China's strategy in Korean peninsula

SamuraiBlue said:

Which only strength my original argument that historically US believes that PRC is able to control NK which obvious cannot seeing the action of Jon Un also proving that Trump cannot see the obvious as well.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Xi is also to blame stating historically Korea is a tribute state of China, tit for tat when US stated Korea has been an independent state for over a 1000 years.

Click to expand...

Historical relationship between the two is China doesn't interfere in Korea's internal affairs, as long as Korea doesn't oppose China's important foreign interests. So, whether Xi says it or not, that will be how things will return to as China reemerge and once again assume its traditional place atop of Asia. Xi said it to Trump because the latter has little understanding of Asian history.

My concern is, based on past events where NK had been selling their missile technology, will now sell their nuclear technology as well to whom ever is willing to pay.

I seriously do not believe that neither the US or China wants un-controlled nuclear proliferation which Jon Un will unleashed if not controlled right now.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Blackstone said:

• How likely is it US and China can workout a unified and "permanently" neutralized Korea arrangement? I doubt it.
• China would demand US forces off the Korean peninsula, but will the US accept it? I don't think US would accept, but I'm not sure it could prevent it.
• If US and China can't agree, then can Beijing go directly to Seoul and work something with the Blue House? Yes, I think that's a strong possibility.
  
• Can the Unified Korea even have a truly neutral foreign policy, or will China rapidly Finlandize it? I say Unified Korea will try its hardest to remain permanently neutrality, but will do nothing Beijing doesn't want it to do. It'll be subtle until the first China-Japan or China-US 'crisis,' and then it'll be painfully obvious to involved parties Korea will not go against important Chinese interests.

Click to expand...

The only thing I can say is it's all up for the Koreans to decide whether they want to get involved or not.
IF they are are smart enough and had learned from history they will steer clear but we really do not know what will actually happen BUT based on similar historical events my belief is that my suggestion would solve a lot of headaches and save lives.

Blackstone said:

Traditional relation between the two is China doesn't interfere in Korea's internal affairs, as long as Korea doesn't oppose China's important foreign interests

Click to expand...

This is the part I have problem with.
PRC should let go as long as Koreans does not interfere but on the other hand not try to force Koreans to do what may profit china regardless of interest.
That was what triggered the first Sino-Japan war, don't make the same mistake again.
As a permanently neutralized state neither side can or should influence within the peninsula making it a permanent buffer zone to both sides.

SamuraiBlue said:

The only thing I can say is it's all up for the Koreans to decide whether they want to get involved or not.

Click to expand...

That might be what you wish, but physics and natural laws impose themselves in the real world. Koreans will find the truth of Thucydides' famous line on strong doing what they can and weak suffer as they must. I think both of us agree it isn't just, but it's reality.

IF

Click to expand...

they are are smart enough and had learned from history they will steer clear but we really do not know what will actually happen BUT based on similar historical events my belief is that my suggestion would solve a lot of headaches and lives.

Click to expand...

Here we disagree, because history teaches us a completely different lesson. Consider the narrative that for thousands of years, East, NE, and SE Asia were peaceful and stable (relatively speaking of course) when China was strong, and unstable when it was weak. So in essence, the region enjoyed peace when a dominant politi kept the peace; which doesn't have a lot to do with how countries governed themselves as long as they didn't rock the boat outside their borders.

SamuraiBlue said:

This is the part I have problem with.
PRC should let go as long as Koreans does not interfere but on the other hand not try to force Koreans to do what may profit china regardless of interest.
That was what triggered the first Sino-Japan war, don't make the same mistake again.
As a permanently neutralized state neither side can or should influence within the peninsula making it a permanent buffer zone to both sides.

Click to expand...

When I say "interfere" I mean domestic governance of involved countries or politi. Nothing is absolute, except death and taxes, so it's relative and should be seen that way.

I really want to avoid discussing the third Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895, because it could derail discussions in a hurry. So, I'll touch on it obliquely by saying when China was dominant, others couldn't or didn't upset the regional apple cart. China was already weakening and inwardly focused when amoral but technologically superior westerners showed up. The rest, including the unfinished business with Japan, was history. It wasn't pretty then, and it probably wouldn't be pretty going forward.

Fast forward to today, we have a reemerging China intending on resuming its traditional place. It has no interest in allowing other great powers to infringe on its core interests, and has acquired the necessary power to protect them. Under those circumstances, it's hard to see any reasonable scenario where China allows the still stronger US to impede its core interests for much longer, let alone the clearly weaker Japan. So, I just don't see how Japan could persuade China to act in Japan's interests instead of its own.

