Who Needs a Contingency Plan? Everyone Near North Korea
The most persuasive evidence I’ve yet seen that there is a real danger of instability in North Korea comes from the people who probably have the best intelligence about events in Pyongyang:
The Chinese military has boosted troop numbers along the border with North Korea since September amid mounting concerns about the health of Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader, according to US officials.
Beijing has declined to discuss contingency plans with Washington, but the US officials said the Peoples’ Liberation Army has stationed more soldiers on the border to prepare for any possible influx of refugees due to instability, or regime change, in North Korea. [….]
One official cautioned that the increase in Chinese troops was not “dramatic”, but he said China was also constructing more fences and installations at key border outposts. Wang Baodong, the Chinese embassy spokesman in Washington, said he was unaware of any increased deployments. [Financial Times, Demetri Sevastopulo and Song Jung-a]
With fuel prices high and given the likely high cost of deploying the military to Tibetan regions recently, I doubt the Chinese would move those troops without the support of reliable intelligence. I don’t doubt that China has plans which it updates frequently. That’s a great deal easier when you don’t have to cooperate with other governments.
And what of the Americans? We had a contingency plan once, and it was known as Oplan 5029. The plan, written in the Cold War days before North Korea descended into economic and social collapse, is overdue for an update. Former President Roh Moo Hyun ended South Korea’s participation in 5029 planning out of fear that he’d give offense to the very people who reduced North Korea to a sooty, barren, diseased prison.
If the details of 5029 need revisiting, so does the big picture — especially the question of who will occupy and rebuild the North. Robert Kaplan, and later, Capt. Jonathon Stafford, have been warning us about the changed circumstances surrounding that question for a while now. It took Lee Myung Bak’s election and reports of Kim Jong Il’s incapacitation to awaken a few minds from their slumber.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has thrown his weight behind renewed calls from the U.S. to turn a conceptual scheme to deal with sudden contingencies in North Korea into a concrete action plan. Conplan 5029, long on the shelves because the previous South Korean government felt it interfered with sovereignty issues, is once again on the cusp of being turned into an operational plan.
A government source on Tuesday said Gates’ call came at the 40th bilateral Security Consultative Meeting in Washington on Oct. 17 to Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee. [Chosun Ilbo]
A Financial Times editorial calling for contingency planning notably includes China in the states to be involved in the planning, which raises the possibility of some fairly unrealistic expectations. China neither means us well nor shares our interests in the region. It won’t participate in a spirit of cooperation or collegiality, and it will probably do its utmost to frustrate the goal of a unified and democratic Korea. But China doesn’t want war any more than we do, which is why I hope that our diplomats are working on some quiet understandings with the Chinese about whose forces will enter Korea in the event of internecine fighting or outright collapse.
The best solution for China, the United States, and Korea would be a secret agreement that Koreans alone should occupy and rebuild North Korea.
I don’t know — if South Korea, Japan, the US, the EU, and some more really raised a stink about China moving into the North, they might get the Chinese out and to give unification cooperation.
It is going to be very hard and very expensive for China to take over running the North even through a puppet.
China will need a large amount of economic cooperation from the nations and groups of nations mentioned above.
If those groups not only withhold it but start taking real punitive economic sanctions against China for occupying the North and not cooperating toward unification, I can see China giving in.
But, it will take balls and leadership from the United States and other key nations. —- And we frankly haven’t seen balls swinging from the international community (minus Bush invading Iraq).
Who knows what will happen when China moves in….
On a similar front – I found the old blog post where I predicted the NK regime would not live to see 2009 — it is back up on my blog.
I got about a month and a half left….
The days of balls admistration and real world leadership will end on 20 January 2009. A President Obama will be a Neville Chamberlain type leader calling for “more understanding of our adversaries and their perspectives.”
China would not dare move against Bush who may be unpopular but has 100% credibility when it comes to stick diplomacy. Obama’s carrot will be useless in the face of a Chinese policy that favors the use of force compared to an Obama led US policy that prefers the use of farce.
I hope as usinkorea does that the PRC will deem it too messy, dangerous and time consuming to occupy North Korea, but if the ’50-53 War is any indicator, they will definitely prefer action to negotiations. I hope usinkorea is correct on all his points.
If China moves in and refuses to back down in the face of real pressure from several of the concerned, powerful nations, then it will be bad for a long time. I’d bet we’d see the kind of rivalry – Cold War II stuff written about so much in the 1990s – actually come true – when I never thought it would.
If China moves in and stabilizes North Korea and sets up an at least passably working puppet dictatorship, I’ll fall out of my chair – hard. I just can’t picture much of a chance China will have the money, resources, and ability to settle things down. I just can’t see the North Korean people accepting it enough to progress.
Also, if the other powers give in and help finance in a major way China’s resettling of North Korea, I’ll fall out of my chair (but a little less hard).
So, my gut tells me that if China moves in and is determined to stay – it will be the start of a long term bad blood situation – a festering, open sore that will be rubbed against all concerned fairly regularly.
I’m thinking of what knocks China gets over Tibet raised exponentially.
I can’t picture other key powers financing China’s move – and I can’t picture them being able to ignore it.
But — well – heck —– they certainly have found a way to accept watching North Korea roll around in pain and massive suffering a whole lot the last few decades….
…..Will the fact China is in the lead in what will be a horribly failed now chaotic nation make that great of a difference???
