Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Poll Analyses
Share on Facebook 33 Share on Twitter 6 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 4/30/18

Trump Did NOT Convince Kim to Ditch His Nukes. China Did

By       (Page 2 of 3 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page. (View How Many People Read This)   6 comments
Author 33
Message Mike Whitney
Become a Fan
  (45 fans)

What other country could withstand this type of economic strangulation by its biggest trading partner?

None of this has anything to do with Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign which really had no effect on Kim's decision at all. Denuclearization is all China's doing. China put a gun to Kim's head and simply waited for him to cave in. Which he did. He very wisely chose the path of least resistance: Capitulation. The question is: What did Kim get in return?

Before we answer that, we need to understand that China-DPRK relations have been strained for more than a year, dating back to early 2017 when China joined the US effort to impose sanctions on the North. The Korean News agency sharply rebuked China for its disloyalty saying, "(China) is dancing to the tune of the US while defending its hostile behavior with excuses that (the sanctions) were not meant to hurt the North Korean people, but to check its nuclear program."

While the North's anger is understandable, it's worth pointing out that Beijing has always opposed Kim's nuclear weapons programs, in fact, in 2016, (long before bilateral relations soured) China's Foreign Minister openly condemned the DPRK's behavior saying, "We strongly urge the DPRK side to remain committed to its denuclearization commitment, and stop taking any actions that would make the situation worse."

The warning was followed a year later by joint sanctions aimed at forcing Kim to give up his nukes. To Beijing's credit, the goal was never to punish or humiliate the North, but to strengthen regional security by reducing access to nuclear weapons. Bottom line: China has acted responsibly throughout.

In March 2018, Kim made an unannounced visit to General Secretary Xi Jinping in Beijing. Kim was given the red carpet treatment for four days while the two leaders huddled and worked out their strategy for denuclearization in the context of a broader economic revitalization program aimed at integrating the peninsula with the rest of the continent.

Very little is known about the four-day confab in Beijing, but it's obvious that Kim was encouraged to normalize relations with his counterpart (Moon Jae-in) in the South based on a firm commitment to decommission his nuclear weapons. It is no coincidence that the meeting between the two leaders and Kim's dramatic reversal in policy took place just weeks after Kim met with the Chinese Premier. Clearly, China was the driving force behind Kim's decision.

Critics of process think the North is engaged in an elaborate hoax that will amount to nothing, but that is probably not the case. Keep in mind, it is Beijing that is calling the shots not Kim. If China wants Kim to abandon his nukes, that's probably what he will do. Of course, Kim would not go along with Beijing's demands if he thought he might be putting his country at risk of a preemptive attack by the United States. Nor would he give up his nukes if he thought he was going to wind up like Mummar Gaddafi who was savagely skewered after he succumbed to US demands to surrender his WMD.

So how did China manage to convince Kim that he had nothing to worry about?

This question has not yet been fully answered, but we have to assume that China (and perhaps Russia) provided assurances to Kim that his country would be defended if attacked by the United States. Such guarantees would not be unprecedented, in fact, in 2017 Beijing stated clearly that no unprovoked attack by the US on the DPRK would go unanswered. Here's part of the statement which appeared in Chinese state media:

"China should make it clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten U.S. soil first and the U.S. retaliates, China will stay neutral," (but) "If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.

"China opposes both nuclear proliferation and war in the Korean Peninsula. It will not encourage any side to stir up military conflict, and will firmly resist any side which wants to change the status quo of the areas where China's interests are concerned."

Beijing must have allayed Kim's fears or he never would have agreed to denuclearize. But now that he feels protected, Kim appears to be eager to reconcile with his new friends in the South. Here's what he said on Friday:

"I look forward to making the most of this opportunity so that we have the chance to heal the wounds between the North and the South... I came here to put an end to the history of confrontation as well as to work shoulder to shoulder with you to tackle the obstacles between us. I came with the confidence that a brighter future awaits us."

Kim is serious. He wants to restart the peace process and restore economic ties with the South. He formalized his commitment by signing a document that called for "the prohibition of the use of force in any form against each other." "an end to the war," and..."complete denuclearization." Also, both leaders are committed to the gradual economic integration of the North and South via vital infrastructure projects that will strengthen popular support for the (eventual) reunification of the country. The importance of this joint commitment cannot be overstated. Kim is not simply giving up his nukes to placate China or ease sanctions, he is taking the first step on a path towards "balanced economic growth and shared prosperity."

Item 6 in the Panmunjeom Declaration," which Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in signed on Friday, lays it out in black and white:

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

 

Must Read 7   Supported 4   Well Said 3  
Rate It | View Ratings

Mike Whitney Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Mike is a freelance writer living in Washington state.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Class Warfare Scoreboard -- Guess Who's Winning?

Newt's Victory: Was it a "Surge" of popularity or faulty voting machines?

Is Fukushima's Doomsday Machine About to Blow?

Troublemaking Washington: Pushing Ukraine to the Brink

The Broken Chessboard: Brzezinski Gives Up on Empire

Henry Kissinger calls for a New Post-Covid World Order

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: