A North Korean man sells items to Chinese tourists

Politics

让对朝经济制裁真正奏效

Sep 20, 2017 Yasheng Huang

发自剑桥——上周，朝鲜金正恩政权向日本北海道北部海域发射了一枚弹道导弹——也是不到三周时间内飞越日本上空的第二次发射行动——并将其作为对联合国严厉制裁的粗暴回绝。但这远远不能表明制裁无效，而是金正恩的举动显示这些制裁还不够强硬。

最新制裁内容包括限制石油进口，禁止纺织品出口，并惩罚指定的朝鲜政府实体。鉴于金正恩对此作出的回应，应该进一步加强制裁，停止与朝鲜的所有贸易，包括停止所有燃料进口。

朝鲜是世界上最为孤立的国家之一。这个孤岛状态虽然是对长期受苦受难的朝鲜人民的诅咒，而是制裁战略的一个优势，因为只需要一个国家出手就可以收到成果：中国。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 5 Comments on this article

Subhash Garg Sep 28, 2017

North Korea and Pakistan are China's twin nuclear-armed proxies, and N. Korea in Communist. What interest could China possibly have in meaningfully restraining Kim Jon Un? They will talk a good game but they won't do much beyond cosmetics. China has no incentive to hold Kim back as long as they have his unconditional loyalty.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Sep 22, 2017

If China is the key country then China will sit on its hands and wait for the US to ask for help at which point China will say what will you give me and Trump will have to dilute his protectionist strategy and gain nothing for the concession. The alternative is two people with bad haircuts shout you're mad to one another, so that may go on some time
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Sep 21, 2017

Yasheng Huang believes economic sanctons against North Korea can work, if China can be convinced to do so. He makes an interesting point about nuclear arms being "weapons of the poor - extraordinarily cheap compared with conventional armaments" - contrary to popular belief. And nuclear weapons ostensibly represent a means for a state with limited conventional forces to level the playing field with states that boast larger standing army or even nuclear weapons.
The author says, it was "this rationale that drove the Soviet Union’s massive nuclear buildup" during the Cold War, which saw a rapid increase in nuclear weapons in the 1950s. "Soviet leaders, recognizing that they could not compete with the much wealthier United States’ conventional weapons, focused their country’s limited resources on creating a potentially devastating nuclear arsenal." But the US realised that nuclear weapons would not replace conventional weapons, saving large amounts of money and deterring war. They were just supplements. In the course of decades the US had developed enormous arsenals of both.
North Korea's focus on its nuclear programme is also based on the assumption that nuclear weapons were more cost effective than conventional ones, because they could deliver more killing power. Since the North in recent years has allowed market activities to develop, its economy has thrived, "with markets full of goods and new buildings under construction." This means, tighter sanctions could hurt the North, because it would "increase the economic price that the regime must pay for its nuclear program."
The author says, "even if North Korea does not change its policy, total economic isolation may bring about an end to its nuclear program, by sowing internal discord and, ultimately, triggering the regime’s collapse." It is true that China "hopes to avoid precisely this outcome – which is a key reason why it has so far refused to escalate sanctions further." Beijing has no appetite for hosting millions of North Korean refugees, and it fears of losing a buffer zone to keep US troops at bay. The demise of the Kim regime would ultimately lead to a reunification of the two Koreas under US auspices.
Vladimir Putin said on September 5 that imposing tougher sanctions against North Korea was "useless", saying "they'd rather eat grass than give up their nuclear programme". There is truth in what he said, especially after Trump's bellicose speech on September 19 threatening to destroy North Korea, its citizens may now be more ready to sacrifice. In this respect, there is little hope to resolve the nuclear crisis without careful deliberations.
The author says it is in Trump's interest to cooperate with China to curb Pyongyang's nuclear programme. Unfortunately he has so far resort to threats, like "halting $650 billion in bilateral trade, to persuade China to cooperate." This strategy will backfire and "smack the US." What Trump needs to do is to convince China "to isolate the North economically." Meanwhile the international community needs "to establish some agreement regarding how regime collapse would be handled, with an eye to allaying China’s key concerns."
Beijing is obviously keen on preserving the status quo. "That means that if the Kim regime collapses, the US will not pursue reunification. Instead, China should exercise primary political custodianship of North Korea in the event that a political vacuum emerges. Come what may, US and South Korean troops would not cross the 38th parallel." This seems always be China's endgame - turning North Korea into its satellite state.
The author says in order to urge "China to impose potentially regime-destroying sanctions," the international community - "especially the US, Japan, and South Korea" - needs to share the huge costs of "sheltering refugees and rebuilding North Korea’s economy. While China would inevitably cover a substantial share of these costs, owing to its geographic proximity and historic ties to the North, it needs reassurance that it would not be left to shoulder the burden alone."
According to the author the region might revisit the 1945 Yalta Conference that divided Europe into two "geopolitical spheres of influence" in the post-World War II era. It's time to act, as the nuclear threat posed by Pyongyang is serious, that requires "a bold response." He urges all parties to lay aside "conventions and ideology" and do what is needed to "defuse nuclear tensions and protect .. lives."
China may not be "the only country with the power to force North Korea to change its nuclear policy." Beijing fears that being too tough on Pyongyang would drive the regime into Putin's arms. Nevertheless it doesn't hurt that the US and China to join forces and start from there.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henrik Petersen Sep 21, 2017

One of the most clear-headed comments on the subject I have read so far. Keep at it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Chen Zhang Sep 21, 2017

Would Putin like Chinese Navy to have easy access to threaten Vladivostok after the regime change?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/PUzQnL4zh

让对朝经济制裁真正奏效

Subscribe to PS Digital

Can Trump Deal with North Korea and China?

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

The Global Leadership Vacuum

Log in/Register

让对朝经济制裁真正奏效

Subscribe to PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification