I.E., it is the freedom of your government to recognize either party as legitimate. Just as it is the freedom of ours to only trade with or have official relations with governments who agree with us.
I can’t imagine even nations like China, even if ambivalent towards us, when forced to choose, would choose Pyongyang over Washington.
New rounds of sanctions are never-ending, as are methods of avoiding said sanctions. So why not full on boycott of them, and anyone who does business with them? Who does more business with them, or would see it as being in their national interests, to side with them over us?
Or is the answer pretty much that such an action would back Pyongyang up against the wall so hard that it’d start a war? If that’s the case, where in between sanctions and boycott is the red line? Any action that directly and imminently threatens the regime? Sanctions don’t?
Cost to benefit. A complete and total trade boycott of China would be devastating to both countries. The fact it would hurt China more is sort of like saying that me shooting you in the chest would hurt more than you shooting me in the shoulder. It’s true but it’s going to be pretty cold comfort.
Then you have the fact that, just because the US would impose such a boycott, would the rest of the world follow? The sort of relationship the US has with the rest of the world is not a suicide pact, and such a move would be very damaging whichever way other nations jumped. Side with the US and hurt themselves wrt China, side with China and hurt themselves wrt the US. Lose/lose, so it’s really picking a shot to the chest or a shot to the shoulder, and in many cases a shot to the shoulder can be fatal too.
You also have to think about this from China’s perspective. I don’t think Xi and his faction could survive (literally as well as figuratively) backing down in the face of such an ultimatum. The CCP certainly can’t. It would be suicide either way for them (certainly for Xi and his faction), and the likely outcome would be even more of a wave of rabid nationalism from the Chinese, possibly leading to a direct military confrontation. It would not be good, IMHO. Then you have other actors like Russia who would only gain more from such an act, feeding off of the conflict between the US and China, even if it was purely economic. Putin would LOVE such a move (hell, he’s loving Trump et al flailing about as it is…it’s letting Russia get their foot back in the door in North Korea and even regionally).
Basically, there is no simple Trump like answer to these issues…it’s complicated, which is why no one has solved it in this or any other way. There are a lot of moving parts, and a lot of different perspectives and goals in play in all of this. But a full boycott of China would probably be a disaster no matter what China decided to do, and would have economic ramifications across the globe…and that’s the best case scenario. The worst case is a military conflict.
Kicking the can down the road makes more sense when you really see what all is at stake and in play. Whether it works out in the end is unknown so far, but it’s the best of a bad lot of options…IMHO of course. YMMV.
The word you’re looking for is embargo - interdicting any and all shipping either going to or coming from North Korea. The first practical point is that China would not be willing to sever all land trade to NK unless NK directly threatens China. So, that automatically and dramatically undermines the effectiveness of any embargo. Second, interdicting shipping off NK’s west coast would put US ships uncomfortably close to China and would involve interdicting lots of Chinese ships. That would likely lead to a direct conflict with China.
The US has more to lose in cutting off trade with China than China does, though they would be hurt too. Short of an internal coup, the crisis is only going to be solved with China’s help, since they are more or less responsible for this mess with their saving the NK regime in the first place.
China could bring N Korea to its knees quite quickly. But the problem is that China doesn’t want to see the N Korean regime collapse if that leads to a unified Korean peninsula with strong U.S. influence, perhaps even a U.S. military presence right on its border.
Suspending U.S. trade with China is a ridiculous notion. Some kind of accommodation between U.S. and China on the future of the peninsula might ease the way for China to take a much tougher line, but it’s extremely difficult.
I’m not talking about an embargo, or using force to stop anyone. Just say, like China did with Taiwan, you can only do official business with one of us. And since we, like the Chinese, are so economically dominant, the choice is a no brainer for any national leader. And even if they give in officially, like most nations (ours included) did with Taiwan, there would still be lots of ‘unofficial’ relations, as there are with Taiwan. But why recognize them as a legitimate state and give other nations the same choice, instead of marginalizing them by all official means as is done with Taiwan, and say the Republic of Korea is the only recognized authority on the peninsula? If we can force other nations to at least act like North Korea is not legitimate, through economic means… but the consensus seems to be that such an ultimatum would be as good as a declaration of war?
I suspect that if the US were foolish enough to follow through with Trump’s idea to shut down trade with “anyone who trades with NK,” that China would logically not have to even think about war. Once trade with the US is dead, China would logically call in it’s loans to the US as a simple logical way to make up for the lost revenues. Granted, that’s a mere trillion dollars or so, but it isn’t nothing.
You’re advocating “threatening” China that we will stop trading with them. As others have said, that would do immense harm to both countries and the entire global economy. It’s a “no brainer for any national leader” to not threaten something that would do immense harm to his own country and the entire world.
In any event, the Chinese will not take kindly to coercion. Their justified concern is U.S. influence and military presence on a unified Korean peninsula. If we want China to work more aggressively toward regime change in N Korea, that’s the concern that we must find a way to address. But even then, how on earth can the Chinese work to bring amount regime change without triggering armageddon?
It’s not remotely logical for China to try to ‘call in it’s loans’ to the US, because there is no mechanism to ‘call in’ a treasury bond. The US owes only small semi-annual interest payments until the bond reaches maturity, then pays the full amount. If you (or China) calls someone at the treasury department and demands immediate payment for them, they’ll just quote the wording on the bond and hang up. China can try to sell the bonds on the secondary market, but that’s nothing like calling in loans.
