I see this PoV from both you and Sam Stone and I’m curious. What is the evidence in support of the assertion that resuming the bi-lateral relationship that the US and NK have had since about 1985 would cause China to cut back their diplomatic involvement with NK? Any quotes from ambassadors asking for the US to take over negotiations so China can tend to other issues? I don’t see a motive for this at all, especially since China has so much at stake. Some reactionary “stick the head in the sand and hope everything goes back to the way it was ten years ago” is to be expected from a subset of the politicos in China, but I think they are largely realistic about the situation. A nuclear NK, especially it its current form with KJI at the wheel is a dangerous thing for them. I don’t think they’d just flat out outsource their security to the US if we showed a willingess to resume bi-lateral talks.
jenius_1 makes a good point about NK likely feeling isolated and being set up for some sort of action(regime change? Bush doctrine?) on the part of the US after termination of the talks. The North Korea Fact Sheet from the Arms Control Association backs up this viewpoint.
This would seem to indicate that disengaging from the Agreed Framework negotiated by the Clinton administration and the branding of NK as part of the “axis of evil” are significant factors in creating the current crisis. If I understood Sam Stone’s earlier point about agreements between NK and the US being essentially uninforcable, and therefore doomed to eventual failure, because of a lack of nonmilitary leverage points then this could well apply to the Agreed Framework. I’m unconvinced here though. The Agreed Framework was falling apart for lots of reasons. It really started falling apart in earnest when NK tested some ballistic missiles in 1998, but the handwriting was on the wall long before that. The two links I gave in the above post are very informative and as far as I can tell they are fact-oriented and nonpartisan.
Still the question remains. If bilateral talks resume and a good-faith attempt is made to restart and resurrect the Agreed Framework, why would this necessarially drive China away from the table?
It won’t ‘drive China away from the table’…it will allow China to BOLT from the table, without the door even hitting them in the ass on the way out. It lets them have their cake and eat it too, and it takes away one of the heavy pressure points the US can exert on NK…China.
Notice that in those bi-lateral talks you mentioned during the Clinton era that China wasn’t involved in the final agreements? Wonder what that was? See the effect?
Without China to apply pressure Kim will be free to negotiate in bad faith…just like he did during the Clinton era, and some time down the road it will allow him to froth at the mouth and get that crazy look in his eye again…so he can extort some new concessions form the world in exchange for disabling his nuke program. I think that’s what its all about…a way for Kim et al to keep their fucked up system going a little longer (that’s just my opinion though).
Granted Kim might be feeling a bit nervous post-Iraq and wanting to hedge his bets a bit with nukes (I certainly would…Bush’s crazy eyed look might not be an act :))…but he restarted making these noises about nukes BEFORE Iraq…and even before Afghanistan if memory serves. He had no way to know that THIS time an America president would really do it…really unleash the big dogs and drop a ton of hurtin’ on another nation. Why should he?
As to the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech…Kimmy is a COMMUNIST politico of the old school…rhetoric is in his life blood. Just the speech wouldn’t even turn a hair on his head…he and his regime regularly say exactly the same thing about America and the western world, not to mention South Korea. And the Axis of Evil speech, again, was pre-Iraq.
No one is saying that the result will be ‘China to cut back their diplomatic involvement with NK?’…at least I’M not saying that. Why would they? Why would you think that’s what I’m saying? I’m saying that it lets China off the hook with regards to NK and the current mess…lets them continue their present relationship with NK without the strain of the talks and dumps the whole problem in the US’s lap…which is exactly what China wants to do with this. Its in the US’s best interest to keep China (and those other regional nations too, to a lesser extent) fully engaged…and that means no bi-lateral talks IMHO.
The reason that the US has to lead the talks is that the US has what the DPRK wants. Were China to even hint that the US should make certain concessions to the DPRK we would run from the six-party talks screaming bloody murder/communist plots.
The China will bolt theory assumes that China is hunky-dory with a nuclear North Korea with all that implies (perhaps a nuclear South Korea and nuclear Japan). I tend to doubt that they so obsessed with opening the vast DPRK market that they are willing to overlook nuclear proliferation on their doorstep*. Are there cites out there saying the Chinese labor market is so tight that they are importing labor?
okay, maybe they overlooked it in Pakistan, but hey, so did we.
This “cake” you refer to. Would that be the less than 4% of their export markets? Or would it be the less than 5.9% of their imports? Taking this data in synthesis with the numbers for North Korea that I posted earlier the market share of China’s Exports which NK has is approx 810 Million of 436.1 Billion, or ~1.86%. Thats the amount of money coming into China from exports which go to NK. On the other hand, China spends about 296 Million per year on goods from NK. That’s roughly .07% of the money China spends on imports per year. China’s income from exports(436.1 B) make up 6.8% of their GDP($6.449 trillion). This leads to a per-capita GDP of $5,000 (2003 est.). The CIA FactBook US entry estimates per-capita GDP as “$37,800 (2003 est.)” So to bring the numbers home we’ll multiply the impact of total withdrawl of the North Korean marketplace from China’s economic numbers by the ratio between per-capita GDP of China and the US. US to China per-capita ratio(37,800 / 5,000) is 7.56. Now, we worked out earlier that approx 810 Million each year comes into China from NK markets. This works out to ~$0.62 per capita per year. This is how much it would cost China if the NK markets were all closed to them and they couldn’t find any others. That’s 62 CENTS per capita per year. That’s approximately $4.72 on the US economic scale. China not getting any of North Korea’s “cake” at all would mean they go without the equivelant of less than five dollars of potential income per capita. China’s GDP growth rate was 9.1% (official data) (2003 est.) If it cut NK off completely it would outgrow the loss of income about five times over in the course of a single year.
