Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

September 5th, 2006

Tags

,

Comments

53 Comments so far.
Add yours.

“When North Korea Falls”

North Korean soldiers in a training exercise, staged in response to a joint military display by the United States and South Korea
North Korean soldiers in a training exercise, staged in response to a joint military display by the United States and South Korea. From The Atlantic.

Kaplan’s latest is up at The Atlantic. Remember a while back when our Bob was spotted in Korea?

A taste:

“The regime in Pyongyang could collapse without necessarily its army corps and brigades collapsing,”Â? [Colonel Maxwell, U.S. Special Operations chief of staff of in South Korea] says. “So we might have to mount a relief operation at the same time that we’d be conducting combat ops. If there is anybody in the UN who thinks it will just be a matter of feeding people, they’re smoking dope.”Â?

Wot wot to a friend for the heads up.

Comments to this entry

Lexington Green
September 5, 2006
10:33 pm
Good article.

I wonder why we don't just back out of Korea entirely. Let the ROKs and Chinese sort the thing out. If dealing with a post-collapse NK is going to be so expensive and bloody, why not just let the ROKs and Chinese do it? After all, it proximity will mean that they have no choice. If NK becomes a new Tibet, as Kaplan suggests, under some Chinese-friendly regime, so what? That is still better than what we face now. At least we could trade with it. And the ROKs really do not want us there anymore. A quiet drawdown to zero is the way to go. The more we back out, the more the ROKs and the Chinese will be compelled to step up and deal with whatever mess emerges when the Kim regime finally goes away. Kaplan suggests that China will be the "winner" in the long run when the Kim regime goes away. I say, congratulations, have another slice, in fact, have mine, no problem. We can find other places to close the Gap, thanks. And if the USA backing out of Korea means that Japan rearms faster, that is also all to the good. A more heavily armed Japan is yet another check on China that we don't have to pay for.
Catholicgauze
September 6, 2006
12:43 am
Lexington,
I've been asking that question for awhile now. So far no one has been able to give a good answer.
Curzon
September 6, 2006
1:15 am
Here's mine: it would create a vacuum and a potentially unstable situation. For all the fuss in South Korea about restructuring the military and taking wartime control, most actors want US forces to stay their to maintain the balance of power and US hegemony.
Lexington Green
September 6, 2006
2:00 am
Given the gigantic blood-price and financial price for being there when the balloon goes up, I say, let the Koreans, Chinese and Japanese deal with the "vacuum" and "potentially unstable situation". The fact that others may like the idea of the US maintaining the balance seems to me to be no good reason for us to be first into the meat grinder. Let the ROKs anc Chinese sort this out. The vacuum, such as it is, in their own living rooms, and they will have no choice but to deal with it.

Niall Ferguson argues, with some force, that Britain should have stayed the Hell out of France in 1914. On a smaller scale, though a still very bloody and expensive one, I think we are in a similar situation. Years later, people will be asking "what the Hell were they thinking?" Better to be the offshore balancer. Let the continental powers fight things out, then intervene at times and places of our own choosing.
snow
September 6, 2006
2:20 am
I have mixed feelings about this (I live in South Korea). As one who believes the US should always act in its best interests and not to retreat into isolation, I also am sick and tired of the thankless job the US has in South Korea, where the US has long been vilified. In some ways, I think, 'why not let ungrateful peoples go their own way (to hell, if they so choose)' and yet, the same could be said for Iraq, Afghanistan and so many other places that the US has attempted to help. My emotional reaction to the neverending anti-Americanism is to get the troops out of SK, but geopolitically, I'm not so sure that would be best.
sun bin
September 6, 2006
4:22 am
Let's put up a poll and place bets.
a) East European style evolution -- worst case, Romania
b) Kaplanistic scenario (Yugoslavia)?

I will bet for (a).
germanicus
September 6, 2006
11:50 am
I'll bet for (b).
Lexington Green
September 6, 2006
11:51 am
Sun Bin -- I think it is really:

c) NK is unique and will go to pieces in its own unique fashion, maybe akin to Somalia.

Snow: It is not so much that we should let ROK and NK "go to Hell" in their own way, but rather let them sort out their own mess. I actually think that if the USA withdrew in a measured way, that the Chinese and ROK would have time to build up their own military strength and maintain deterrance and deal with the larger problem of NK reasonably well. After all, they live next to NK and have a lot at stake. And if a war broke out, we could intervene if necessary at the request of the ROK, who at the moment do not, apparently, want us there.
snow
September 6, 2006
1:49 pm
Lexington Greene, I agree that we should leave it to them to sort out for themselves, but I'm not so sure that things would sort themselves out the way the South Koreans envision. It's possible that the Chinese and SKers will be able to handle a collapse of the North, but I really wonder if the Chinese might just take the opportunity to annex the North, as in Tibet, as you and Kaplan mention. This is really what I mean by going to hell.

I just think it's foolhardy for the South to be so anti-American and so quick to throw out their best and only real friend in the region for some idea of 'independence' and to cosy up to the Chinese. I think if the US leaves South Korea, the ultimate loser will be South Korea, as they will have no one to back them if the elephants in the region (China, especially) decide to forage wherever it suits them, paying no attention to SK in the meantime.

At the same time, the SKers are counting on the US to intervene if they get in trouble, and I could see air and naval support, but if the troops are gone, I don't think they should return. It's like kicking out your brother (who's paying his way and then some) just because you want to prove you can do it on your own, but you make sure he's staying just down the street (again at his own expense) just in case you may need him.