I don’t know where this idea came from, but I really wish people would understand that if you buy US savings bonds, you don’t get to demand the government pay you whenever you want.
China is an authoritarian and totalitarian regime, so it’s a bit different for them to arbitrarily decided (I’m talking about some faction of the CCP here) to stop trade with, say, Taiwan because they are in a snit than for the US government to decide to impose and enforce a broad based boycott of China for both imports and exports (I assume that’s what you mean). When I say ‘a bit different’ I’m understating on a Biblical scale here. Doing so in very vertically directed or targeted ways is doable…doing so in broad strokes? I don’t actually think the government could get enough of a consensus to do so, certainly not for the current level of provocation. You’d be talking about literally billions (hell, 100’s of billions) of dollars in economic downside in a host of different categories, and something that would directly impact almost the entire US population, not just something that some businesses have to suck it up over. I can’t imagine the political environment that would get enough in Congress, the Senate and the president (as well as state and local government) on board for something like that. Oh, sure, the government has the power to do it, but to actually do it? :dubious:
China has a lot more to lose than the US does. I’m not sure why people think this, but it’s just wrong. The CCP has everything to lose if they can’t continue to satisfy their people as to continued economic expansion, especially in the current environment of tension between the population and the CCP. Hong Kong seems to be a powder keg, and even on the mainland there is a lot of tension throughout the country. The ONLY thing keeping it in check is the promise of economic prosperity. Take that away and it’s likely to blow up. And an actual boycott by the US (and, presumably at least some of our allies) would be a huge blow to China…much worse on China than the US. Not that it would be good here, either. Picture the Great Depression…
The whole idea that the U.S. would just stop trading with China to “punish” them, and that China would sell its US debt holdings to “retaliate”, is utterly absurd. Both actions would harm everyone involved, and send the entire global economy into a tailspin.
Note that the US has continued to do plenty of business with Taiwan, including the sale of arms (and an implicit guarantee of protection against invasion) despite having shifted diplomatic recognition to the PRC.
Which is just what I said, tons of ‘unofficial’ business will go on anyways, just as it has with Taiwan. Why is it okay for China to throw its weight around and dictate our official foreign policy, but not the other way around? China won’t stand for it? Then why do we?
Okay, Taiwan and China were once one (still are, de jure), but South Korea has an economy to throw around too now. Why don’t they? Don’t they have more trade with China than the North these days? They can’t say ‘hey, maybe if you you guys want your Samsungs and Hyundais next year, you’ll recognize us as the sole legitimate government of the peninsula’.
I’m not talking about cutting off trade any more than nations that recognize the PRC stop trading with Taiwan. Just ask that they stop treating DPRK as legitimate. No UN seat, or recognition by trade organizations, or status equal to other nations at international events (barring workaround equivalents like Taiwan has), or ability to make official treaties.
China is a divided nation, but the vast majority of the planet only sees one half as legitimate. Why is Korea different, and why can’t the issue be forced, either by us or the RoK? No other nation has acted against China forcing their hand the way you’re all suggesting China would act if we forced theirs, what makes them different? If it’s that we’re an ‘outside influence’, then why can’t RoK marginalize the DPRK on the world stage the way the PRC did to the RoC?
But if the US sanctions China, that might be viewed in the same way that Russians view Russian sanctions: they wouldn’t necessarily blame their government for that one. They’d blame the United States. From China’s point of view, what right does the United States to have its military apparatus in Asia to begin with? China is very nationalistic as well and they’re sensitive to perceived bullying from going back to their colonial days. Don’t assume that Chinese people will just turn on their government. In the meantime, the US economy and the larger global economy would also sustain pretty heavy losses.
Nitpick: actually, you can, after a 1 year or so period after purchase, if you have “US savings bonds”. Those are the personal savings vehicles that individuals can buy up to $10,000 of a year and never lose their principal.
On the other hand, you can’t demand the US pay you back the principal on your US treasury bonds, is what China has and is only resellable on the open market until redeemed at face value at the expiry date.
It might seem absurd, but Trump has been itching to punish China economically since before he took office. I don’t see a major boycott, but this is the sort of situation in which tensions escalate, just as what we’ve experienced with Russia. In fact American diplomacy seems to be deteriorating with almost every single country on the planet.
China never embargoed Taiwan. They have extensive trade with Taiwan.
If you think we’re going to cut of trade with China over North Korea, you’re delusional, along with Donald Trump.
This will never happen. So threatening to do it is fucking ridiculous, and makes Trump look like an idiot. If we really did seriously threaten this, China would just tell us to fuck off, and then we’d back down.
But we’re not going to seriously threaten this, because the adults aren’t going to let Trump do it.
The adults haven’t been stopping Trump so far, have they? Obviously, Trump just pushing a button and shuttering trade in a fell swoop isn’t likely, but pushing the situation to a point where the relationship becomes adversarial and openly confrontation is definitely within the realm of the possible. We like to assume that people are rational, and that people won’t make stupid and/or irrational decisions. The reality is that leaders make stupid decisions all the time.
Counter-Nitpick: according to your own words, you can’t just cash them whenever you want, you have to wait for them to mature. While it’s true that savings bonds typically only have a one year maturity instead of the 2-10 or 5-30 years typical of other US government securities (in particular the 30 year treasury bonds that China will mostly hold), they still have a time period where you can’t just cash them back in. Since people are more likely to have direct experience with savings bonds than treasury bonds I used them as an example, but what I wrote is not actually incorrect.