In a WSJ oped this morning that is likely to raise more than a few eyebrows, Bruce Gilley makes what he acknowledges is “An Immodest Proposal,” advocating a Chinese invasion of North Korea on “humanitarian grounds.” My first, perhaps a tad sarcastic, reaction was that someone should call Richard Gere, but, as many of us know, the great defender of Tibet is otherwise engaged.
But I wondered, after a moment’s reflection, whether Gilley actually made sense in his rash proposal. While I am some distance from picking up the cudgels (as if that would matter) for this idea, I am not prepared either completely to dismiss it. As he points out:
Seldom has there been a regime more deserving of being overthrown on humanitarian grounds. North Korea is one of the great disasters of our time. A famine from 1995 to 1998 killed between 600,000 and one million people — 4% of the population. Even today a third of the population is malnourished. Basic rights simply do not exist. All of this is because of a cruel and unreformed communist regime that makes Saddam’s Iraq look like a paragon of justice. As if these humanitarian considerations were not enough, North Korea’s nuclear programs pose a major threat to world peace and raise the specter of proliferation of WMD. So too do its biological and chemical-weapons programs, which have so far received far less international attention. In short, there is a firm basis for a just war to topple Kim Jong Il.
It also seems indisputable that the Chinese are by far the best placed to undertake such an action. Of course, the specter of the “Red Dragon” expanding its power as it did with the Tibetans gives pause. But Gilley seems to be implying that China has changed sufficiently and that an invasion of this nature might induce further change, encouraging the great Asian power to demonstrate its magnanimity.
Well, it’s hard to come to a conclusion about something like this at such short notice – to say the least. But Gilley certainly deserves plaudits for “thinking out of the box.”
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
19 Comments
1. Scott Ferguson:My only worry about China overrunning North Korea “on humanitarian grounds” is that they’ll continue south and overrun South Korea as well.
Jan 6, 2005 - 5:26 am 2. Aulus Gellius:China got a bloody nose when it invaded Vietnam in 1982. I would not automatically assume that North Korea would be a pushover, either.
But let us say that China succeeds, extinguishing the Kim Jong-il regime and replacing it with a coterie of Chinese lackeys. Not only will South Korea find such a situation intolerable, but the common Chinese enemy will unite newly empowered North Koreans with their kin in the south. Unless China unleashes a reign of terror of the same character as the current regime, South Korea will successfully infiltrate and support anti-Chinese resistance in the North and turn it into China’s Vietnam. Koreans, while admiring Chinese for their culture and civilization, have resisted Chinese expansionism for centuries, with success.
A few years ago in a bar in Seoul, I listened to a drunk South Korean government minister expound about the future greatness of Korea. One of the goals he dwelt on was conquering the northern Chinese provinces where estimated 30m ethnic Koreans live. Unification of the two Koreas and taking possession of the North Korean nukes were the first steps towards that goal…
Jan 6, 2005 - 5:47 am 3. MCP:The Chinese don’t need to invade. They are the primary source of funding for the regime. They are the only source of military hardware and support. They have close contacts with every general and colonel in the NK Army or AF. All they have to do is give the word and KJI is gone. The resulting regime would be a Chinese puppet but that might be a better thing. What the US needs to do is convince the Chinese that if they don’t take care of the problem we will. They do not want a united, democratic Korea on their front doorstep.
Jan 6, 2005 - 5:55 am 4. SR:From a number of sources and opinions I have read, it is reasonable to suggest that if we could really get China on board, the North Korean regime could be brought down without a war. If neighboring countries were to allow a massive exodus of refugees, the regime would be destabilized and destroyed due to massive depopulation of the country.
China currently forcibly repatriates North Korean refugees to NK, which is tragic given how many refugees (and their families) are then sent to prison camps. The UN does nothing to help these refugees, and even the South Koreans are discouraging them. And yet they still try to escape.
It seems tragic to me that we (US, UN, the international community) do not move seriously to rescue these people, when it can be done without a war. I believe most Americans would support this, even if the financial cost was great.
One statistic that has always stuck in my mind- the average North Korean is 3 inches shorter than the average South Korean, due to malnourishment and stress.
Jan 6, 2005 - 6:03 am 5. Terrye:I can’t imagine the US actually welcoming such an invasion but we have to think about what our responsibilities are when we sit back and watch people suffer and die under a vicious destabilizing regime.
