrol bombs, napalm bombs, time-bombs, and by constantly machine- gunning civilians from low-flying planes.
d) By atrociously exterminating the Korean population, in the district temporarily occupied by American and Syngman Rhee forces, in the period of occupation hundreds of thousands of civilians, entire families from old men to little children, have been tortured, beaten to death, burned and buried alive. Thousands of others have perished from hunger and cold in overcrowded prisons in which they were thrown without charges being leveled against them, without investigation, trial or sentence. –Report of the Committee of the Women’s International Democratic Federation in Korea, 1951 of the Women’s International Commission for the Investigation of atrocities committed by U.S.A. and Syngman Rhee troops in Korea
They have shot down planes and sunk ships as well as commited axe murders in the past on the DMZ. If they feel threatened enough they always lash out and are among very few nations that have the balls to do that against the USA. All the more impressive given over 20 percent of there population was killed in the last war yet they started hitting US and south Korean targets in the 1960’s just after that holocaust from the air almost as if loosing so much of the population didnt matter to them.
Currently, South Korea is occupied by 30,000 American soldiers. It is an occupied territory. USA holds South Korea hostage and uses the South Koreans as human shields. In these circumstances, the hostage (South Korea) cannot express its true feeling for fear that the hostage-taker (USA) may destroy them. So, it is difficult, at the present moment, to ask the South Koreans what they wants. However, human nature is such that no country accepts the occupation of its territory by foreign soldiers.
"But the dysfunctional relationship between all parties involved is not sustainable. It is also entirely dependent on avoiding what appears to be the increasing likelihood of an unfortunate misunderstanding."
Actually, the relationships among the three are quite functional and sustainable.
For the US, the desire for minimal morality and allies is very compelling to the US for exercising restraint. The relationship between US and SK is strong enough that there is no chance of the US starting a war that will push SK into the inferno, without SK’s masochism.
US-China relationship is functional to the extent that China’s strategic ambiguity has a role, in not discussing a war plan with the US, functioning based on a sane US that has to be concerned about Seoul’s abject helplessness and vulnerability.
Moreover, there will never be the completely satisfactory solution to the NK problem for the US without China’s mollifying input, forever.
China is in a good situation but it has to be seen as cooperating with the US to a significant extent, enough to enable China to ask the US repeatedly “is this better than the alternative of animosity against China?”
Both Putin and Xi had made it clear to both warring camps the consequence of an unprovoked attack on the other.
Stuart Budgen re. Asia since the end of WW2..yes the US is the aggressor..in Viet Nam, in Korea,regime change in numerous places ie. Indonesia,Thailand,etc..Korea was a colony of Japan until the US came in and became the colonial masters..no freedom,no independence..it is North Korea that is free today..South Korea is the colony of the US.All Koreans want a unified Korea..it’s the US that wants everything to stay the same..and main goal is to surround China.
Godfree Roberts I agree with you that war crimes are a bad thing.
But i think that if you want to hold the US accountable for its atrocities in times of war, you’ve got to look into Japan, Russia, Germany and just about every other country on this earth which has engaged in warfare, including China. If you look into Chinas history and Russias you will find similar atrocities committed.
My opinion about this is that it is a good thing to have moral laws regarding conduct in wartime.
But i liken it to a regular street fight.
When you find yourself in one you will bite, claw, nail, cheat and do whatever you can to win.
It’s part of human nature.
With regards to American wars across Asia in general, well its not as straightforward as most people here seem to think.
As I said I don’t think that US leaders sat there and said yeeha let’s destroy Asia. There were many many circumstances involving many nations, peoples and ideologies and America was a part of the mess. They were actually reluctant to join in until Pearl Harbor.
This doesn’t make the angels by a long shot but I think that anti US people should look at it from other perspectives also.
John Rourke okay and which Korea enjoys a better, more organized and stable way of life?
And which Korea has happier citizens?
If freedom is being cut off from the modern world and being led by loonies I think I would choose occupation as you call it.
Although I’m sure South Koreans in general wouldn’t agree with you.
Just look at the Philippines gradually they have chosen an independent foreign policy and persue it in a peaceful and firm way. And the west has no choice but to accept it.
What happened to Korea is a tragedy but it was the result of world wars being fought and not planned, destructive foreign policy.
What you guys don’t want to accept is that Americans are pretty okay and have good intentions.
And that the mess in Korea was far from planned by American leaders.
I get the sentiment and agree that it’s time for Asia to be free from foreign influences.
But you have to realize that these kind of seperations are not easy to manage for both Asians and Americans.
Anti US sentiment is your way of saying we want independence. But be aware of that and stop blaming America for getting involved in world affairs and making part of the mess we all made called modern history.
And let’s hope that Asian independence will be free of bad sentiment and bloodshed.
Because I think basically we’ve all moved on. All except North Korea.
That little part of the world stuck in the past and refusing to say goodbye to the Era of wars in Asia.
You are correct America seems not to understand the Chinese condition
Michael Chan KIM is insane vietnam war is very different ..
We humans never learn from the horrors of wars of the past.The unimaginable loss of human lives, the sufferings and horrible destructions.It is very intertaining to watch war movies and read war books but the reality is terrible hell. Let us all strive to mend our differences, to heal and right our hatred, and to do all which may bring and foster brotherhood and a just and lasting peace among ourselves..AMEN.
And we will never learn, this cycle will continue until we destroy each other
Edward Singh you are right sir. we humans are the creator as well as destroyer.
"quite functional and sustainable"? Tell that to the Chinese scholars in Beijing who are calling for change. If China is in good situation they would not be so upset. It is about as functional as the relationship between cuba/soviet union and US if the missiles actualy got to Cuba! We will forever be on the brink of war if China does not stand with South Korea in stronger opposition to the North. That is not a "quite functional" relationship. It is a delicate and problematic relationship. Barely functional at best.
"China is in a good situation but it has to be seen as cooperating with the US to a significant extent" They will never satisfy what the US wants, which is exactly why it is not sustainable. Not to say war is innevitable but the current status quo has already proven itself to be unsustainable many times recently. China’s increasing pressure on Pyongyang represents a change to the relationship. It will continue to change because it is unsustainable in teh status quo. It is by definition a changing relationship because what it was and is today is not sustainable.