US Korea Institute

Tuesday March 28th 2017
Subscribe to Our RSS feed@38NorthNK on Twitter
38 North offers informed analysis of events in and around the DPRK.

Subscribe for latest



The “China Factor”

31 October 2016

China-USA FlagsA new round of shadowboxing appears to have begun in Washington over North Korea policy in the wake of Pyongyang’s two latest nuclear tests and unrelenting series of missile tests. For some time, the Obama administration’s policy of “strategic patience” has found few defenders apart from its architects, and there is now a general consensus that the next four to eight years will require a different approach. The North Korean nuclear threat finally has assumed the “urgency of now” in policy circles, but that is where the consensus seems to end. Observers have generally advocated one of three responses: a new strategy based on military force, an intensification of sanctions and pressure, or a return to negotiation and engagement.

There is a lot at stake in this debate. Given the upcoming presidential transition, the winning idea might actually become the basis for policy under a new administration. Indeed, favorites for senior appointments in a Clinton administration such as Kurt Campbell, Michele Flournoy and Wendy Sherman have all weighed in of late. The controversy seems have resonated less with the American public, consumed as it is by a tumultuous presidential campaign that has left very little oxygen for serious foreign policy discussion. (North Korea staged a missile test hours before the third presidential debate, yet it still didn’t earn a mention among the “foreign hot spots” addressed.)

While US officials are consulting intensely with their South Korean counterparts, not enough attention is being paid to Beijing’s perspective, even though China would figure heavily into any prospective US action toward the North. By examining Beijing’s role in each of the three main North Korea policy strategies under debate in the United States, the “China factor” emerges as a decisive one, in ways that policy makers need to weigh carefully.

The Hawks

The most remarkable new feature in the North Korea policy debate is serious contemplation of military force as the only viable option left. Such calls to arms are couched in guarded terms: no one advocates an imminent attack on the Yongbyon nuclear complex, and none dare call this approach for what it would most likely be: the start of a second Korean War. Instead, national security figures such as Mike Mullen, James Stavridis and Victor Cha suggest that a “surgical” or “pre-emptive” strike almost certainly must take place before Kim Jong Un perfects the capability to hit the US homeland with a nuclear missile. During the Obama years, military options were off the table because of the cost that Seoul would have to pay for a strike on Pyongyang. As President Obama put it to Charlie Rose, “we could obviously destroy North Korea with our arsenals but … they are right next door to our vital ally, the Republic of Korea.” But with the South Korean government indulging in extremely bellicose rhetoric, integrated into recent US-ROK joint military exercises, that restraint seems to be vanishing before our eyes.

How might Beijing react to a US pre-emptive or surgical strike on the North? The question is often evaded, perhaps because the answer makes a military solution considerably less attractive. North Korea is, after all, China’s only defense treaty ally in the world, and is obligated to “immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal” to defend Pyongyang if attacked. Their 1961 treaty is often overlooked or trivialized—occasionally by Chinese academics themselves. But the agreement remains in force, underscoring North Korea’s unique place in Chinese foreign relations. To mark the 55th anniversary of the treaty’s signing in July, Kim Jong Un sent Xi Jinping a friendly note praising the pact as a “firm legal foundation” for the bilateral relationship.

To be sure, North Korea would be on its own if it were to attack US allies or assets in the region, let alone US territory. But if the United States launches a pre-emptive strike not to prevent a specific, imminent missile attack, but rather to prevent North Korea from perfecting an intercontinental nuclear strike capability, it is unlikely to meet Beijing’s standard for jus ad bellum. On the contrary, a strike of this nature could likely drive Beijing to side with the North in accordance with their 1961 treaty. In the furious military retaliation that Pyongyang would muster after a US strike, South Korea and the United States could not count on Beijing’s support and indeed may face Chinese intervention on the peninsula, as in October 1950. “Surgery” would rapidly descend into a bloodbath. “Pre-emption” would start a war.