Ultimately, I think I agree with pretty much everything you said, just that I'm a bit bitter about the anti-Americanism in South Korea and shake my head at the stupidity of the left in this country. And as you say, I like the idea of the South and the Chinese taking care of the mess in the North. The US should not provide huge piles of cash to clean up the mess.
sun bin
September 6, 2006
3:17 pm
ok, let's add option (c).
but really, i think we should measure it by mainly 2 parameters.
1) casualty/pain of the transition
2) length of time for the transition
-- measured starting from the point of 'collapse'....i.e. virtual anarchy after the leader lost credibility among the NK people.

---
I think LexG has made a great point, which I mostly agree.
SK/China led effort would have another advantage, on top of their proximity/logistically feasibility, they have more "leeway/options" that are not available to US, and better knowledge of how to deal with the NK people.
Ultimately i think it would have to be SK led effort, as Korean are very nationalistic. (re: snow, i can place another bet that China will not annex NK in any case. i think anyone who knows korea and china would come to that conclusion very easily)
davesgonechina
September 6, 2006
4:15 pm
I'm sorry, but Kaplan gets on my nerves in this one. NORK collapse is an important issue and I'm glad he takes a stab at it, but there are some things that just irk me.

* Where's he getting this info i.e. # of NORK special forces? A couple of defectors? Don't you think they'd indoctrinate SF to think they have more brethren than they really do? I wish Kaplan would point to a source on this.

* Same for Korea being at Phase 3 of collapse: who, where and how are there these fiefdoms if at the same time he also asserts KJI learned from Ceaucescu and took total control of the military? These unsupported claims seem at odds.

* His claim that the Chinese are gaining operational control of mines, railways, etc. Again, source?

* Chinese defectors as political base: are you kidding? Considering many get sent back to NORK, others get sold into sex slavery and still others exist as persona non gratae? I seriously doubt there's a NORK Chalabi in the PRC, much less someone more effective.

* "Russia's weakness in the Far East is demonstrated by its failure to prevent the creeping demographic conquest of its eastern territories by ethnic Chinese. " Here Kaplan is citing what is becoming a common nationalist fear in the Russian speaking world. But while a Chinese plurality might - might! - occur in 20 years or so in the Far East, the idea of demographic "conquest" is just racebaiting, pure and simple. Russia's real weakness in the region is an overall draw down of active forces, not a "demographic invasion" that is based more on poor immigration policies than regional military capability.

* He doesn't back up a single claim about Chinese intentions or preparations. He simply implies an overarching Chinese threat. I'm starting to think he got his professorship by telling PACOM exactly what they wanna hear. If this makes me a Barnett fan, so be it.

* Finally, Korean nationalism. Kaplan says himself the NORKs are inundated with Joseon Dynasty rhetoric, who fought the Manchus. The South gets mad every time the Chinese say "Koguryo". I'm getting Vietnam flashbacks at the insinuation that another divided Asian country (or some part of it) will supposedly fall into a Chinese Communist orbit...
Dan tdaxp
September 6, 2006
4:22 pm
Let's put up a poll and place bets.
a) East European style evolution"”?worst case, Romania
b) Kaplanistic scenario (Yugoslavia)?


or (c)

Terminator V: U.S. forces leave Korea. Korea, with a declining human population, turns to a new race of super-intelligent warrior robots, programmed with nihilistic tendencies by a vengeful Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk. The robots, backed by their own robot air force, then conquer and subjugate both Koreas, except for a small band of ultra-nationalists on Tokdo. This band successfully defends Tokdo against the robot invasion, but starves to death a few weeks later because Tokdo is, after all, just a couple of godforsaken barren rocks.


ROBOTS!
snow
September 6, 2006
5:04 pm
"snow, i can place another bet that China will not annex NK in any case. i think anyone who knows korea and china would come to that conclusion very easily"

Well, I have no evidence one way or the other, but I wouldn't be so certain if I were you, sun bin. I just don't think that throwing the US over for China is a good idea. With the US, SK knows what it's getting (quite alot), but with China, there are alot of questions, and I'm not sure if Koreans would necessarily like all the answers, as China seems to have no problem in revising history to suit its possible claims in the future (Koguryeo and Balhae). I also don't think that China will really care what South Korea thinks when the chips are down (don't like us meddling in NK? Too bad, they will say, if SK is no longer under the protection of the US). What makes you so certain that China won't make a play for North Korea?
sun bin
September 6, 2006
7:21 pm
well, meddling is one thing, annexation is another.
china has never laid any claim to the sovereignty of Korea. china also had a few opporuntiy to do so (korean war) but it didn't.

both judging by its intention, history, and the reality of the world (no international power, russia/usa included will allow this), i can put my money on the table NK will never be a province of China.
---

about good idea.
i guess it is all relative.
Lex was talking from the US perspective.
From the China perspective, perhaps annexation is a good (but unrealisitc) idea (or make it a satellite).
I think what we should care most here is: what will be the best idea for the NK people themselves. Coincidentally Lex's suggestion is not too far from that answer.
sun bin
September 6, 2006
7:28 pm
snow,
the koguryo history incidence has been mis-understood by many. read andrei lankov or any more knowledgable sources.:)