Someday if that government falls people will wonder how the world allowed all the suffering to happen. Someday if it discovered that a weapon is used that kills tens of thousands and that weapon came from this country the world will wonder how we let that happen too.
Jan 6, 2005 - 6:07 am 6. Morgan:Egad, Roger, blogging at 4:15?. Either you were up very early or very late – it’s hard to say which.
Kim Jong Il is probably on his way out anyway , so this seems like an odd time to overthrow him, on humanitarian grounds or any other. Why go to the trouble?
I’m ignorant of the nuances of the Sino-Nork relationship, but I would guess that China has some influence over who the successor will be, and will likely push for someone more in line with the “new China” model. They might even push for someone who can bridge the gap between South Korea and China. It would save them a lot of trouble, and open up trade.
Jan 6, 2005 - 6:30 am 7. David Thomson:Red China probably wants to do nothing more than monitor the deteriorating situation in North Korea. As long as Red China feels unthreatened, it prefers to remains on the outside looking in. The financial costs of taking over North Korea would be enormous. This is a country that has little to offer in return. How many educated citizens does it have? Red China desires to become an economic powerhouse. The North Koreans would drag them down. Invading their country might be perceived as an act of altruism. Since when has Red China acted altruistically?
Jan 6, 2005 - 6:37 am 8. TigerHawk:There is a plausible argument that Douglas MacArthur’s race to the Yalu river in 1950, which triggered the Chinese intervention in the Korean War, was in retrospect the single most significant American military error since, well, I don’t know when. I, for one, am persuaded that the present regime is in power because we (some combination of MacArthur and Truman) did not show restraint when it was called for.
This is ironic, in light of the subsequent history in Iraq. There, a dangerous government remained in power because we didn’t finish a war.
It just goes to show that it is very hard to learn the lessons of history, even when they are right before our eyes.
Jan 6, 2005 - 6:45 am 9. Fausta:My initial reaction is, Bad idea!
South Korea, Taiwan, and who else, next?
Jan 6, 2005 - 6:46 am 10. Terrye:Those 100,000 Chinese troops massed on the NK border are there for a reason. I doubt if the Chinese want just anybody to be running the country. If they think the crazy mother in charge of the place is on his way out they might be more likely not less likely to invade. In the view of many a failed state is more dangerous than an autocratic one.
Jan 6, 2005 - 6:59 am 11. Sandy P:For those who don’t know, Rantburg is a good place to keep abreast of the NorK situation.
But China can’t feed their own, they really can’t absorb another 15 million.
and the SorKs refuse to do it.
Jan 6, 2005 - 7:22 am 12. Bostonian:OT to my favorite people on the Web:
Why is there not a lot more coverage of the WA state election? Over at http://www.soundpolitics.com, there’s a lot of detailed information about votes from dead people & felons, totals that don’t add up, practices that allowed provisional ballots to get mixed in irrevocably with the regular ballots, and so on.
It’s unbelievably mixed up and the (new) winner’s team is claiming this is the best run election in WA state history.
It’s so bad, and it was so very close, that a lot of people are agitating for a revote, a la Ukraine. (I’m one of them. The results are tainted beyond belief.)
Jan 6, 2005 - 8:25 am 13. Former CNN Watcher:The redoubtable (and retired) blogger Steven den Beste mooted the Chinese invasion as the least bad solution to the North Korean tyranny 18 months ago.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/06/Rumorsofdisaster.shtml
Jan 6, 2005 - 9:19 am 14. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):It is not clear that China has any interest in dumping the Nork regime. After all, by being the nation most able to affect them, they gain international leverage. The more dangerous the Norks, the more power the Chinese have – as long as they can credibly claim (quietly) an ability to prevent the use of Nork military power or WMDs. Whether that ability exists is another matter. Depending on their power over the Norks, they may be able to use them to deniably threaten us (an extreme example: “help Taiwan and the Norks will sell nukes to Al Qaeda” – passed along indirectly and subtly, of course).
Depending on their power over Kim Jong Il, they might prefer a regime change to implant a more pliable apparent lunatic.
China wants Taiwan. It also has a millenia long history of seeking “friendly” buffer states around it. It may even have imperialist designs on North Korea (last year China quietly said that Korea was historically part of China).
