While watching this terrifying game of chicken between two paranoid thugs unfold, I had a thought this morning that I want to share.
Most experts suggest that the primary motivation for China’s continued support for North Korea is China’s desire to avoid having a unified Korea — friendly to the US — on its border.
So — what if Korea was unified following the model of Vietnam after our defeat there?
Perhaps a stable solution could be:
1. Regime change in North Korea
2. Unifying North and South Korea into a single nation that is friendly to China
It seems to me that Donald Trump is just as unhinged as Kim Jong-un. I think the whole world joins China in fearing what Mr. Trump might do as the true extent of his corruption and crimes is revealed by the Mueller investigation.
I don’t know about anyone else. For me, the prospect of a unified Korea — safe and secure, and an enthusiastic ally of China — is far preferable to the precipice we stand on today.
I think the US and the world can learn to live without current South Korean exports far more easily than we can adapt to life after Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un launch a nuclear winter.
Did you mean to say China desires a unified Korea which is friendly to the US in the second paragraph? I can’t imagine the US going for one friendly to China and I’m not sure I want that either. Also, what did I miss regarding this ramp up of tension? We’ve looked at each other sideways since the 50s, but otherwise, what have they done to us lately? Is it just progress in its nuclear program that makes us jumpy? If so I’ve long thought it hypocritical for us as a nuclear power to tell other countries they can’t have nukes. I’d be much more open to trying johntmay’s idea in a recent diary.
That was a brain-fart, thanks for the heads-up. I’ve corrected it.
Do I understand you to say that U.S. policy should be to abandon our alliance with South Korea so that they can be absorbed by the North? How is this better than Trump offering up Ukraine and the Baltic states to his buddy Putin? Should the South Korean people, and their elected government, have anything to say about this?
Did you read item 1 of my summary? I repeat it here for your convenience:
I doubt that the US can play any significant role in brokering any of these sorts of changes. I wonder if a re-invigorated EU, under the auspices of Ms. Merkel, might take the lead in proposing some sort of unification process between North and South Korea that results in an outcome that can address China’s concerns.
I think “abandon” is a strong word. I think that North Korea is spiraling out of control, goaded on by the impetuous thuggery of Mr. Trump. North Korea WILL acquire nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time.
So I think grownups have to stop North Korea from attacking Japan, South Korea, Guam, and any other western interests in the region. Donald Trump has made it clear that the US is no longer a grownup.
So the only grownup at the table is China. If I am forced to choose between a “preemptive” nuclear attack on North Korea initiated by Mr. Trump and softening our current in-your-face posture towards China that our current stance in South Korea implies, then I’ll immediately choose the latter.
We cannot control what happens in that region. We have lowered ourselves to the schoolyard bullying and taunting that North Korea has been doing for decades. Sadly, all of the bullies involved have nuclear weapons. I argue that since we are no longer able to do anything constructive in the region, we should step back and let the remaining grownup — China — resolve the issue.
I am arguing that North Korea versus South Korea may, in fact, be the same sort of false dichotomy that North Vietnam versus South Vietnam turned out to be.
In retrospect, we learned that a unified Vietnam in fact brought long-term sustainable peace to a region that had been conflicted for decades. The unified Vietnam is now a respected trading partner and participant in the world economy.
I suggest that a similar trajectory might result from our rethinking our stance towards North and South Korea.
It’s also worth noting that the South Korean government is far more receptive to some kind of negotiated settlement with the North than our own. They overwhelmingly elected a more liberal and dovish leader in their recent election.
I think Ambassador Rice outlined a very smart plan in her Times Op-Ed and it’s basically what Tillerson and Mattis are trying to accomplish if their own boss didn’t keep putting his mouth in the way.
Shore up their missile defenses as we’ll a state Japan’s, shore up their retaliatory capabilities as well as Japan’s. Tighten sanctions as much as possible and keep using counter intelligence and cyber warfare to disrupt the program.
Eventually this combination of actions will lead to one of two outcomes. Kim comes to us looking for a deal to help his country or he gets ICBM capacity anyway at tremendous cost to his relationship with China and his domestic support. It’s a capacity that is strategically useless in any war he would fight against the US or her allies.
Giving him aid and goodies like we did under Clinton and Bush is a bad idea that plays into his hands. Stopping to his level with hyperbolic bluster is a bad idea that plays into his hands. Patiently constructing a diplomatic coalition to squeeze his regime while using non military means to disrupt his program and shoring up allied defenses is the best we can hope for.
China voting yes on the UNSC for the first time was a big deal and a real diplomatic coup totally undermined by our President with this weeks idiocy.