1) china stopped the historian work promptly after SK protests (that would be called censorship in the west and against freedom of speech) -- you may understand why china failed to understand Japan's 'freedom of speech' defense for its textbook problem
2) china is on the defensive. if you understand the more about the history and geography of Jilin and Liaoning provinces in China, you would probably be able to understand this.
The ancient capital of Koguryo is located on the North bank of Yalu River, in the city of Ji-an in China. The Chinese view of history was just to make sure Korea (South) will not claim soveriegnty of Liaoning/Jilin once the Korea's unite.
sun bin
September 6, 2006
9:13 pm
(it seems china has stopped the publication and asked the historians to keep low profile, but the issue has been revived recently as the research is still going on)

lankov's articles

http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/2004-January/004065.html

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200412/kt2004120619001454140.htm
sun bin
September 6, 2006
9:33 pm
the chinese view on koguryo is best illustrated by this note by a korean historian

http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/2004-January/004055.html

This represented a backwards projection into ancient times of a
present-day PRC political institution, attributing to the past ideas and
concepts that either did not exist anciently or would have to be
considered within quite different contexts.
...
I remember in 1986 visiting the historical museum of Jilin
Province in its capital, Changchun, and being struck by the fact that all
Koguryo-related exhibits (and there were many of them) were marked on the
exhibition label with a terminal date no later than 427 AD. Since Koguryo
existed as a state until 668, this left a considerable gap in coverage.
What about all those last 241 years? The curator explained to me that in
427, the capital of Koguryo had been removed from its old center at
Kungnaesong (modern Jilin Prov., Ji'anxian, on the northern bank of the
Yalu River) to P'yongyang in Korea, and so "it was no longer Chinese."
snow
September 6, 2006
11:12 pm
"From the China perspective, perhaps annexation is a good (but unrealisitc) idea (or make it a satellite)."

Sun bin, as you say, perhaps annexation will be very difficult, as Russia and the US will object, but making it a satellite with a puppet government seems very possible. I just can't see China being too pleased with the North reunifying with the South under a liberal democracy. If this happens, China's influence over the North will decrease, and I hardly think China will stand idly by and watch its influence diminish. If possible, China will want to retain and increase it's influence over the North after a collapse and this would only be possible with annexation or more likely, a satellite. And I disagree that China has neither the intention of the history of such. It has many examples of 'absorption' and if possible, the Chinese will try it with the North, I believe (via a satellite). I don't think they want to lose influence-this is all assuming that the South hasn't already cosied up to the Chinese after kicking out the Americans.
Sonagi
September 7, 2006
1:24 am
Sunbin said:

Let's put up a poll and place bets.
a) East European style evolution"”?worst case, Romania
b) Kaplanistic scenario (Yugoslavia)?

I will bet for (a).


Lexington Greene said:

c) NK is unique and will go to pieces in its own unique fashion, maybe akin to Somalia.



North Korea does not have any ethnic or religious divisions, so if the regime collapses, the country will not splinter into fiefdoms.

Sunbin said:

Ultimately i think it would have to be SK led effort, as Korean are very nationalistic.

Sunbin, North Koreans and South Koreans are both Koreans and view themselves as such. Of course, any post-collapse reconstruction in a unified Korea should be led by South Korea not China!

1) china stopped the historian work promptly after SK protests (that would be called censorship in the west and against freedom of speech)"”?

Independent judiciaries in Western countries uphold freedom of speech. The freedom of speech provision in China's Constitution is worthless. A government that blocks numerous internet sites and portals, shuts down newspapers, and detains journalists can certainly put a stop to a questionable research project.

RE: Koguryo controversy - I asked some ethnic Korean-Chinese whether Koguryo was Chinese or Korean. They answered affirmatively that the people of Koguryo were the ancestors of modern Koreans. When I asked why they thought so, they explained that murals inside ancient Koguryo tombs depict ancient Korean, not Tang culture.

2) china is on the defensive. if you understand the more about the history and geography of Jilin and Liaoning provinces in China, you would probably be able to understand this.
The ancient capital of Koguryo is located on the North bank of Yalu River, in the city of Ji-an in China. The Chinese view of history was just to make sure Korea (South) will not claim soveriegnty of Liaoning/Jilin once the Korea's unite.


Why is China on the defensive? Ethnic Koreans comprise a majority only in the Korean Autonomous Prefecture in eastern Jilin Province, and the ethnic Koreans I knew were patriotic and considered themselves Chinese first. Ethnic Koreans have had enough contact with South Koreans and South Korean culture to realize that there are cultural differences and there have been conflicts between the two groups. In Korea I read stories in the newspapers and watched news reports about discrimination against ethnic Koreans in China. When I asked ethnic Koreans about this, they said they weren't mistreated by Han Chinese but rather sometimes by South Koreans, who look down on them as poorer and Sinicized.

The attraction of South Korea to ethnic Korean-Chinese is economic, not cultural. An ethnic Korean-Chinese who visited Seoul told me upon her return, "In twenty years Qingdao will be much better than Seoul." She didn't sound too impressed with the land of her ancestors. Her daughter is named "Qingmei" in honor of her adopted city, and she and her husband speak Chinese to their daughter. I think this family is representative of how ethnic Korean-Chinese are proud and loyal citizens of the PRC.

Even if there are some ethnic Koreans who might like to see the border moved inland from the Yalu and Tumen Rivers, South Korea will have its hands full repairing the damage from 60+ years of the Kim Dynasty and its collapse; South Korea couldn't even contemplate any moves to reclaim land from China.

