North Korea: Time for Secret Talks with China

North Korea: Time for Secret Talks with China
Article
Summary
The death of North Korean dictator Kim Jung Il increases the likelihood that the stress on the multiple fault lines in Korean society will reach the point of breaking. Secret talks with China to plan for contingencies may be needed now more than ever.
Related Media and Tools
 

The death of North Korean dictator Kim Jung Il increases the likelihood that the stress on the multiple fault lines in Korean society will reach the point of breaking. Secret talks with China to plan for contingencies have long been overdue. They are needed now more than ever.

As many note, in the initial phase of the succession, the roughly 600,000 in the privileged North Korean elite can be expected to adhere to each other. The operating principle is the old phrase from Ben Franklin: all hang together, or all hang separately. 
 
For the ordinary abused North Korean, the repression system will retard efforts to seize the opportunity for change presented by a new and untested leader. But as time passes, the fault lines can be expected to make themselves felt, and not improbably through violence.
 
There are huge generational issues. Can a twenty-something Kim Jung Un, a four star general in an army in which he has never served, impose his will on eighty-year-old marshals? Will key army, party, and government officials be replaced by much younger associates of the new leader or will they resist?
 
There are obvious issues of competency. Will seasoned officials provide the advice Kim the third wants or the advice he needs? Will he accept it, or will it feed his suspicions? Will he continue his father’s legacy of anti-reform policies or will he give greater scope to market forces?
 
There is a family-based regency of Aunt Kim Kyong Hui and her husband Jang Sung Taek. Regencies have a troubled history in societies with strong Confucian influence. Power gravitates to one authoritative individual. There would be no need to illustrate this phenomenon to Chinese who know their history.
 
There are world-record economic issues of poverty and mismanagement. The elites are rapidly becoming more knowledgeable about the outside world and their South Korean cousins and how they compare with the “workers’ paradise” in the North. They have the Internet, proliferating cell phones, and radios, all easily obtained through the pervasive corruption of the system. Increasingly these new outlets are reaching ordinary citizens, as well.
 
The military must be conflicted. Senior officers were replaced shortly after Kim Jung Un was made a four star general. The air force and navy have been starved for resources and arms by policies to support the nuclear weapons program and the reluctance of China to make up for the shortfalls. Will there be a contest for control over the nuclear materials and weapons, or will we face the proliferation challenge of “loose nukes”?
 
So, once the initial shock and reflexive cohesion of the system after the death of Kim Jung Il have passed, China, South Korea, and the United States may be faced with one or several challenges. “War games” played over the years have demonstrated that civil conflict, refugee flows, military mutiny, “loose nukes,” or diversionary outward aggression are all easily envisioned. They all can escalate quickly.
 
Under deteriorating circumstances, will South Korea see it necessary to interfere in civil or military conflicts? Or will it be forced to respond to aggressive attacks? Will China and North Korea be able to prevent a flood of river-crossing refugees or boat people? If U.S. Special Forces move to secure the North’s nuclear capabilities, how will China respond? Does it have its own plans? Will sudden reunification lead to American forces on China’s borders under the U.S.-South Korea alliance?
 
These questions are why the time has come for the president of the United States to propose secretly to his counterpart in Beijing that trusted, empowered emissaries meet somewhere out of sight to seek and offer important assurances. To open the conversation, the United States might reassure Beijing that any forces that go into North Korea to secure the nuclear facilities would not be permanent and that Washington has no plans to station forces north of the 38th parallel under the circumstance of Korean reunification by the South. 
 
China’s reaction and/or counterproposals can then be sought, all in order to prevent misunderstandings of each other’s actions and signals, and to de-conflict the forces potentially involved.
 
Beijing has been reluctant to engage in this kind of dialogue, although Chinese thinkers have increasingly acknowledged privately the need for such an authoritative conversation. North Korea watches for any sign of disloyalty by Beijing, however trivial. The WikiLeaks affair has heightened China’s sense of risk, which must be addressed in the modalities of the talks.
 
The phone conversation on the North Korean situation this week between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi, suggests Beijing is more attuned to the need for a serious conversation than ever before. The Obama administration should seek to deepen this opening as soon as possible. And I hope none of us hear about it.
 

 

End of document

About the Asia Program

The Carnegie Asia Program in Beijing and Washington provides clear and precise analysis to policy makers on the complex economic, security, and political developments in the Asia-Pacific region.

 

Comments (2)

 
 
  • Franco Cotta
    I think that the U.S. Government should assure China that we will not oppose any military intervention in North Korea conducted by chinese special forces, if China is concerned about their nuclear weapons. Anything more would be immediately reported to the North Korean Government and contribute to increase the possibility of further development of their "deterrent actions" against us.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • Mark Collins
    I find Paal's position hegemonistic . It has to be asked, what plans does China have to secure North Korea's fissile materials? I don't see the US being in a position to resist a Chinese military intervention.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
 
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/12/21/north-korea-time-for-secret-talks-with-china/8i81

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。