Hell will freeze over before China allows USA to attack N Korea. China vehemently calls for USA to stop bombing Iraq. Do you think that their attitude about a N Korea situation would be any different? Here's the article on China's stance on Iraq. China Calls for Immediate Halt to War on Iraq By Brian Rhoads BEIJING (Reuters) - China, in a surprisingly strong reaction to the start of the U.S.-led war against Iraq (news - web sites), called on Thursday for an immediate halt to military action and a return to efforts to resolve the crisis peacefully. Reuters Photo Chinese analysts had expected the government to issue a mild rebuke that would not risk a setback to improving relations with Washington. Instead, Beijing chose to focus on the primacy of the U.N. Security Council in world affairs. "We strongly urge relevant countries to immediately stop military action," Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan told a news conference without mentioning the United States by name. "They ignored the opposition of most countries and peoples of the world and went around the U.N. Security Council to begin military action against Iraq," he said. "This constitutes a violation of the U.N. charter and the basic norms of international law," he said. "We hope to see an immediate halt to military action and a return to the path of a political settlement," Kong said. Kong did not respond directly to questions on the effect the war would have on Sino-U.S. relations. Asked if Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), scheduled to visit China in April, was still welcome, Kong said merely that President Hu Jintao had issued that invitation when he visited the United States last year as vice president. He declined to comment further. SURPRISE The strength of the government statement surprised Chinese analysts. Jin Canrong, a professor of international relations at People's University in Beijing, said he had expected an expression of regret and hope for a resumption of diplomacy and for China, which like France and Russia pushed for a diplomatic solution in the United Nations (news - web sites), to "keep a low profile." "It's a bit stronger than I had anticipated," he said later. But he said if the government had been prepared to risk its relations with Washington, it would not have turned down student applications for anti-war protests. "It's unlikely to have an impact on China-U.S. relations," Jin said. Other Chinese analysts said the statement was clearly directed at a domestic audience fed for years on a steady diet of rhetoric about U.S. hegemony, as well as a global community that had heard Beijing's repeated calls for peace. Although China is eager to keep ties with the United States on an even keel, that would become more difficult if civilian casualties mounted or if U.S. forces found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction or if Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was killed. "It's a kind of political posturing by the Chinese side due to strong opposition to the war at home and abroad," said Wang Yong, executive director of Peking University's Center for International Political Economic Research. "But China will not escalate criticism of the United States further," Wang said. "The impact on China-U.S. relations won't be huge," he said. But China's position would change if Saddam used chemical or biological weapons, analysts said. "If Saddam really does use them, this will change the attitude of the United Nations, including China. In this case, the U.S. war will be justifiable," said Peking University international relations expert Zhu Feng. BALANCED REPORTING On the first day of the war, China allowed what appeared to be balanced reporting by its state controlled media. In a rare move, state television broadcast live, with simultaneous translation, the address by President Bush (news - web sites) on the start of the war. Other official news outlets ran the text of Bush's brief speech on their Web sites in both Chinese and English. State television also carried a later live broadcast from Baghdad by Saddam, also with simultaneous translation. China has boosted security around foreign embassies in the past few weeks, partly for a two-week session of parliament that ended on Tuesday. Extra guards were stationed near embassies, some with flak jackets, helmets and automatic weapons. Several roads were blocked off this week, including one near the Israeli embassy re that happens. China vehemently
The Chinese Communists spent the entire 1960's and 1970's supporting N. Vietnam against the US. I guess hell froze in '79 when China invaded Vietnam. There had been too many strange bedfellows in international relations to make any prospect surprising, really.
I actually support the idea of nuclearizing Japan, but not solely to counter N. Korea. I think that in the future such a move would be a powerful deterrant to a surging China, which is a far greater *potential* long-term threat than North Korea. Not saying that a war there is inevitable, but a nuclear-armed Japan would be a very powerful deterrant to any potential conflict. That said, I do not think that North Korea will be able to be dealt with peacefully. The regime there is too unstable, too disconnected from reality, and utterly irrational in its dealings with the rest of the world. There seems almost to be a resignation to national suicide in the mindset of the government there. A fatalistic attitude that seems as if it can lead to nowhere but war. I do think that it can be dealt with in a much more multilateral fashion than Iraq, though. Unlike Iraq, virtually the entire world is on our side on this one. Even China would not dare to sacrifice its trade relations with us just to protect a dangerous regime that it can no longer control (they are increasingly frustrated with the North's actions as well). The diplomacy for such potential action should be started ASAP. I would support a surgical strike against nuclear facilities. There are two possible outcomes to such action: 1) North gets the hint and ends nuclear program, or 2) North starts general war on Korean peninsula. I think #2 is more likely, and we should therefore be prepared to fight another MRC if we execute a surgical operation. The scary thing here is that the North Koreans are dreadfully underestimating our leadership. They think that they are still dealing with Bill Clinton, and that they will be able to extract more concessions from the US. They don't seem to understand that Bush will blow that friggen reactor up before he gives them a penny. Hopefully they will look at what is happening in Iraq right now and change their tune.