China need not be defensive about Jilin Province. It is Chinese and will remain Chinese.

Sunbin, in today's Chosun Ilbo there was this cartoon with unflattering racial caricatures of a Chinese and a Japanese:

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200609/200609050030.html

The same cartoon appeared in Chosun's Japanese version but not the Chinese version. If the Koreans are scared of pissing off China with a cartoon, how the heck are they going to make a land grab?
davesgonechina
September 7, 2006
4:51 am
@Sun Bin: sweet links, cheers. I notice Lankov says that the USA=Tang in Korean nationalist history. I think that alone dispels this false binary choice that Korea either goes with the U.S. or China. The Koreans will take whichever option leaves both out of it as much as possible.

@Snow: "If possible, China will want to retain and increase it's influence over the North after a collapse and this would only be possible with annexation or more likely, a satellite." China isn't going to "absorb" anybody except Taiwan if it means:

- A great more difficulty acheiving Taiwan "reunification"
- A great noise and tensions with Russian nationalists across the way
- Japanese nationalists feeling vindicated in their projections of doom
- A renaissance of Tibet and Xinjiang separatism as fears of Chinese Imperialism are confirmed
- Tension along the semi-disputed Indian border
- Enormous tension in Southeast Asia
- All of their efforts to convince the world of a "peaceful rise", protecting sovereignty of other nations, non-interference recast as cynical crude manipulative lies

All these possible drawbacks AND having to babysit a nation of 23 million hungry, treeless people living in some sort of 1950s/1980s retro shithole. Wow, that is the deal of a lifetime.
sun bin
September 7, 2006
5:35 am
sonagi,

i don't think there is disagreement between us. maybe tiny difference in view.

note that the reason for China being defensive and the fact that china being 'vigilant' arte different issues. there is sufficient reason for china to be worried (esp since these minorities are located near the border, unlike, e.g. korea american for whom there is has no geographic context. i also agree with you that what determines the orientation of korean chinese is economic, today, they are quite proud looking over the other side of Yalu. China also treats the minority pretty decently. but things may change in future. SK still has not formally recognized the border treaty between DPRK and PRC)

however, as you said, such concern may be overcautiousness. i was just pointing this as a fact, not really trying to justify it.
sun bin
September 7, 2006
5:43 am
"China isn't going to "absorb"Â? anybody except Taiwan... "

yes, i think the PRC govt has already made the decision and pronounced the its choice. i.e. definte its territory by the map it publishes today. not an inch more, not an inch less. (except a few clearly unclosed disputes such as sino-indian border, east/south sea.)
therefore, ridiculous as it seems, all its history views are defined by this backward projection from today's geography and demography.
Left Flank - Post details: Kaplan On DPRK
September 7, 2006
9:32 am
[...] Robert D. Kaplan (via Coming Anarchy, Marmot’s Hole) delivers what is surely the best-written English-language essay on the DPRK problem this year. “When North Korea Falls” is good enough to be a primer, if only enough Americans would read it. That said, and with gratitude to Kaplan, he leaves some bombshells for the rest of us mortals to ponder. [...]
baduk
September 7, 2006
6:22 pm
NK is already a satellite of China. KJI wanted to set up a free trade at Sinuiju city, but China nixed it.

I am sure China is behind NK nuke and NK missiles.
Richardson
September 7, 2006
7:15 pm
@ Lexington;

Why not take all of USFK out of Korea? The simple answer is "arms race" and all the headaches (and potentially blown off heads) that come with such.

Simply stepping out of that part of the region and letting what happens happen is unrealistic. We (the U.S.) have too many treaty and diplomatic obligations, aside from financial interest. And Korea, while never powerful, will always be strategically important for its location.

In the long run it's much cheaper in blood and dollars to stay in Korea.
412 Precondition Failed
September 7, 2006
7:22 pm
[...] [...]
Lexington Green
September 7, 2006
11:47 pm
"In the long run it's much cheaper in blood and dollars to stay in Korea."

Nope.

If NK falls apart and there is a war as part of the unravelling process thousands of our people will probably die. If NK falls apart and we are sitting there we will be expected to pick up the cleanup tab, which will be in the trillion dollar range probably. Why is this good for us? The ROKs have made it clear they don't like us. Fine. Defend yourself, or make an alliance with China.

As to an arms race, I see no problem. China has nukes and is arming fast already. If they want to "race" more, so be it. NK probably has nukes and is too broke to do much more. If ROK increases its military spending, that means they are more secure against NK and present a headache for China, both of which are good things. If Japan arms in a serious way, or acquires nuclear weapons, good again, since that creates lots of problems for China and virtually none for us. Bring on the East Asian arms race.