The “Boas”

Despite these risks, or in willful ignorance of them, the military “solution” is no longer an outlier in the US debate over North Korea policy. Still, proponents of force do not hold the mainstream position. That distinction goes to advocates of intensified economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure and hard deterrence, such as Bruce Klingner, Evans Revere and Sung-Yoon Lee and Joshua Stanton. And unlike the hawks, these “boa constrictors” place China front and center, since draconian sanctions rely almost entirely on Beijing for implementation.

The boas’ advice to our next president boils down to three simple steps.

  • Early on, the President makes the case to China that it must get onboard the sanctions train. How? By appealing to Xi Jinping’s strategic good sense and apparent dislike of Kim Jong Un. By pushing ahead with theater missile defense, trilateral cooperation with South Korea and Japan, and other additions to the regional security architecture that China dislikes. By dangling the warning that if sanctions don’t work, the train’s next stop is “pre-emption.” And, last but certainly not least, by unleashing the US Treasury Department to slam Chinese firms and banks with secondary sanctions for doing business with Pyongyang.
  • Treasury action shuts targeted Chinese entities out of the global financial system. To stave off systemic financial pain, Beijing and provincial governments take bold action against dozens of firms like Hongxiang Industrial. Chinese companies pull out of North Korean joint ventures and investments, and they cancel orders and contracts. Chinese banks shut down DPRK-related accounts. The Chinese government provides no aid. Before long, North Korea is facing crippling shortages in fuel and food, not to mention capital investment and banking access.
  • With Kim Jong Un’s choices finally sharpened, he cries uncle and realizes he must give up his “treasured sword” of nuclear deterrence. He takes concrete dismantlement steps, declares a testing moratorium, verbally commits to complete denuclearization, and asks for resumption of the Six Party Talks on the basis of the September 19, 2005 agreement. Thanks to China’s tough love, young Kim learns his lesson: the Americans won’t reward bad behavior, they don’t talk for talk’s sake, and they won’t buy the same horse twice. Kim recognizes the fundamental contradiction in his byungjin strategy of simultaneous progress in developing nuclear weapons and the economy, and decides to abandon the former in hopes of maybe, eventually, achieving the latter.

It’s an alluring idea. There’s just one snag: even under dramatically increased financial pressure from the US government, Beijing will not sign up for comprehensive sanctions that would sever their trade and investment relationship with North Korea and, potentially, shut down their neighbor’s economy (as China’s UN Ambassador recently reminded anyone willing to listen). And Beijing’s main reason for resisting the boa constrictor plan exposes its deeper flaw—namely, the premise that the Kim regime will buckle once the pressure is strong enough.

To understand this point, it is worth stepping back to consider how Chinese and US observers look at North Korea in fundamentally divergent ways. Americans look at the North and see the Other, something irrational and evil—a crazy hereditary ruler, gulags and secret police, dirt poor and self-isolating, a whole country without electricity at night. Meanwhile, the Chinese see themselves a few decades ago, and focus on the ways in which the North is catching up, particularly under Kim Jong Un. To most Americans (including President Obama), the collapse of the DPRK is inevitable, a question of “when,” not “if.” To most Chinese experts, there is no reason why the North Korean system, just like their own, cannot last at least another 70 years.

The Chinese recognize that one of the key ingredients of North Korea’s resilience is the country’s extraordinary capacity to absorb pain. Few nation-states can “eat bitterness,” as Chinese say, like the North, as its 1990s famine tragically proved. The Chinese also believe that North Korea can undergo socioeconomic transformation, including the switch to a less hostile foreign policy, without regime change. In addition, Beijing accepts the North Koreans’ claim that insecurity in the face of US hostility is the main driver behind their nuclear program. And if Kim thinks his country needs a nuclear deterrent for the time being to fend off the overwhelming might of South Korea and the United States, he will let his people starve so the state can survive. Along the way, he will lash out violently at South Korea and perhaps even China, reminding both governments how their citizens want, more than anything else, not to have to think much about North Korea. Beijing therefore fundamentally rejects the premise that “super sanctions” can squeeze North Korea into submission.