I think the N. Korean army is also terribly overrated. It's pretty much a sitting target were it not for the artilery trained on Seoul. If the South Korean capital is 50 miles farther from the border, there won't be too many casaulties in a ground war. Only if...
I agree that NK army is overrated. Just like Saddam's was in '91... Large army, great against civilians and inept enemies, but won't pass muster against a competent military force. Still, would be a scary war, especially in terms of collateral damage.
it sure looks like fatX2cow.... did he get banned under the fatcow nick? if so, I can clear some room off of my ignore list...come on guys, give me the skinny... btw...ontopic...I think that continued efforts at diplomacy are in order..but what do I know?.
thanks, dont see how I missed that one...I normally read any thread Jeff starts.. I put that guy on ignore a whiile back..I dont remember ever seeing a post from him that wasnt a bunch of hate-filled crap if anyone dared say anything that might be construed as against China. Besides his obvious dustaste for America..but I can deal with that...
Japan, South Korea Exhibit Support for Iraq Attack By Doug Struck Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 20, 2003; 8:00 AM TOKYO, March 20 -- The threat posed by the North Korea crisis and the expected loyalty of allies prompted the governments of Japan and South Korea to support the U.S. attack on Iraq despite public opposition, leaders in those two countries said today. Both countries, key Asian allies, had officially wavered on whether their governments would support an attack not sanctioned by the United Nations. "It is in our best interest to support the United States," concluded South Korea's new president, Roh Moo Hyun, who presides over a country deeply suspicious about American unilateralism in the world. Roh said after an emergency meeting of his National Security Council today that the attacks were "inevitable actions taken after all the diplomatic efforts failed." Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said his government's support is the price for U.S. protection in case of conflict with North Korea. In a nationally televised speech, Koizumi noted, "America has said clearly that any attack on Japan is an attack on the United States... The Japanese people must not forget that this provides a strong deterrent against an attack on Japan." Australia's Prime Minister John Howard has been consistently vocal in support of Washington, so there was no surprise in his declaration today that the 2,000 Australian troops already sent to the Iraqi region "have started combat and combat support operations." Australian forces include navy ships in the Person Gulf, 14 FA/18 fighter jets, support troops and about 150 special forces commandos. South Korea said it plans to send about 500 military engineers and medical units to assist the combat operation. Japan is prohibited by its constitution from joining the fight, but it has agreed to assume more support duties around Afghanistan and reconnaissance of North Korea to relieve U.S. forces for Iraqi assignments. "The idea is that we and the United Nations will take care of Afghanistan, while the U.S. takes care of Iraq," and adviser to Koizumi said recently. In Japan, South Korea and Australia, public opinion has run strongly against a U.S. attack on Iraq without U.N. approval. But the conflict over North Korea 's nuclear weapons fuel development programs has caused governments in the region to be wary of public splits with its superpower alliance partner, the United States. Still, the decision to support the effort brought quick public criticism. The Japanese daily Asahi Shimbun, expecting a bill for reconstruction of Iraq to end up at Japan's door, complained of President Bush's "attitude of going ahead with war and expecting others -- including nations that adamantly oppose it -- to help clean up the mess later. Bush must stop believing he is almighty." In Australia, university and college students quit their classes shortly after the bombing began, in protest to the action. Last month, more than 200,000 people rallied in Sydney in Australia's largest protest march since the Vietnam War.
First of all, if the US were to decide to intervene in North Korea there is very little the PRC could do about. They do not have the capability to block such an intervention. Any suggestion that they would go nuclear for NK is clearly from someone out of touch with the PRC leadership. The PRC should be squashing NK themselves, as a nuclearized Japan and possibly South Korea (if NK nuclearizes) is the worst possible outcome for them. But, as always, they are the masters of the realpolitik. It is much easier for them to let everyone castigate OUR handling of the situation, so they can devote their resources and political capital to other things while risking nothing in NK.