In the new version of a quick and dirty guide to war, Korea and the possible outcomes get a full work-up. My own feeling is that no one wants the responsibility of taking over North Korea, as it would destry the economy for a long time. East and West Germany are still suffering the effects, and East Germany was the crown jewel of the soviet empire.
Ugly choices all around.
“The days of balls admistration and real world leadership will end on 20 January 2009.”
Sorry, but that has been fading for more than several years at this point. The world as a whole has lost faith in U.S. world leadership year by year since 2000. And it is treason for those whose canidate lost this past election to wish for our country’s demise starting in January 2009. It is illogical to blame the president elect before he has even set foot in office. If anything, you should be glad that the populace has not demanded impeachment of dubya.
While arguing for Bush’s impeachment is a sure sign of a vacuous thinker, there’s no defending his administration as “the days of balls administration,” whatever that means. Bush’s balls have been locked away in a little box in Condi Rice’s office since the end of 2006.
The most hopeful thing I can say for Obama is that it’s almost impossible to imagine a worse Korea policy than Bush’s.
Also, I would like to register my devout atheism about what other countries think about U.S. leadership. I don’t see any of them leading anything. I see “the world” as comprised of followers, ankle biters, and enemies. I’ve traveled in dozens of countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa, and the experience has greatly narrowed my mind. I’ve seen “the world” for its prejudice, narrow-mindedness, and shallowness and have concluded that its collective opinion, as interpreted by a lot of disgruntled intellectuals and agenda-driven journalists, is of dubious value. Certain segments of it are worth manipulating at key moments, and that’s about all we can do, or should aspire to.
I see that Ayman Zawahiri has already stooped to calling Obama a “house negro.” I expect we’ll see a series of similarly reprehensible things said in the next four years. I suppose some of the more naive Americans will soon see — one hopes — that those who loathe us for their own reasons will still loathe us after Bush retires.
“I don’t see any of them leading anything. I see “the world†as comprised of followers, ankle biters, and enemies. I’ve traveled in dozens of countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa, and the experience has greatly narrowed my mind. I’ve seen “the world†for its prejudice, narrow-mindedness, and shallowness and have concluded that its collective opinion, as interpreted by a lot of disgruntled intellectuals and agenda-driven journalists, is of dubious value. ”
That about sums it up.
I’d like to know the dates in which the world showed faith in US leadership? Give me a year or two? Something post about 1950….
I think we got some kudos in 1945. Probably 1946. Not so sure after that. Doubt it before that.
Like us or not, Bush showed incredible audacity and initiative going into Afghanistan and Iraq and deposing tyrannical, terrorist supporting governments. Whether you agree with his foreign policy or not, a Bush threat to use force has ultimate credibility.
“While arguing for Bush’s impeachment is a sure sign of a vacuous thinker, there’s no defending his administration as “the days of balls administration,†whatever that means.”
Joshua as far as the vacuous thinker spat you just gave, I beg you to see how lying about a blowjob is call for impeachment versus invading the wrong country and spending a record budget away without restraint.
And as far as removing Saddam Hussein, our current president was foaming at the mouth for the oppurtunity to do so even before 9/11. He said that he would do anything to take down the man and finish his daddy’s job. I will not stand up for Saddam, however waisting all our resources on one tyrant in a world full of them was just asinine IMO. The fact that KJI was waving his WMD’s in our faces and literally boasting about it while we choose to invade Iraq instead is beyond words. But when you are close friends to the country in which the terrorists were born and bred “Saudi Arabia”, they are off limits in terms of retaliation. The scary thing is how Americans were soo willing to throw away their rights to dear leader Bush after the attacks. It practically became forbidden to say anything bad about his administration following the 9/11 attacks.He was basically given the greenlight to do anything he wanted in terms of spending and policy making. I supported Bush until I realized he was a dangerous incompetent, the claim of being on a holy crusade spronsored by God was the turning point.
Ditto, You’re hijacking the thread off topic. I could not be less interested in the argument.
You just did. BTW, regime change in Iraq became US policy in OCT 1998 when President Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act into law.
I believe onefreekorea makes this the crux of the matter:
This calls for a US administration with credibility on the issue of the use of force. A confrontation with China on some level is inevitable – exhibit A: the Korean War 1950-1953. Whatever the mature plans are for the regional cooperation between the six parties, they are largely unknown. By God you know that whole world knew Harry S. Truman was no one to fool around with.
Ditto has hit pretty much —- seriously —- almost every one of the most vacuous “thoughts” I’ve heard expressed from a certain segment of the left in the US the past few years.
It’s one thing to hear one of them thrown out when someone is feeling cornered on a topic or like their losing the discussion. But to have them all slapped down on the same plate — its fairly impressive…..from the “blowjobs” defense of perjury to “we should have invaded North Korea!!” — impressive…
I did honestly laugh my ass out with this one — “It practically became forbidden to say anything bad about his administration following the 9/11 attacks.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!! It was almost forbidden to say something bad about Bush post-9/11!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
And then to close with the “I was a life-long
(Christian)Republican until….” is a nice finishing touch.Ya know….the election is over….
….It’s a little early to be astroturfing for the congressional elections in 2010….
“It practically became forbidden to say anything bad about his administration following the 9/11 attacks.†HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!! It was almost forbidden to say something bad about Bush post-9/11!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!”
Laugh at truth.
The slogan for 2002-2003 America following the attacks was basically “If you’re not with Bush then you must be with terrorists!, yee-haw!” But Im threw “hyjacking” the thread.