Because the Chinese do not believe that Step 3 of the US sanctions strategy can succeed, they will push back hard at Step 1, using the economic and diplomatic leverage available to them in the US-China relationship. Does the next US president want to start a finance war with China during her first year in office over Beijing’s failure to apply sufficient economic pressure on North Korea? The boa constrictors answer a triumphant, “Yes!” But considering the severe stress it would place on Sino-US relations (jeopardizing progress on everything from climate change to bilateral investment to cybersecurity), and given the uncertainty of Kim complying even if Beijing did what we want it to do, one has to question the strategic soundness of the approach, tempting as it might sound.

The Doves

That leaves the third option: swallowing our pride, steeling our resolve and marching back into the negotiation room, as Joel Wit and Jane Harman and James Person have advocated.

Arguments in favor of bilateral talks, economic engagement and cultural exchange are unquestionably the underdogs in this debate. “Munich! Yalta!” the hawks and boas sneer, raising speculative objections that get repeated so often they have become like policy mantras: “There is nothing to discuss since Kim has already made a strategic decision to never give up his nukes. North Korea will make absurd demands, like suspending joint military exercises and discussing a peace treaty, that would undermine the security of the entire region. What’s the point of negotiations since they will cheat on their agreements anyway?” Most damning of all: “Talking to Pyongyang is de facto ‘recognition’ of their nuclear status, which is all they really want, and the one thing we can never, ever grant.”

There is no question that any direct negotiation with Pyongyang will be exhausting and at times maddening. If history is any guide, there will be setbacks, and there will be hedging (on both sides). But history also shows that progress is possible. For the next US administration, negotiating a freeze and return of inspectors is a realistic short-term goal, and the North Korean Foreign Ministry has made multiple unsuccessful attempts to get such talks going with the Obama administration. Yes, it’s true that major North Korean concessions on the nuclear program will demand security compromises by the United States and South Korea. That’s how diplomacy works, especially among parties with profound mutual hostility and distrust. But it is premature to conclude that Kim Jong Un is incapable of flexibility and pragmatism, since we have not tested him through diplomacy at a high level. As to the bogeyman that sitting down with the North Koreans is tantamount to recognition, that is, in the inimitable phrase of then-Senator John Kerry, “an extraordinary canard.” Similarly, the notion that Pyongyang is punished by our refusal to talk to them is, in the words of then-Senator Barack Obama, “ridiculous.”

Fighting for engagement and negotiation with North Korea in the US foreign policy debate is an uphill battle. But proponents of engagement have one trump card: when Washington engages, the China factor becomes an asset in dealing with North Korea, rather than a liability or roadblock. Beijing, after all, is steadfast in its strategy of engaging Pyongyang, and it is perpetually looking for US openness to negotiation. China’s security policy toward North Korea is unwavering: the goal is denuclearization, the preconditions are peace and stability, and the method is dialogue. If the next US president adopts an engagement strategy, Xi Jinping’s government would likely step up its own work to achieve short-term breakthroughs and long-term solutions. Paradoxically, Washington’s best chance of getting China to apply constructive pressure on its errant neighbor is through a major US initiative to negotiate with Kim Jong Un.

Beijing does not think any amount of sanctions and pressure, including the use of military force, will change Pyongyang’s behavior in the way Washington wants. The firm policy of the Chinese government, supported by most foreign policy experts (though not necessarily the ones most quoted by US and South Korean media), is that only dialogue and negotiation can moderate North Korea’s behavior, and that the best hope for long-term progress lies in the untapped potential of North Korea’s economic transformation and regional integration. Many South Koreans, including the leading candidates to become the next ROK president, would seem to agree.

A Hard Choice

The next US President and her core advisers will have to make their own determination whether the hawks, boas or doves have it right. No doubt there will be some combining of the three approaches, as advised by expert groups assembled by the Council on Foreign Relations and Hoover Institute and US-Korea Institute at SAIS. But a hard choice has to be made about which direction to stress in future US policy. Whatever comes after strategic patience, the “China factor” may make the difference between failure and success.