Every reason I hear for our continued presence in Korea consists of abstractions. If the balloon goes up, the dead people and massive expenses won't be abstractions. The more we move away, the more this becomes China's problem. They are welcome to it. They had a lot to do with creating the problem in the first place.
Jing
September 8, 2006
12:34 am
Off topic, but I really feel like shedding some light on the mythical NE asian arms race. There presently is no arms race, no massive chinese weapons build up, nor is there likely to be one in the immediate future. Despite the myriad of misinformation floating about in regards to Chinese defense expenditures, there is still a good base to form a solid estimate of total Chinese defense spending. The official government expenditure in 2006 is ~ 280 billion yuan, roughly 35.5 billion USD at today's exchange rate. Certainly some claim that China's defense budget is higher, claiming that the budget does not include foreign arms purchases, R&D, etc. Yet the estimates provided by the Pentagon and DOD are gross overestimates using ppp to calculate total spending. China's foreign arms purchases have not expanded in the past few years and the last significant order was for an additional 8 russian diesel electric submarines. It is also not a little disingenous for the U.S. to claim that China is understating it's defense expenditures when the U.S. maintains its own large discretionary budget of which the military gets the lions share and is not included in its own budget projections. Or the hundreds of billions spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, also part of separate budgeting. While China is spending more than it's official budget implies, it is not near the ~90 billion dollars that U.S. estimates, likely less than half of that. While this is not insignificant, the double digit increases in annual Chinese defense budgetary allotments must keep in mind both the expanding tax base and the low beginning point of the Chinese military after Deng Xiao Ping's neglect during the 80's. Assuming China's total defense outlays at ~45 Billion USD, higher than the official but a more modest estimate, expenditures are only 1.8% of total GDP. Even more interesting is that defense related spending is only ~12% of total government inlays (it is close to 22% for the U.S.)

People are mistaking what is a deliberate and increasingly pronounced defense modernization plan for an arms race, a plan that in my estimation is a far too slow even. Consider if you will defense expenditures of the other billion plus nation, India. India spends nearly (25 Billion USD) 3% of its total GDP on military spending which is nearly 26% of its entire budget. It is building one aircraft carrier and buying another refurbished Russian carrier, in addition to a planned order for 6 more diesel electric submarines from France and additional as of yet unspecified tender for at least 126 fighter aircraft. Yet despite the sudden, and expensive, increase in defense capabilities, no one is screaming chicken little about a massive Indian arms build up.

It is simply due to the fact that China is in the unenviable position of being unpopular in East Asia that anything and everything is automatically assumed to be provocative even when it is not neccessarily so. Japan and South Korea are already heavily armed to begin with. Despite Japan's ostensible pacifist constitution, Japan's Navy is the most capable force in the Pacific outside of the USN. Honestly some people need to walk away from the mainstream western media talking points and do a little in depth learning.
Richardson
September 8, 2006
12:39 am
Nope.


Actually, yes. An arms race sets the stage for more things to go wrong in the event of North Korea collapse and drains resources from South Korea and Japan that would be better spent rebuilding a reunified Korea than arming the peninsula and the archipelago.

If NK falls apart and there is a war as part of the unravelling process thousands of our people will probably die.


IfIf NK falls apart and we are sitting there we will be expected to pick up the cleanup tab, which will be in the trillion dollar range probably. Why is this good for us? The ROKs have made it clear they don't like us. Fine. Defend yourself, or make an alliance with China.

Simply being there or not won't matter. Do you seriously believe the U.S. wouldn't be a major contributor to such an effort? That's not realistic. Japan, China, Russia, the UN, etc. will all be in for that one.

No matter if the U.S. is in Korea or not, it is likely that North Korea will eventually collapse and the U.S. will offer massive assistance. To assert otherwise is to ignore history from WWII to present.

As to an arms race, I see no problem. China has nukes and is arming fast already. If they want to "race"Â? more, so be it.


China is building up, not in a race (i.e., races include more than one party).

If you don't see a problem with an arms race, at least plenty of others do. It's a race Korea could not win, which would push it to go nuclear. That in turn would put pressure on Japan to do the same. In such a case perceptions of vulnerabilities matter just as much (or more) than the realities, and it would take one miscalculation to spark something much larger.

I see a major problem with an arms race. It would be irresponsible and foolish to set conditions to usher in one.

Every reason I hear for our continued presence in Korea consists of abstractions.


Six decades without a regional war "“ is that concrete enough for you? It's not an accident.
Richardson
September 8, 2006
12:42 am
@ Jing,

I agree that there is currently no arms race, as races include more than one and China is building up along.

But China is building up. I invite you to cite some credible research to back up your claims that China is not in the midst of a massive build up.
The Marmot’s Hole » Kaplan on when N. Korea collapses: ABSOLUTE MUST READ
September 8, 2006
1:02 am
[...] UPDATE: Be sure to check out Richardson’s and Joshua’s commentary at The Korea Liberator.  And don’t forget the discussion at Coming Anarchy. [...]
Jing
September 8, 2006
1:13 am
Credible research that China is not in a massive buildup? You need evidence besides the constant shedding of personnel from the PLA, the [i]decrease[/i] in equipment across all branches of the Chinese military. Less tanks, less aircraft, less ships, less everything nearly. The glacial pace in the expansion of the 2nd artillery corps. The increasing, but still paltry defense expenditure that ranges from ~1.5 to at most 2% of China's GDP when during the Cold War the Americans and Soviets were spending 8-10% or more.

There simply is no massive arms build up. What there is, is a modernization program designed to turn the PLA from obsolescence into a modern military that is capable of defending Chinese interests. This may seem a matter of semantics but it is not. A buildup is when Hitler was massing aircraft and tanks by the thousands in preparation for war. What the Chinese military is experiencing is nearly the opposite, the shedding of antiquated equipment and extraneous personnel by the score in favour more lean and effective military. As I said earlier, it is a defense modernization plan. The only people who would view this as an arms build up are those that won't be satisified unless the Chinese military is reduced to merely boyscouts and a coastguard.
Richardson
September 8, 2006
1:47 am
Sources?

