The North Korean Problem

This analysis recommends war. It is shocking to put to print. However, with North Korea’s inexorable advance towards developing a nuclear-tipped ICBM, we enter the realm of bad choices. On balance, war on the peninsula is the least bad alternative. There are some months left for a brilliant diplomatic breakthrough that turns North Korea from the brink – these avenues must be energetically and exhaustively pursued. This analysis is presented on the fair assumption that such initiatives will fail.

Crispin Rovere's article 

China is the key deciding factor in resolving the 'North Korean problem'. China can undertake military action against North Korea, green light United States military (hereafter U.S. Military) action against North Korea, or maintain the status qua, Let's start with the status qua and move on to the alternatives in a moment.


Regretfully, China may be using North Korea as a device to test the resolve of the western powers. Specifically, China may want to test the resolve of Australia, South Korea, Japan and the United States. By testing the resolve of those nations,China, is looking to see how much 'lee way' of sorts, potential or current adversaries can take advantage of in the future. In short, by allowing the North Korean nuclear weapons program to go unchecked, Russia, Iran and China may become embolden to start World War 3.

Another more pragmatic as oppose to sinister motives may explain China's current stance on North Korea. Russia shares a modest border with North Korea. Russia may view any potential Chinese annexation of North Korea as territorial threat. In short, Russian fears of their south eastern flank facing a renewed Chinese threat would create another global 'flash point'. Put another way, the risk of a Russia -China War (echoes of the Cold War) would have increased.


I now come to the first of the possible scenario which see's China annexing North Korea, after green lighting, the United States lead coalition or stand alone war (hereafter war) against that country. Let me explain why I think this is the smartest from China's standpoint. Assuming China green lights, the U.S. going to war, they can stand by and watch the fallout.

In North Korea, the fall out would consist of the country having been reduced to rubble, by the spectre of total warfare. Politically, the fallout would fall at the feet of the Trump administration. The extent of the political fall out and the consequences for the Trump administration falls beyond the scope of this article. While the political fallout is ongoing ,China, could occupy and rebuild North Korea in their image. In effect under this scenario, China, can manipulate the 'North Korean Problem' to there perceived advantage.

The last scenario is China stand alone invading , occupying and rebuilding North Korea in their image. This scenario is arguable the best and least likely scenario. If China, deems the continual existence of North Korea as a nation state is not in their interests, the following question must be asked: Why would China not let President Trump take all the political fallout?

Remember, China's political and military leaders do not answer to freedom of the press or to the mercy of public opinion. However, President Trump does have to answer to freedom of the press, American public opinion, and face any political fall out from a preemptive (total) war against North Korea. Hence, this is why, this last scenario is the least likely.


I foresee the status qua remaining in place until the following occurs: North Korea invades South Korea in concert with the use of nuclear weapons against that country and Japan. The exact way events would play out is for another topic all together. Such a eventuality would represent a watershed moment in our history. 

All roads lead to the eventual destruction of North Korea in physical terms and as a nation state.
If the second and third scenarios mentioned above occur without the support of Japan and South Korea , the U.S. Military, would face unexpected logistical challenges (,think the return of Mulberry harbours). Beyond the spectre of total warfare, for military, strategic and diplomatic reasons, the 'North Korea problem' is not easily solved.

Neither can the geopolitical and geoeconomic consequences of China annexing North Korea be ignored. A authoritarian and paranoid Russia would not welcome Chinese territorial expansion along their own borders. The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin would face a historical strategic choice: Does Russia maintain a strategic westwards European focus on the Ukraine and the Baltic States or cast their strategic eye towards Asia?


Looking away from Russia, the consequences of China annexing North Korea are hard to gauge in this space, but should not be ignored. China would demand the withdrawal of U.S. Military forces from South Korea and Japan. China would argue that with the threat from North Korea is now non-existent, so there is no any reason for U.S. Military forces to remain stationed in Japan and South Korea.

In the event China pressures Japan and South Korea, the level of public support in those countries for a continuing U.S. Military presence is speculative. Space does not permit me to go into the other potential consequences or side effects from China annexing North Korea.

There are no 'good' options for resolving the 'North Korean problem'. Australia and New Zealand must make a realistic strategic assessment of our predicament. Yet in a General New Zealand election year, the difficult strategic situation, is not being widely discussed in the media or by the general public. This lack of discussion around the 'North Korean problem' worries me.