International Crisis Group on North Korea-China ‘Relations’

It never ceases to astonish me how many sober-minded people in Washington see no alternative but to wait around for China to force North Korea to reform and disarm, if only marginally. My response to that idea has always been a less precise version of what the ICG reports here:

China’s influence on North Korea is more than it is willing to admit but far less than outsiders tend to believe. Although it shares the international community’s denuclearisation goal, it has its own concept of how to achieve it. It will not tolerate erratic and dangerous behaviour if it poses a risk of conflict but neither will it endorse or implement policies that it believes will create instability or threaten its influence in both Pyongyang and Seoul. The advantages afforded by China’s close relationship with the North can only be harnessed if better assessments of its priorities and limitations are integrated into international strategies. Waiting for China to compel North Korean compliance will only give Pyongyang more time to develop its nuclear arsenal.

That sounds about right to me. Read the whole thing here, starting with the report’s crisp summation of China’s interests in the North Korean situation, although I think politics prevented them from mentioning that China applies the “Gulliver” theory to the United States, and wants to feed every crisis that refracts the focus of U.S. power.

Thanks to a reader for the tip.

Update . . .

After taking my own advice and reading the piece, I see where things go badly awry:

Over the long-term, Chinese economic interaction with the North may be the best hope for sparking deeper systemic reform and liberalisation there.

It could have been written from inside the Forbidden City–a prescription for consigning half of Korea to colonization by China, which puts it in some surprising company.