I'll find/post sources/stats on the buildup tomorrow.
sunbin
September 8, 2006
3:46 am
richardson,

I think you need to define what "build up" means first.

what is a reasonable (non built up) size of defense?

IMHO % GDP for the past 10-15 years is perhaps a good measure (or per border length, or per sum of the arms force of your neighbor).
in such measure China's armed force is perhaps weaker than India's in any measure, not to mention Japan, or the 2 Koreas.
Lexington Green
September 8, 2006
1:05 pm
"Six decades without a regional war "“ is that concrete enough for you? It's not an accident."

The situation has changed. NK is relatively weaker compared to ROK. ROK is wealthy now and can afford most of its own defense. The USSR is gone and NK has lost a major patron. China is no longer interested in supporting NK as it once did, hence losing its other major patron. NK is now more of a danger because of something crazy happening, not because it might overrun ROK. We could wind down our ocmmitment of ground troops, which would be popular in ROK. ROK used to be a reliable ally of the USA. They no longer are, and would like us out of their country, which they are within their rights to want.

The dynamics have changed. The 60 year old model worked well in its time. It is time to reassess.

I am somewhat simple in my thinking. I care very much about Americans getting killed and that occupies much of my thinking, how to avoid that. I don't want that to happen unless there is a very, very good reason for it. Getting in the way of foreigners who may want to kill each other, or defending foreigners who don't like us and can afford to defend themselves don't strike me as good reasons.

As to cleaning up NK, I agree we probably will be involved. I wish we would not be. Ideally, I'd like to see us say, we did not cause this problem, we are not paying for it. But, I cheered when Bush said he was not going to do nation building. If we try to do "nation buiiding" in NK, the terrorist resistance we will face from psychos and die-hards will make Iraq look like nursery school. How many tons of explosives are cached all over the place in NK? It will be a nightmare. I say let the Chinese and ROKs do it. They have no choice. We can afford to be hard-nosed about it.
Richardson
September 8, 2006
1:54 pm
Although not specifically written as a response to this thread, my view in detail can be found at:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI09Dg02.html

Once quote:
Obviously, the original purpose of the US-South Korea alliance was to counter the North Korean threat. However, as that threat has waned, a more important, diplomatically incorrect mission has evolved in addition to deterring North Korea: ensuring stability among China, Japan and Korea.


You tend towards isolationism, which has a proven track record of allowing situations to fester until we get involved. And then the going is much tougher and many more Americans usually end up dead. Saying that the US "should"Â? not be involved doesn't reflect what we all know "will"Â? be the case.

Nothing I've seen here convinces me that pulling out of Korea and leaving a security vacuum will do anything to maintain regional stability, far from it.
Richardson
September 8, 2006
2:09 pm
Should read "one quote."
davesgonechina
September 8, 2006
3:52 pm
@Lexington Green: "If Japan arms in a serious way, or acquires nuclear weapons, good again, since that creates lots of problems for China and virtually none for us."

Uh, I can see an upside for everybody if Japan's military upgraded to a full ministry (as they are doing now) and became more of a force in peacekeeping, relief and stabilization missions (except in Korea). But getting nukes? My rule of thumb on China's nuclear position is that unless you have enough nukes to wipe out the entire landmass of China Proper, you don't deter - you simply make them more testy and angry. This goes triple for Japan since that's the last nuclear power China (or Korea) wants to see. Japan would have to go major Daddy Warbucks to build up a credible nuclear deterrent to China, and China wouldn't have to lift a finger for most of that time, except perhaps to actually put their missiles on alert launch status since they've been mothballed for years. All that would be accomplished by Japan nuclear would be a major escalation of tensions and distract Japan from doing other more useful things. Useful things like helping the U.S. or UN in their global strategies. Nope, don't see the plus side here. Japan, don't waste time on nukes.
sun bin
September 8, 2006
8:22 pm
japan does have enough plutonium to wipe out the world, not just china, if it chooses to do so.

but again, why would anyone want nuke for japan? even most japanese don't want it. this proposal is as bad as curzon's nuke NK plan a year ago.
Lexington Green
September 9, 2006
3:33 pm
I don't want nukes for Japan, particularly, though I am not worried about the prospect. Stable, democratic countries with nukes don't worry me. Not even France. I just don't think the hypothetical risk that they will acquire them is a good reason for the USA to maintain a landpower presence in ROK. The argument has been advanced that the USA must maintain that presence, and lose thousands of people in an intra-Korean war, so that there won't be an "arms race" in Asia. To me the risk of being compelled to participate in such a war, and compelled to pay for much of the post-NK-collapse cleanup is a price which exceeds the risk of a hypothetical Asian arms race if we move to an offshore posture that gives us more options and pushes China and ROK into taking the lead on winding up the NK mess.
Richardson
September 9, 2006
4:55 pm
I don't want nukes for Japan, particularly, though I am not worried about the prospect. Stable, democratic countries with nukes don't worry me.


You've missed the point entirely; it is not about distrust of Japan, it's about the reaction by China and the Koreas (or Korea if reunified).

Arms races alone are not dangerous, but what happens when nations participating in arms races miscalculate and respond to real or perceived threats is.

The argument has been advanced that the USA must maintain that presence, and lose thousands of people in an intra-Korean war, so that there won't be an "arms race" in Asia.


