North Korea Problem Complicated By China And Russia

The North Korean problem is not just that this rogue nation state possesses ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, but that if America gets into a major armed conflict with the Kim regime, both China and Russia could join the fight on behalf of North Korea.

Apart from the fact that all three nations are communist regimes, both China and Russia share a border with North Korea and neither nation will allow territory on its border to be influenced by America. This is a primary reason why neither nation would allow the unification of the Korean peninsula under the leadership of South Korea, an important ally of America.

The experience of the Korean War should be all that is needed to prove this point. During the Korean War, China fought with the North Koreans against America and its U.N. allies and the Soviet Union supplied many of the weapons that were used by the North Korean army.

What this all means is that solving the North Korea problem through military action may be more difficult than it may at first appear.

It is wise for America and its allies to remember the following quote by the former 19th Century British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston when he referred to the critical necessity to be prepared for any possible war. He said:

“if these defensive works are necessary, it is manifest that they ought to be made with the least possible delay; to spread their completion over 20 or 30 years would be folly unless we could come to an agreement with a chivalrous antagonist, not to molest us till we could inform him we were quite ready to repel his attack.”

This approach is even more relevant today. With the constant advancement of military technology, it often takes many years to produce new armaments. The sooner we advance the building of offensive and defensive weapons the better chance we have of winning the next major war.

Understanding What Motivates China

When dealing with China it is important for America and its allies to realize that China harbors legitimate grievances against the West and Japan.

During the 19th century many European nation states controlled and/or invaded parts of China for their own commercial and security interests. In the 20th century, Imperial Japan invaded China and committed unspeakable atrocities. These illegal incursions caused China to experience political and social chaos, something that is embedded in the memory of the Chinese.

While these ‘humiliations’ do not justify China’s recent aggressive moves, they must be considered in attempting to gain a perspective on what motivates Chinese behavior.

The concept that the public, especially in a democracy, is a critical ingredient to achieving victory in war goes back to at least the First World War. According to the renowned British military historian Michael Howard, it was the home front that made the difference between victory and defeat. To quote from his book War in European History:

“The outcome of the Great War…had made it clear that war was no longer decided by traditional military skills. It had shown that armies in the field could not be defeated so long as they could be kept supplied with manpower and munitions. War…was not as it had been in the past, a conflict between armed forces alone, or even between treasuries. It was one between the will-power and the morale of the belligerent populations. What had ultimately brought the war to an end had been, not military victory in itself, but the disintegration of what had…become known as ‘the Home Front’: the solidarity of the civilian population behind its leaders, their willingness to go on bearing the burdens of deprivation and suffering which ‘the war effort’ demanded.”

This is a reality that American citizens and the citizens of its allies need to take to heart.

The wrong message can lead to misunderstanding and disaster.

Consider that in January 1950, the American government stated that the United States would rely on naval and air forces to hold a defensive perimeter of certain offshore islands. These primarily consisted of Japan, Okinawa and the Philippines. This basically said to North Korea’s Kim Il-sung, China’s Mao Zedong and the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin, that the rest of East Asia was theirs for the taking.

Less than six months later, in June 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea. In spite of the earlier declaration, America went to war to protect its ally South Korea from North Korea, a Communist ally of China and the Soviet Union. Over thirty-six thousand Americans died fighting that war.

Today, that original 1950’s American declaration still leaves Taiwan at the mercy of China. America needs to be very clear about its intentions and capabilities in order to deter future aggression.

Just a few years ago in 2010, the careful non-aggressive, non-coercive diplomacy that China had been conducting for many years was brutally repudiated by China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi when he told the ASEAN conference meeting in Hanoi that the world better get used to the concept that there are “big countries” and “small countries.” The implication was clear. China was big and the rest of them were small.

His quote sounded reminiscent of the infamous quote from Thucydides when quoting the ancient Athenians who said, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

Are we again going to make the mistake of not listening to, or believing, what people say. We should not forget that Adolph Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” told the world in the 1920’s what he planned to do if he were to gain power.

It is imperative that we listen carefully to what China’s representatives are saying and deconstruct the truth from the lies. We need to discern China’s real aims. In that regard, when their Foreign Minister states that the world better get used to the concept that there are big countries and small countries we should accept that this is how China really views the world and understand the unspoken threat included in that statement.

There is some controversy over the current strategic concept of military ‘forward presence’ in the Western Pacific in order for America to project power and continue to maintain its and its allies security in the region. There are some who think that ‘offshore balancing’ should replace this costly military strategy. Offshore balancing basically means letting other nation-states in a region of the world deal with any aggressive hegemon in that region.

The problem with the concept is that this approach tends to lead to an arms race among many of the stronger countries in the impacted region which then destabilizes the security environment, making armed conflict more likely than less. The concept also presumes that if offshore balancing is not successful that America would come to the aid of its allies in that region if they were not able to deal with the hegemon on their own. Offshore balancing is what America initially tried to do during the First and Second World Wars however that resulted in a very deadly although ultimately successful outcome. While America was able to become a force in ending those wars, it came at a terrible cost in lives and treasure because America had to fight to take back territory that the enemy had already seized.

So, while maintaining a military forward presence in the Western Pacific is expensive, it is the least risky concept for America to continue to follow. In fact it has worked to prevent any major near-peer war in the region since the end of the Second World War.