Reader Feedback

13 Responses to “The “China Factor””

  1. John says:

    “The next US President and her…”


  2. John says:

    “How might Beijing react to a US pre-emptive or surgical strike on the North? The question is often evaded, perhaps because the answer makes a military solution considerably less attractive.”

    I find myself wondering if that’s not exactly what China is counting on. Of course that is in the context of an expansionist China seeking dominance in the region the effective exclusion of the USA. My nightmare outcome is that China uses Kim and his nuclear weapons to attack (where though) and then China steps in with a threat of escalation global nuclear war should the USA attempt to respond in kind to NK.

  3. Larry Martin says:

    One, you would not wait 60 seconds after launch to engage. Launch procedures would be as soon as the target clears the horizon. Then, as now, there will likely be intelligence warning before a test (not an operational attack). Two, the SM3 can intercept the bus post-boost for an unknown period of time. Again it is not so difficult. The ballistic trajectory is easily plotted much like the known path of a satellite which the SM3 has already demonstrated by shooting one down. So until the bus begins maneuvering or mirving the ballistic solution is very simple compared to end-game intercept. SM3 launcher does not need to be far away but even if it was it is still possible. You are correct about the NK picking another retaliatory target but this part of the discussion was technical. Shooting by either side is not a “good” idea, only one that might be forced upon decision makers. Cheers and thank you for the discussion.

  4. Kostadinov says:

    “Boost phase intercept, especially within such a small geographic box, is a very simple matter, the least difficult ABM scenario that one could imagine. As for NK shooting at the launcher, good luck to them finding the US Navy vessel that launched the interceptor.”
    To intercept in boost phase(about 60 seconds)missile with 1000 km range with SM 3 interceptor (launched 30 sec. after the start of the BM and with average speed 4 km/s) the vessel must be no more than 100-120 km from the launching site and in North Korea significant area in the mountains is not less tnan 200 km from the see. So the matter is not so simple.
    And the return fire can be not on the vessel with interceptors but some other target (command, comunication,radar etc).

  5. Edward Dong says:

    There is, of course, another player that has to be on board — the Republic of Korea. As we know, the Park Geun-hye administration is currently embroiled in the Choi Sun-il scandal, with lots of public sentiment in favor of resignation or perhaps a grand coalition government centered on a neutral Prime Minister and cabinet to the end of Park’s term.

    To be sure, there is a North Korea policy structure in place, but the strong president system in Korea means that there needs to be some form of “control tower” which provides the political authority and legitimacy to whatever is undertaken. That “control tower” may not be in play.

    I think that Professor Delury is quite correct that the next administration may have to deal with the North Korea nuclear and longer range missile issue on an urgent basis. But the South Koreans have the most at stake and the most at risk (and we should not forget that the Chinese and Japanese also have that risk). So if one of the options is taken — and all are problematic in their own way — it becomes absolutely critical for an authoritative buy in by the Republuc of Korea to proceed. Who is to provide that buy in, and when? Do we wait until after the presidential election in December 2017? Can an interim politically neutral Prime Minister do so, and would he/she? Can a deeply politically wounded President Park credibly enunciate a buy in on behalf of the Republic of Korea?

    In every way, our North Korea policy has to be informed by the position of our ally, the ROK, and to a large extent some degree of coordination with China. And, of course, there is Kim Jong Un and the DPRK, which are not going to sit around passively.

  6. Larry Martin says:

    Boost phase intercept, especially within such a small geographic box, is a very simple matter, the least difficult ABM scenario that one could imagine. As for NK shooting at the launcher, good luck to them finding the US Navy vessel that launched the interceptor. It has its drawbacks I know but less than a surgical strike as phase 1. I’m all for talking as long as I have someone to talk to but am not willing to wait until the little troll has a fully realized weapon to threaten us, the Japanese and the ROK. If the Chinese are not, in the end, willing to help bring this to a close then any sanctions rejime is just a false show anyhow.