Actually, that's an incorrect summary of the argument. You've confused cause and effect in this case; the U.S. (a) should remain in the ROK in order to maintain the stability, that is has unquestionable achieved in the past six decades, (b) in order to head off said arms race. A second Korean War is not inevitable or even likely - unless there is an arms race.

To me the risk of being compelled to participate in such a war, and compelled to pay for much of the post-NK-collapse cleanup is a price which exceeds the risk of a hypothetical Asian arms race if we move to an offshore posture that gives us more options and pushes China and ROK into taking the lead on winding up the NK mess.


First (and again), it is the arms race which increases chances of another Korean (and East Asian) War, not the other way around.

Second, the U.S. would end up participating in an East Asian or Korean War regardless of a USFK withdrawal; we have both treaty obligations and broad financial interests in the region.

Third, if you think the U.S. would not bear a large part of Korean reconstruction, if USFK remains or not, then you have not been paying attention to our foreign policy since WWII.

I find that projecting ones desires as the reality of the situation, as opposed to looking at the uncomfortable facts of the matter(s), does little good in coming to any plausible understanding of the situation.
Lexington Green
September 9, 2006
7:06 pm
It is not a matter of "facts" it is a matter of political decisions. If you think it is "inevitable" that the USA will get involved in cleaning up NK then you are not watching the public response to Iraq. The human and financial costs of so-called nation building in Iraq are not popular, for good reason.

"...projecting ones desires..." I am talking about what our policies should be. This is still a democracy, we elect people, and major policies must be supported democratically. I'm not projecting, I'm suggesting.

"...treaty obliations..." Amend or revoke any treaty that compels us to get involved in a land war in Korea. This is not insurmountable.

I disagree that a so-called arms race will make Asia more dangerous. I also disagree that the USA moving to a less exposed posture in ROK will increase any danger. The Chinese are the ones with the most to lose and will be forced to keep the peace. To the extent that ROK or Japan obtain nuclear weapons, this will make war less, not more, likely. Nuclear weapons are the great peace makers. To the extent that Japan or ROK even obtained greater conventional capability, this would help keep the peace vis-a-vis NK. As to China, China can decide to engage in an arms race, or to invest in its economy. The leadership there seems to be more driven by greed, which is good, than by dreams of military glory. And China already has nuclear weapons.

This talk of arms races obscures the issue which was raised by Kaplan's article. He says, plausibly, NK is not going to last. It is going to fall apart. When it does one of two things will happen, there will be a war with ROK in the process, or NK will dissolve into disorder without a war. If it is the former, there is no benefit to the USA having land forces in the way. If we build down, the ROKs will spend what it takes to defend themselves, or take their chances. If it is the latter, not having land forces next door will give us more options as to how, when, and how deeply we get involved in any rebuilding effort. The American public would probably not be interested in a major commitment to that project, especially if we had not been sucked into it merely by being there when it started.
Richardson
September 9, 2006
7:56 pm
Your attempt to compare North Korea to Iraq is invalid. The U.S. is not going to invade North Korea, and the U.S. has been involved in Korea for the living memory of that majority of Americans, with deep regional ties and obligations. Really an apples/oranges comparison.

The Chinese ... will be forced to keep the peace.
Please, China can't even project enough force in its own region to deal with catastrophes like the tsunami. Not even in the ballpark. China would intervene and "keep the peace" in a Korea-Japan conflict? Right.

If you want to change the facts as they are (yes facts), maybe you should run for office. Before (if) you do, I hope you grasp the effects of isolationism since those lesson apparently don't inform your current worldview.

You're also still focused on the misconceptions that an arms race would not hurt America's ability to project influence and that the U.S. won't be intimately involved, in many ways, in a Korean reunification. I've not seen an argument close to convincing of that, and don't expect to. I may not prefer that these things be true, but I'm a realist that recognizes that they are. And as I have an internal locus of control, I don't spin my wheels with scenarios not based on the baseline realities, but focus on the actually practical.
Richardson
September 9, 2006
8:01 pm
I didn't use any tags besides blockquote, so not sure why a para came out bold...
sun bin
September 9, 2006
8:13 pm
I am happy with Lex's repsonse:) he perhaps missed Richardson's point, but not mine.
sun bin
September 9, 2006
9:16 pm
1) of course arm race, any arms race will only make the area more dangerous. to achieve balance of power or mutual destruction we do not need a micro-balance in NE Asia. China and US has enough nuke to assure that.
However, the problem here is the assumption of an arms race, which is dubious at best. the average armament spending in these China and Japan are extremely low in terms of GDP%. Only NK overspend but we all know NK's weapons are WWII relics.

2) One must note that the military power balance in the korean peninsular has reversed compared with 1950s. NK does not have the resource, or the capability to attack SK. SK is probably strong enough to defend, or even invade NK alone.
this makes the US-SK pact very differenct vs 20-40 years ago.

we are talking about how SK deal with a NK collapse, not how SK resist a (much weakened) NK invasion.
sun bin
September 9, 2006
9:19 pm
these are the 'actually practicals'. :)
Lexington Green
September 10, 2006
3:40 pm
Richardson has a very jeering tone. So be it.

Look, this whole thread arose from an article by Kaplan. In that article he says NK is going to fall apart. Let's assume arguendo he is right. He posits two scenarios, (1) NK attack on ROK, or (2) NK collapse. He says USA will be heavily involved in either.

I ask the basic political question: What is in it for us to be heavily involved?