North Korea represents a threat to the US. China’s relationship with the US is complex, but we are certainly considered a geostrategic rival and an enemy of China’s Taiwan and Asian hegemonic goals. Hence they probably view North Korea as a lever to use against us. That is certainly consistent with their behavior so far.
Of course, we are also extremely important to China as a trading partner, just one of the complications in these calculations.
Furthermore, propping up North Korea is somewhat expensive to China, but not when viewed strategically. They provide supplies to the North, and have expensive deployments to try to stop Nork refugees (hardly the behavior of a nation that would go to war for humanitarian reasons!).
It is good that the issue of biological and chemical weapons came up. While chemical weapons probably don’t represent a strategic threat to the US, they could be a substantial economic threat in the sense of causing yet another massive demand for new security precautions throughout our civilian sector. Biologiccal weapons could be a Nork “doomsday weapon” against the world.
Jan 6, 2005 - 10:21 am 15. Dishman:It’s my understanding that the Chinese actually have 600,000 troops near the border. The Nork army is 70% south. Essentially, if China wanted to go in, it would only be restricted by its own logistics capabilities and the threat of the Norks nuking Beijing.
Jan 6, 2005 - 10:52 am 16. JeremyR:China obviously could (and heck, maybe the French would send the Charles de Gaulle to help), but why would they?
As it is now, North Korea is essentially a client state.
And they could probably assassinate the North Korean leader and take over without invading.
But the Chinese are getting their money’s worth out of North Korea. There is nothing about the current situation that doesn’t help the Chineses. Sure, the humanitarian aspect is bad, but I’m sure that keeps the Chinese leaders up at night.
Jan 6, 2005 - 12:51 pm 17. Joel Fleming:It seems to me as though this situation is roughly analagous to the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. In both cases, the intervening regime is/was a hardly a model of democratic governance but the status quo is/was so intolerable as to make invasion a desirable outcome.
Jan 6, 2005 - 2:37 pm 18. zgatt:We know China holds the keys to the region; this is why multilateral talks are so important. China sure does like tweaking the US’s nose, but one would expect it doesn’t enjoy the regional chaos the DPRK breeds.
The reason military action against an intact DPRK is impossible, from any position, is that they hold Soeul hostage with a massive conventional threat. The only hope appears to be that the regime and/or army collapses in such a way that other states (China, S.Korea, West) are able to quickly step in. I would bet the (substantial) US forces there are ready to sweep the threat against S.Korea given the opportunity, but it seems conservative to expect that to require weeks; in other words, this will have to be a fairly stable transition.
Jan 6, 2005 - 4:31 pm 19. Cletus:There is a very good reason that China props up North Korea, and that is also the main reason they will not invade it, even if we think it would be a good idea. The area of China to the north of North Korea and then up along Russian/Chinese border is ethnically Korean. As it is now, an ethnic Korean in China looks across the border and sees a Korea that is worse than China was during the depths of the cultural revolution. Not very enticing… But if the North and South reunite, a lot of Southern money (and freedom, and prosperity) will flow into North Korea. China doesn’t want the ethnic Koreans to look south and think, they’re Korean and so am I, they’re doing pretty well, why shouldn’t I be included as well? The Chinese like having South Korea as a trading partner, and the South would never be willing to accept a Chinese invasion and occupation and continue the current trade relationship. The bottom line here is that North Korea serves the Chinese very well domestically as a discouragement to attempting a breakaway by a potentially fractious minority, while also giving the Chinese stature and leverage on the international stage, because other countries believe they have the ability to influence North Korea’s behavior, and they can use that as leverage in all sorts of situations. The Chinese would never invade North Korea, for the simple reason that it would be detrimental to their own national security and image around the world. (Tibet has only a few million mostly pacifist Buddhists; North Korea has 25 million of the most militarized people on earth, all raised from birth to hold their leader, independence and sovereignty to be the most important principles; worth, as they put it “becoming bullets and bombs to protect the leader”.) I’ve seen this fantasy scenario a few times, and thought I’d throw my two cents in. (FYI, I’m an American, a Korean linguist, and have lived in South Korea off and on since the 88 Olympics for a total of 13 years.)
Jan 7, 2005 - 2:15 pm