Agreed Blackstone, though I'd go a step further. The only times when East Asia was a menace to the WORLD were when China was weak, first with the Mongols and second with the Japanese. So it's not only in East Asia's interest for a strong China to rise, it's in the world's interest.

As for Korea, influence is too nebulous to be quantified exactly. SK already trades much more with China than with anyone else, after unification it'll only intensify. It'll naturally align itself with Chinese interests, even if there are frictions in the relationship. I can see China-Korea relationship to be similar to China-Vietnam relationship after reunification, possibly closer given the historical closeness of the two and relative lack of conflict between the two in the millennia past.

dingyibvs said:

Agreed Blackstone, though I'd go a step further. The only times when East Asia was a menace to the WORLD were when China was weak, first with the Mongols and second with the Japanese. So it's not only in East Asia's interest for a strong China to rise, it's in the world's interest.

Click to expand...

I endorse the essence of your message, but how can China resume its place atop of Asia while not pushing the US east of Guam? How US and China accommodate each other will determine how peaceful, wealthy, and secure Asia will be in the 21st Century.

dingyibvs said:

Agreed Blackstone, though I'd go a step further. The only times when East Asia was a menace to the WORLD were when China was weak, first with the Mongols and second with the Japanese. So it's not only in East Asia's interest for a strong China to rise, it's in the world's interest.

As for Korea, influence is too nebulous to be quantified exactly. SK already trades much more with China than with anyone else, after unification it'll only intensify. It'll naturally align itself with Chinese interests, even if there are frictions in the relationship. I can see China-Korea relationship to be similar to China-Vietnam relationship after reunification, possibly closer given the historical closeness of the two and relative lack of conflict between the two in the millennia past.

Click to expand...

How could Sino-Vietnamese relationship being a good example after Vietnam's reunification under North Vietnam? Soon after North Vietnam took over South, it went on to conquer Cambodia (another Chinese ally in the region) and forced Laos into its orbit (another country having a good relationship with China in the region), and in the mean time it (Vietnam) allied with USSR (the then No.1 enemy of China). If anything, the Vietnamese example proves the opposite.

Regarding the possible reunification of Korea, you are suggesting under SK, right? A reminder, last time when China helped a southern Korean power was in the early Tang dynasty, the Korean power was 新罗/Silla. Tang paid the cost and lives to conquer 高句丽 and 百济, only for the lands to be gradually sliced away by Silla. In the end Tang paid the bill for Silla to gain almost everything (south of Pyongyang of 高句丽). This time around, I think China should get smarter, not footing the bill. If SK has the ambition to be the new Silla, do it themselves.

taxiya said:

How could Sino-Vietnamese relationship being a good example after Vietnam's reunification under North Vietnam? Soon after North Vietnam took over South, it went on to conquer Cambodia (another Chinese ally in the region) and forced Laos into its orbit (another country having a good relationship with China in the region), and in the mean time it (Vietnam) allied with USSR (the then No.1 enemy of China). If anything, the Vietnamese example proves the opposite.

Regarding the possible reunification of Korea, you are suggesting under SK, right? A reminder, last time when China helped a southern Korean power was in the early Tang dynasty, the Korean power was 新罗/Silla. Tang paid the cost and lives to conquer 高句丽 and 百济, only for the lands to be gradually sliced away by Silla. In the end Tang paid the bill for Silla to gain almost everything (south of Pyongyang of 高句丽). This time around, I think China should get smarter, not footing the bill. If SK has the ambition to be the new Silla, do it themselves.

Click to expand...

Vietnam tried hard to move away from China's orbit, didn't it? Where is it now? How's Cambodia's relationship with the PRC these days? I think it's an excellent example of how inexorably China's influence permeates across its borders.

The Tang didn't help Silla unify, they just displaced the other two kingdoms and then were themselves displaced by the Silla. A more apt example would be if China conquered NK and then annexed it, only to be later displaced by SK. The Tang bit off more than it could chew, I'd advise the current Chinese leadership not to repeat that mistake.

SamuraiBlue said:

As a permanently neutralized state neither side can or should influence within the peninsula making it a permanent buffer zone to both sides.

Click to expand...

Countries have signed the Charter of the United Nations which says among other things No interference in the internal affairs of another member country. China is acting according to the Charter vis-a-vis NK, US maintains suzerainty over SK.
United Korea should sign and keep to the Non Proliferation Treaty.