My conclusion: Nothing. My solution, detach our landpower commitment to ROK. You say (1) impossible and (2) stupid. Impossible because of treaty commitments. I say, revise them. The ROKs neither want us nor need us. You say, stupid, because our landpower commitment in ROK has kept the peace of 60 years. I say, the situation has changed. The threat of an NK attack has become much less, and it can be better handled by China and ROK. You say, well, the US presence has prevented an arms race. That presents the tradeoff between inevitable Americans deaths when NK goes down if we stay on the ground there versus the hypothetical risks to the USA of an arms race -- risks to other people don't concern me. I say, I weigh the inevitable deaths higher. I think this is a political question that should be put to the American public, so we don't drift into a war that we need not be in. You also say, well, there will be an arms race between Japan and Korea, which is something of a novelty in the foregoing discussion. I say, I discount that risk compared to the American deaths in a ROK-NK war we don't need to be in.

I say, we should minimize our involvement to reconstructing NK. Many people will die in the effort. I see no reason any American should die in it. I also say it will be very expensive and I see no reason Americans should pay for it. You say, well, historically it is inevitable we will be involved. OK. In that case, get our landpower out of ROK, so that when reconstruction begins we can pick at our own discretion where, when and how and at what expense we get involved.

I don't think anything I have said denies the existing reality. It is all a matter of political decisions. Our country has been drifting with regard to Korea.

Kaplan's article shows that there are huge costs about to come due in lives and treasure and I want the USA to bear as little of it as possible. That is realism, not fantasy, and it is not an unattainable goal. The American public could be informed about how little the ROKs like us or want us there. We could then ratchet down our involvement.

I understand the reality as well as you do, sir. I am afraid that nothing is going to happen, we will continue to drift along, then there will be a war, and a lot of Americans will be killed for a cause which is not our own. When the Cold War was on, it made sense to be in ROK, on the ground. It no longer does. We should act accordingly

I have just re-read what I wrote and do not see any point at which I am detached from reality, or what is politically possible if someone would exercise some leadership.
Richardson
September 10, 2006
9:53 pm
Look, this whole thread arose from an article by Kaplan. In that article he says. . .
Before addressing your other comments, let's get one thing clear; what Kaplan (or most anyone) says on this is not Gospel. While I agree with a great many things he says, he also makes some errors that I think would be obvious to area experts.

I ask the basic political question: What is in it for us to be heavily involved? My conclusion: Nothing. My solution, detach our landpower commitment to ROK. You say (1) impossible and (2) stupid. Impossible because of treaty commitments. I say, revise them. The ROKs neither want us nor need us. You say, stupid, because our landpower commitment in ROK has kept the peace of 60 years. I say, the situation has changed. The threat of an NK attack has become much less, and it can be better handled by China and ROK.
First that's more than a "Ëœpolitical' question; you could add economic, geo-strategic, etc., but most of all it's a security issue in how the U.S. maintains the dominance that has served us so well (stability, prosperity, etc.).

I'd like to see a quote where I say it's "impossible"Â? to withdraw. You won't find one in either explicit or implicit form. You've misread/mixed up what I wrote on the order of arms race and war, so it's also not surprising that you misinterpret other elements of what I wrote. So be it.

But surely it would be incredibly stupid. I've laid out why on several occasions; you get it or you don't, no need to spell it out again. Get the explanation again here "“ it explain why the new situation requires a continued USFK presence. In fact this is more critical now that it has been since the 1980s.


You say, well, the US presence has prevented an arms race. That presents the tradeoff between inevitable Americans deaths when NK goes down if we stay on the ground there versus the hypothetical risks to the USA of an arms race"”?risks to other people don't concern me. . .
You call the arms race hypothetical (and it is), but act as if there WILL BE another Korean War, which is also hypothetical and actually less likely, particularly with USFK there. As I said, you get it or you don't.

I understand the reality as well as you do, sir.
It's hard to find someone who doesn't think that.
sun bin
September 11, 2006
8:51 pm
see "barnett's comment on the economist":http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/003710.html
The Acorn » Kim’s Chicken
October 7, 2006
5:40 pm
[...] Pyongyang’s nuclear blackmail has been on for some time, and is primarily directed at keeping what Robert Kaplan calls the ‘Kim Family Regime’ in power. This blackmail will continue even if there are no tests. For Japan and South Korea to wait until North Korea conducts its nuclear tests before developing nuclear weapons capabilities themselves would be an impossible act of recklessness. There is already a working system of nuclear deterrence in North East Asia. North Korean nuclear tests may make the mechanisms more explicit, but won’t change the mechanisms much. North Korea does not have to conduct tests for its nukes to make their way into the hands of rogue nations and terrorists—China and Pakistan have already proven that those designs work. [...]
Kaplan on the Fall of the North Korean Regime « GI Korea
October 21, 2006
6:45 am
[...] It seems like every six months somebody writes an article about what should happen in the event of a North Korean collapse. The latest person to take his shot at providing a theory of what to do in the event of a North Korean collapse is Robert Kaplan. Well now we know what Mr. Kaplan was up to two months ago at the DMZ. Coming Anarchy first reported on this, but you had to have an Atlantic Magazine subscription to read the complete article, however Robert was nice enough to actually cut and paste the whole article. [...]
Kaplan"â„¢s "When North Korea Falls"Â? at DPRK Studies
November 5, 2006
6:09 pm
[...] [...]