  7. Kostadinov says:

    “Halfway house to surgical strike is to begin shooting down their missiles once out of NK airspace. No direct attack on NK proper leaves China some room to not over retaliate”.
    China will not directly retaliate even to a surgical strike. But any strike or shooting down north missiles will mark the end of all sanctions, including to sales of chinese and probably russians weapons.
    Shooting down NK missiles (in practice rather than in computer games) is hardly possible but even if it is possible NK can use this experience to counter the missile defense or can escalate the conflict attacking the defense.

  8. jakob says:

    On this the 60 anniversary of the Suez crisis, it is instructive to note certain similarities that reflect US policy towards the DPRK.
    The hawks well went to war and lost. The Boas held a myopic view of geo-politics. Evans Revere say has been lecturing the Chinese for it seems forever to pressure the North Koreans. They politely listen to him but behind the scenes they scoff at his naivete, and the poor man keeps preaching to the wind.
    Obama’s pivot is not working. Like Eisenhower’s balancing act in the Middle East, China is chipping away at US role in easst and south east Asia. Duterte is breaking out America’s orbit; now Malaysia is seeking arms from Beijing (remember, the DOJ are investigating Najib’s role in the 1MDB fruad);Myanmar is a weak reed; Thailand is in crisis; even South Korea’s Park’s reliance on a fortune teller has weakened her badly.
    So negotiations are the only sensible road to travel, but the old guard has no stomach for that, so unsure that they have the patience to jaw, jaw, jaw it with Pyongyang.
    North Koreans may be wily but they want to come in from the long cold they having living, so there are opportunities to explore with the uS have the will. Do they?

  9. Larry Martin says:

    Their missile developments are the main threat to the US. Halfway house to surgical strike is to begin shooting down their missiles once out of NK airspace. No direct attack on NK proper leaves China some room to not “over retaliate”.

  10. Herman Heyn says:

    North Korea will never seriously consider negotiations
    until the U.S. ends its annual, provocative, joint naval maneuvers with South Korea. As long as they continue, all we can expect are more sanctions,more paranoia and a growing possibility of war.

  11. Kostadinov says:

    1. The best possible result of a pre-emptive strike will be a new Korean war with the scale and outcome of the previous war. But this is the best case and the most probably scenario is far worst. If complete military victory is not achieved the nuclear and missile development in North Korea will be accelerated and the support of China and Russia is granted.
    2. No sanctions, even with China full support, can change the policy of North Korea and complete isolation of the country from outside world is possible only with sea blockade which will rapidly degenerate in new Korean war.
    3. The denuclearisation of North Korea is not a realistic goal for agreement at this stage. The possible goal is limiting the north nuclear deterence and non proliferation of korean nuclear arms.

  12. Robert says:

    All three poses certain reasons but further thoughts and thinks. As for China factor, I am really want to ask what it is. North regime certainly welcomes “China factor ‘” because it believes the China factor serves what it needs possibly toward its own wishes. But the China factor was done before and failed for the reason just mentioned above but possibly other causes. That is what is about why the six party talks failed to move on. Whether those three options are viable still need to be discussed, the newly raised point by the Intel chief addresses a sensible cautious implications in policy initiation on North Korea in broad and deep meaning that policy to North Korea move on opening with another new chapter, though his point shall be on much more discussion. As I said, north regime has been deepening in nuke trench for too a long at all counts so that it believes it’s exit is just not without the immense costs, whether they are a regime survival or whatever . But here I must say, if North Korea should understands what is at stake or what shall workable to move toward stability peace and prosperity on the Korean peninsular, my advice to North Korea is that north regime shall come out to engage in the fundamental talks laying out principle differences while getting to common sharings as an opportunity to move forward to positives. This is a new enormous challenge to north regime under the third fledging leadership if it is to build a nation toward stability peace and prosperity in the Korean Peninsula as it has ever always claimed to support for.

Leave a Reply

Credit for photo of young North Korean girl: T.M. All rights reserved, used with permission.