Iraq isn't on the Chinese border with nuclear weapons and a leader who might be beginning to unravel. You can ignore the belligerent ******* down the street with a knife and a bone to pick - but when its your neighbor, and its a shotgun - things change. China will act in her best interests. In the 50s it was against her best interests to allow a state which acted as a buffer to fall. So they intervened. Now, we have to convince China it is in her best interests to help us eliminate N. Korea. And then she will help us. They don't need to stop us. Just harass, delay, provide material support and "volunteers" to NKorea. Given the mountainous terrain, it won't be as cut and dried as the middle east, in my opinion. Considering the international climate, all they need to do is make things a little ugly for us. But I doubt they'll do that. Any conflict with America would severly impact the economy of both countries - but China would have a harder time recovering than America - and even "Communists" care about their wallets.
Then, why is China continuing to fund N Korea's missile program? Here is an article about the strong China-N Korea alliance. N. Korea using China to obtain missile supplies By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES North Korean companies in China are funneling technology and goods for Pyongyang's missile program. "North Korea also has continued procurement of raw materials and components for its ballistic-missile programs from various foreign sources, especially through North Korean firms based in China," the CIA stated in a recent report to Congress. The public report coincides with other classified intelligence reports obtained in recent weeks indicating that China is also helping North Korea's nuclear program. The issue is a sensitive one for Beijing, as it has publicly called for Pyongyang to cooperate with the international community's demand to freeze its nuclear program. The reports disclosed that a Chinese chemical manufacturer in the seaport of Dalian, near North Korea, supplied Pyongyang with tons of tributyl phosphate, known as TBP. The chemical has civilian purposes, but U.S. intelligence agencies believe it will be used for North Korea's nuclear-arms program. The chemical transfer arrived in North Korea just as the secretive communist government announced that it had planned to reprocess spent fuel rods that will provide enough material for several nuclear bombs. The Chinese Embassy yesterday did not return a phone call seeking comment. North Korea's announcement last year that it was abandoning a 1994 agreement with the United States not to build nuclear weapons in exchange for oil shipments, along with its withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has set off a crisis in northeast Asia. The CIA report to Congress, made public earlier this month, said that fuel rods that were "canned" under the now-abandoned 1994 Agreed Framework "contain enough plutonium for several more weapons." A congressional report on North Korea in 1999 stated that Pyongyang received most of its nuclear infrastructure from countries in the former Soviet Union, "but also has received equipment and know-how from China." The final report of the House Speaker's North Korea Advisory Group said China "remains committed to the survival of the North Korean regime" and would be willing to support Pyongyang's needs for nuclear-power-generating reactor fuel if the United States, South Korea and Japan cut off fuel shipments and stop building two new nuclear reactors, as appears likely to happen. Senior Chinese military leaders in charge of the Chinese military region of Shenyang, located north of the China-North Korea border, continue to have close ties to Pyongyang's military. The military-to-military connection is believed crucial to the survival of the North Korean regime, according to U.S. analysts. The North Korean companies operating in China were not identified in the CIA report. But other U.S. officials have identified several of them as official North Korean government trading firms. In Shanghai, for example, North Korea has set up a branch of the Maebong Trading Co. and the Amur River National Development General Bureau. Another trading company that operates in China is the Korea Daesong Trading Corp., which has an office in Hong Kong. Pyongyang has also set up a trading company in Macao that is run by the North Korean People's Armed Forces. That company is used to covertly purchase arms and equipment. A senior administration official said the United States wants China "to use what leverage they have" to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear-arms program. "I think that they have talked to the North Koreans," the senior official said. "The general feeling is that there is always more that they could do, and we would encourage them to do as much as possible." So far, however, China's support for resolving Pyongyang's nuclear crisis has been limited.
Not sure what in that article disputes anything I've said. In fact, it seems to back up my point that the PRC is playing realpolitik instead of trying to rein NK in.
"China 'remains committed to the survival of the North Korean regime' and would be willing to support Pyongyang's needs for nuclear-power-generating reactor fuel if the United States, South Korea and Japan cut off fuel shipments and stop building two new nuclear reactors, as appears likely to happen."
I just really - *really* - pajama-King in charge of North Korea is watching what is happening to his protege in Iraq. Those of you who b****: "Why don't we deal with Korea first?" should reconsider strategic realities. Kim is watching. Watching Saddam's regime be removed, piece by piece. Systematically. Surgically. Watching us remove a regime while talking its army into surrender> i hope he"s watching>