I don’t see China walking away from the table where it will be determined if one of its immediate(and fucking crazy) neighbors will become a nuclear power or not for the tiny piece of cake that NK represents. That just doesn’t seem realistic and that’s why I’m looking for cites on stated policy from the Chinese which indicates this desire to “BOLT from the table”.
But see, you are thinking only about markets, you capitalist running dog!! Its not about markets and trade between China and NK. Its about spheres of influence and the relationship between China and NK. You and I might think the cold war is over and done with, but there are still remnants left…and this is one of them. China would love nothing more that for the US to solve this problem for them so that their relationship with NK remains completely intact.
As to the nukes and MMI’s assertion that China is concerned about nukes so their for they won’t leave the talks anyway…thats why China wants the US to handle it. They are assuming we will make a deal like we did last time and it will be the US that gets soaked for most of the price tag…not China. Then if Kimmy and the boyz play nice for a while but decide at some future time to play the same game again, China can sit back again and let the US handle things…and pony up whatever new concessions NK asks for. I don’t think this is the main reason, just more of a side benifit…that the US, if it takes the lead will also get the lion’s share of paying for whatever concessions are made…as opposed to China having to share in that also by being directly involved. The main reason I think is the relationship between China and NK and the strain that would be put on it if China remained directly engaged with NK. The other nations currently involved also have various reasons they would rather have the US take the lead and solve the problem for them…but China is the most important player in this drama.
At any rate, thats my take on the situation. Am I wrong? Perhaps. But I’ve seen nothing to change my mind that I’m wrong (at least as far as the big picture is concerned…I am almost certainly wrong on some of the details)…and its the basis for why I am against bi-lateral talks, which was the question in the OP.
Is this the basis for why Bush is against them? Gods know…I don’t. Perhaps he’s against them for other reasons…I would assume that he or someone in the administration has a better handle on the situation than I do…and has better information than I’m working with.
Why is Kerry FOR bi-lateral talks? Thats easier. First off because Bush is against them, so its a point of differentiation between them that Kerry can use. Secondly because China and several other countries in the region have ASKED the US to do what Clinton did (I’ve already listed the reasons I think they want the US to do so)…engage in bi-lateral talks directly with NK…thats a two-fer for Kerry. Third because NK has asked for them. All these things will play well with Kerry’s core voter base. I still think its wrong myself.
There are things that the DPRK cannot get from China. They cannot get recognition from the US from China. They cannot get a non-agression pact with the US from China. Even in the context of the six-party talks neither China, nor Japan, nor Russia, nor South Korea can give North Korea those things. These are things that the North Koreans want (at least officially, and in addition to more food aid, energy aid, etc).
Japan and South Korea are probably willing to pick up a portion of the price tab-they certainly understand the implications of a nuclear north korea, especially as both have suffered from DPRK aggression since the 1953 armistice, quite recently for South Korea. Money and food are things that they can give. Other forms of assistance may be of the sort that we do not trust other countries to give properly (energy assistance in the form of non-weapons-grade-radioactive-isotope-producing reactors, for example)
I am not sure how friendly PRC/DPRK relations are in any case. (Yes, China has influence in North Korea, but that has to do with proximity and size, not necessarily friendship or even common interests)
Please, show me oh enlightened one where pleasing the Dear Leader influences the rabid-radical-socialist-communist-leftist revolutionary faction that is the democratic party one iota. Believing that bilateral talks in addition to the six-party framework would be a more effective means of resolving the various issues on the Peninsula is by no means the same thing. No more than engaging in bilateral talks at the behest of all the interested parties means we will be selling out our allies South Korea and Japan.
(I am probably over-reacting to your line, but you seem to be implying (or I am merely inferring) that pacifying the North Koreans is somehow a core issue for liberals.)
:rolleyes: Is THAT how you read what I posted? Really? I meant it more along the lines of its Not Bush™…i.e. its a differentiation point from the stuborn line the president is taking, and it LOOKS like action on the surface. Your assertion leaves me frankly stunned…I’ve NEVER claimed anything like that here or anywhere else. Either my writing style is a hell of a lot more confusing that I thought…or your own bias is showing in the fact you jumped to this conclusion.
Xtisme: 'T’were merely your third listed point followed immediately by “play well with Kerry’s voter base.” The first two points I may or may not agree entirely with but are certainly reasonable statements. I think that differentiating his position from Bush’s is certainly part of the equation, as well an honest belief that the Clinton method was more successful. It’s likely that both of these do appeal to his base. It was only the third line that bugged me. I do not think that the DPRK has a great many fans anywhere in this country. I acknowledged that I may have overreacted to your statement.
If you had not followed the third point with the plays well with the base comment, I doubt I would have responded as I did. I think the !Bush would have sufficed if thats all you meant. No hard feelings.
I don’t think there is anything per se wrong with agreeing to bilateral negotiations (perhaps shortsighted). I think that rejecting the idea because the DPRK wants them is moronically short-sighted. I think that accepting them solely because the DPRK wants them could also be foolish. Accepting them because you feel they are the best way forwards is reasonable. I don’t think listening to the DPRK is catering to the base.
Xtisme Actually, let me clarify. I believe your explanation. I overreacted. I apologize. I sometimes get caught up in the atmospherics of the metadebate and become oversensitive. I try not to post that way but it happens. Again, I am sorry for misconstruing your statement.
Its not about markets and trade between China and NK. Its about spheres of influence and the relationship between China and NK. You and I might think the cold war is over and done with, but there are still remnants left…and this is one of them. China would love nothing more that for the US to solve this problem for them so that their relationship with NK remains completely intact.
