Submitted by Maclane Horton on September 5, 2017

Why is China apparently so tolerant of North Korea? Both indifference and weakness seem non-starters.
Two possible scenarios come to mind.

The first involves internal politics.

Perhaps the Communist Party of China is not so united in its policy as it seems. Is there a significant element which opposes the current leadership in the attempt to dismantle socialism and introduce capitalism? Perhaps the internal opposition approves of the politics of North Korea. Perhaps the Chinese leadership fears a backlash if it interferes in Pyongyang.

The second involves external politics.

Perhaps China is reacting to the policy of the Anglo-Saxon intelligence community and their congressional and parliamentary allies. Since the 1920s one left of centre government after another has been destabilised and overthrown either by direct or indirect interference. So successful have they been that a complete list is overwhelming.

For a few recent examples of interference, successful and unsuccessful, remember Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Chile, Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Venezuela and Syria.

So when are the Anglo-Saxons going to go for the big one? Are they waiting until they’ve mopped up most of the little ones – Belorussia, Algeria, Bolivia and of course North Korea – with or without China’s help?

And then there’ll be nobody left to cry for China.


4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by

The whole north korea situation is a piece of (very dangerous) theatre. North Korea is a chinese satelite state (that is why china dont care about them being armed with nukes); there to provide a buffer against us/south korean imperialism.

I dont think america is really that interested in invading or attacking north korea; i think americas grand standing is aimed primarily at china.

Karl Yanx

4 years 6 months ago

In reply to by

1. DPRK is never a satellite state of PRC, even in the Cold War Era. DPRK supported USSR instead of PRC in the Sino-Russian split in 1960s. The two came close after the fall of USSR just for security, since US is not retreating its force from ROK and Japan though the cease-fire agreement of Korean War was signed in 1955. (CPVA retreated in 1958, as I recall.)
2. What DPRK, or the Kims, wants? First, they want security, a guarantee that US will not invade DPRK under most circumstances. Second, they want energy and food aid and access to world market (PRC is not aiding DPRK with food and fuel, they were just trading, which is stopped by a recent UNSC resolution).
3. Could DPRK achieve that goal through normal means? It seems difficult, since US-Japan and US-ROK relationship are the axis of America's diplomacy in Far East (and the fundamental purpose is to suppress China's rising). Since China's growth seems solid, that two allies could not be easily given up.
4. So what? DPRK can only achieve its goal through irregular means, aka becoming a nuclear power. Actually, that road did get some fruit, DPRK and US signed a framework agreement in 1994, which was violated by US afterwards. As a result, DPRK restarted its reactors, and finally made some nukes in recent years.
5. What will PRC do? Actually, PRC could do very little in this things, for the guarantee of non-aggression could only be made by US itself.


4 years 6 months ago

In reply to by

Some other related comments here:


4 years 6 months ago

In reply to by

Not to detract from any of the points others have made but there's also a case to be made that China is supporting NK for internal security. States like stability, at whatever cost, unless they can control chaos for their own ends. If a war breaks out, it would produce a situation of absolute chaos in China and in the wider region. In addition to the sheer human and destructive toll that a war would have on the N. Korean population itself, if the DPRK state ever falls there would be a lot of refugees pouring through China, a huge Spike in trafficker/triad activity, North Korean guns making their way through to practically every militia in Asia and the NK soldiers themselves could involve themselves in trafficking.

I concur with the article posted above, that DPRK does in fact run by a kind of state capitalism. It isn't a Chinese puppet exactly, it has even threatened China on occasion. It seems to have some characteristics of old Maoism, and practices "juche" (self reliance) and Stalinist governance methods. China it seems would have reason to avoid the risk that would come if DPRK fell, and also as a counter balance to US in the ROK.

Of course anarchists and anti-authoritarian communists have no reason to be sympathetic with the DPRK regime or any state but it would be disastrous if there was a war. I think a war won't really happen, but it would be a horrifying prospect, not least due to the fact that DPRK's rockets trained on Seoul could obliterate it and both Trump and Kim have threatened to use nukes (though I doubt either of them will).

The biggest threat, of course, is to the North Korean people - who have been almost completely absent from the MSM discourse on this. They are quite literally hostages, both to their government and whatever the US does. The DPRK as a government has everything to lose by firing a weapon first, and the cause of this latest flare up, without a doubt, came from the US side.

jef costello

4 years 6 months ago

In reply to by

Another advantage of supporting North Korea is that it is a relatively cheap way of tying up a large amount of US / SK resources. It also helps limit SK's regional influence.


4 years 5 months ago

In reply to by

If you had the chance to move in Seoul currently, would you?