China's strategy in Korean peninsula

Just like some enjoyed how the Soviet Union broke apart and wish it upon China to this day, they're the same people who watch how much a burden the refugee crisis is taking its toll on the EU hoping that happens against China in regard to a North Korean collapse. That's why the US doesn't even acknowledge any concerns on China's part that will happen when the US wants China to help collapse North Korea. Like I've said before that China better be prepared to take over North Korea or take as much as is possible. If South Korea wants it, then they will comply to China's terms and pay for any burden China faces especially if the collapse is due to outside influence. If China doesn't, don't be surprised if they leave China with the cost and not give China any say.

And let's not fret over accusations regarding installing puppet governments. Like that wasn't the goal for Iraq or any attempt at regime change with any country?

I will answer both SB and Brumby in one post, this is not to counter argue, but clarification.

1. The treaty is the form or legal cover.

2. The essence to China is security of its own, and by the treaty, NK's security if its leadership works with China. U.S. and SK may have other essence, but it is not necessarily the same as China's.

3. I was only saying that it does not have to be Kim sending the invitation. But I do not exclude his invitation if he choose to.

4. A coup only happens when the NK leadership breaks. In that case, one side may choose China, the other choose US. Which side choose whom is NOT certain in my view. But either way, since it is a break, there will always be a faction that invite China, that makes China's entering being legitimate.

5. Facing a defeat by US/SK, the people who see no chance of survival in the US order will choose China. They will request China's assistance by the treaty. Who are these people in the leadership? Are there anybody in the current NK regime acceptable by US? I leave these questions to SB and Brumby to think over. My own answer is "almost non-existence". That leaves the "invitation to China" a sure thing.

6. Specially about Kim, I believe that he may be defying China all this time, but he would be the first person that US would put in jail or kill in case of a war broke out with NK. So, Kim will be left with no option but to ask China for help, at least China just want him to change policy, not removing him.

7. I once again reject the notion of UN involvement. UN charter grant "collective defense", so there is no way/need for China to obtain an approval from UN or any other party for a specific event regarding NK because the Charter and the treaty. None of anybody's business except China and NK. Remember, US does not need China's consent to station army in Japan nor a specific UN mandate, same same.

8. Brumby may argue that point 7 above is only about formal legal protocol not the essence. I will answer this. The essence to China is that, US did not discuss with China or listen to Chinese complain before US setup all the military bases around China, not openly, not behind doors, so what could make China do differently? So my point 7 is both procedure and essence.

taxiya said:

I will answer both SB and Brumby in one post, this is not to counter argue, but clarification.

1. The treaty is the form or legal cover.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance Between the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea dated July 11, 1961?
In it Article II states :
"The Contracting Parties undertake jointly to adopt all measures to prevent aggression against either of the Contracting Parties by any state. In the event of one of the Contracting Parties being subjected to the armed attack by any state or several states jointly and thus being involved in a state of war, the other Contracting Party shall immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal."
Article II only provides for intervention if NK is subject to external aggression, not internal. This is affirm by Article IV which rules out internal affairs i.e. internal unrest or civil war. It states :
"The Contracting Parties, on the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty, non-interference in each other's internal affairs"

There are no provisions in the treaty for China to intervene in a NK civil war.

Brumby said:

Are you referring to the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance Between the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea dated July 11, 1961?
In it Article II states :
"The Contracting Parties undertake jointly to adopt all measures to prevent aggression against either of the Contracting Parties by any state. In the event of one of the Contracting Parties being subjected to the armed attack by any state or several states jointly and thus being involved in a state of war, the other Contracting Party shall immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal."
Article II only provides for intervention if NK is subject to external aggression, not internal. This is affirm by Article IV which rules out internal affairs i.e. internal unrest or civil war. It states :
"The Contracting Parties, on the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty, non-interference in each other's internal affairs"

There are no provisions in the treaty for China to intervene in a NK civil war.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am referring to that treaty. And I am not talking about invoking the treaty in a "pure" civil war.

I think my original post was an answer to a post hypothesis of NK collapse under foreign (US&SK) pressure (regime change). That is an external aggression. With the heightened situation of "show of arms" in a "peaceful" time now, do you think war with south won't broke out immediately when NK is collapsing? I think it will, then the external armed conflict will be a fact, so here comes the treaty.

NK has not been acting in the way China wishes for a very long time, but China didn't intervene in NK's internal affair, so your point of "China shouldn't (or I shouldn't suggest China to) use the treaty to intervene in a NK civil war" is irrelevant.

Imagine this, if everyone (primarily US) leaves NK alone, no matter what Kim say, will there be a war? either internally or externally? No, there won't. So nobody is going to invoke that treaty, therefor we won't be arguing now, right? The line goes this, US attempt regime change > NK collapsing > war between NK and US/SK > China intervene per Treaty obligation.

And a reminder is that, the previous two times when China militarily engaged in Korea were all by the requests from Korean governments. China has no habit of messing around with Korean's own business. That will help you to understand the Chinese interest and strategy concerning that peninsula.

SamuraiBlue said:

You're forgetting a third scenario where NK goes into a state of civil war in which I believe is the most possible scenario.
Whatever happens the center will not be a single slate and would break up into more then one where they will try to reach out for foreign allies. One being PRC another SK and a possible third to Russia not wanting to be on either camps.

Click to expand...

I actually think a state collapse rather than a civil war based on political factions is most likely since the major societal problem in North Korea is extreme poverty. From an average person or soldier's perspective fighting does not help subsistence. From an elite's perspective why fight for the burden of having to provide for followers and being targeted by rivals both domestic and foreign.

I have to remind everyone that a scenario of pure "NK civil war" is off topic for this thread which is "China's strategy in Korean peninsula", and distracting. Although it may have its own merit for discussion, it is surely not the reason why this thread was created.

A pure civil war means no external confrontation or involvement. Involvement of SK, US and China in any confrontation is surely not a civil war.

If someone want to discuss that scenario, I suggest starting a new thread.

Also, I must say that anticipating NK's collapse under its own weight is close to or based on political judgement of its existence. It is analoge to anticipation of collapse (by extension judgement) of any government elsewhere (including south and east to NK). Like it or not, NK is an entity of fact and has to be dealt with equally, being judgmental of NK doesn't help anyone but rather opposite, blinding one's eyes.

Brumby said:

There are no provisions in the treaty for China to intervene in a NK civil war.

Click to expand...

There' s. The famous monroe doctrine.

I think China's strategy on the Korean peninsula can be summed in two words: status quo.

I don't think anyone at this point, including China, the US, SK and even NK, wants to change anything. Even with all the noise, I think what the NK is doing is simply trying to "convince" everyone else in the world not to touch them. Sort of like "don't have any ideas! We bite too." I put a quotation mark around "convince" because no one takes them seriously. It's like a little chihuahua barking its head off, trying to pretend to be something it is not...

SamuraiBlue said:

Are you guys serious?
Basically you are talking about creating a puppet state through military action.
The League of Nations didn't accept that kind of action and UN will certainly not accept either.
If PRC starts moving military force into NK without warning or request by the NK government then SK will most certainly move theirs as well to race who reaches Pyongyang first.

Click to expand...

China is a veto wielding power in UN, what is the UN going to do?

South Korea cannot independently declare offensive warfare without US permission, since US has war-time command of SK military operations.

Also, PLA has a purpose built road leading to Pyongpage capital (~2 hours maximum), whereas there is scorched warfare and gigantic DMZ barrier in front of SK forces. What is this "Race to Pyongyang" you are dreaming of? There will be no race!

Phead128 said:

China is a veto wielding power in UN, what is the UN going to do?

South Korea cannot independently declare offensive warfare without US permission, since US has war-time command of SK military operations.

Also, PLA has a purpose built road leading to Pyongpage capital (~2 hours maximum), whereas there is scorched warfare and gigantic DMZ barrier in front of SK forces. What is this "Race to Pyongyang" you are dreaming of? There will be no race!

Click to expand...

Not at the general assembly.
Even if it was vetoed at the Security Council it still can be pushed forward to the general meeting which it will considering the importance.