Moment of truth for China and the Pyongyang time bomb

---

See the Sol Sanders Archive By Sol Sanders SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

As the U.S. prepares to enter new six-power talks on North KoreaÕs nuclear weapons threat, a question hangs in the air:

Will Beijing with its overwhelming whip hand over Pyongyang do the necessary?

The necessary is, of course, to meet U.S., Japanese, South Korean, and Russian demands it give up pursuit of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction [WMD] and submit to verifiable inspection.

Given North KoreaÕs history of state-sponsored terrorism and traffic with international organized crime, Pyongyang now represents the most critical threat to world peace and stability. That threat could very well include WMD sales to non-state terrorists such as the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

But this riddle is wrapped in an enigma, another equally poignant question: Will Washington force BeijingÕs hand?

The syllogism is not all that complicated: Beijing supplies some 80 percent of aid keeping bankrupt North Korea alive. China has old intimate ties to North Korea ø most importantly to its military ø going back to the Korean War. Beijing sourced much of PyongyangÕs nuclear technology. China also has been complicit in the development and sale of PyongyangÕs missiles to pariah states.

If the Beijing leaders chose, they could bring Pyongyang to heel. North Korea may be a rogue state, but it is a crippled, dependent rogue state.

It seems likely, in the diplomatic jargon, that the Chinese leadership is ÒconflictedÓ over the strategy it should pursue toward North Korea.

It does not want a collapsing regime disgorging a flood of refugees. It does not want a reunited Korea so long as South Korea is a growing source of development capital, technology rade. Nor would it want a strong united Korean state further complicating East Asian politics. And it might just want continuing harassment for the U.S. [and its Japanese ally ø a trade-off in the continuing negotiations of a welter of issues between Washington and Beijing]. There is likely divided counsel between BeijingÕs new Fourth Generation ruling team and former Party leader Jiang Zemin, refusing to leave the stage, hanging on to his chairmanship of the all-powerful Central Military Commissions.

We are told, in an avalanche of propaganda and analysis, from Beijing but also from those in the U.S. who want to put the best face on Chinese motives, a new era of enlightened international collaboration emanates from Beijing. For example, now the second largest importer of oil, China, too, we are told, understands it has no interest in cutting its nose to spite its economic face.

Ignoring this kind of highly speculative geopolitical psychoanalysis which has often led to disaster, the reality is China must balance its interests as does every other power. At the moment, the U.S. relationship has paramountcy. Washington has enormous leverage. ChinaÕs spectacular but fragile economic growth fragile because it encompasses less than 20 percent of its population, entirely based on exports, exports largely in the hands of American and other foreign corporations [selling to themselves for other markets], and dragging a bankrupt State Owned Enterprise sector and sieve-like financial structure. Its rising raw materials, components, and food import bill is largely paid by the enormous American trade surplus ø probably totaling $135 billion last year ø which pays deficits with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Mideast and Southeast Asia. China is almost totally reliant on imported technology ø most if from the U.S. ChinaÕs nascent military modernization cannot yet give it sufficient thrust in its own backyard where it still faces the worldÕs superpower.

The chips are, then, largely on the U.S. side of the table. But if the game is poker, the body language as well as the actual hand of the player is at issue.

In a recent Washington public airing, Assistant Sec. of State James Kelly laid out the argument of the U.S. for action ø and sounded pretty tough. U.S. policy seemed emboldened by its recent success in the bolte face of Libya which for decades had flaunted U.S. and world opinion in pursuit of WMD. Tokyo ø in spite of just making a huge oil deal with Iran against WashingtonÕs advice, justified because of TehranÕs theoretical concessions to the International Atomic Energy AgencyÕs inspection regime ø has begun to crack down on North KoreaÕs second most valuable economic ties to JapanÕs large ethnic Korean community. South Korea continues to diddle, arguing against all evidence that appeasement will bring Pyongyang around. Russia tut-tuts [but has partially slowed its huge nuclear power involvement in Iran].

President Bush, in the midst of a political campaign, under fire from his Democrat opposition for his strong line on Iraq yet to vouchsafed by his opponents, faces a grim decision: whether to exert maximum influence on China [after he generously publicly supported its campaign against any inferred moves by Taiwan toward ÒindependenceÓ]. But if BeijingÕs game isnÕt called, the North Korean bomb appears likely to continue to tick.