Skip to main content

United States's fondness for China’s government is enabling North Korea's bad behavior

Americans wondering why North Korea has gotten away with building A-bombs and ballistic missiles—like the one it successfully tested Tuesday—need only consider Jeff Immelt.  The day before the missile launch, the CEO of General Electric and friend of President Obama endorsed China’s economic model and said “state-run communism may not be your cup of tea, but their government works.”
What do the unpatriotic sentiments of GE’s boss have to do with U.S. policy toward North Korea? Both are based on the faulty but soothing assumption held by the elite establishment in American government and big business: that China is our partner.
Two successive administrations—Bush and Obama—have based U.S. policy on North Korea on supposed Chinese cooperation. The theory is that Beijing doesn’t want North Korea armed with effective nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles any more than Washington or its allies, and will thus be of help.
In 2003, Washington kicked off six-way talks hoping to cut a deal that would end North Korea’s nuclear program.  Then-president Bush optimistically noted that Beijing was joining the talks, saying “Now we’ll have other parties who’ve got a vested interest in peace on the [Korean] Peninsula.”
Later that year, Bush welcomed China’s premier to the White House and declared that the U.S. and China were “partners in diplomacy.”
Unfortunately for us, what Beijing wanted above all else—and still wants—is a stable North Korea. China does not want to deal with either a humanitarian disaster or, worse still, another democracy on its doorstep. Furthermore, the Chinese government is indifferent to North Korean repression and probably admires Pyongyang’s belligerence toward Washington. It makes China look tame by comparison, so people like Jeff Immelt can sing its praises.  As a result, and contrary to its promises, China won’t seriously pressure North Korea.
The success of the Bush approach was at least easy to measure. Over twenty seismic stations around the world and one radionuclide test of material drifting from the Pacific over Canada confirmed that North Korea became a nuclear weapons power on October 9, 2006.
But the happy talk about partnership continued. A leaked classified State Department cable shows that in 2007, Bush’s point man on China gushed in a meeting in Beijing “that U.S.-China cooperation in the Six-Party Talks is the best example of our bilateral cooperation on international issues…” His Chinese counterpart wholeheartedly “agreed that bilateral cooperation on this issue has been very good.”
Upon taking office as Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton continued the self-deception. On her inaugural trip to China, Hillary said sticky issues like human rights “can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises.”  She forecast Chinese partnership on each.
A senior Obama Pentagon official, Michele Flournoy, went further still last year. Speaking from the part of government that Americans might rightly expect to be most skeptical of China, she said, “The U.S. does not seek to contain China; we do not view China as an adversary.”  
These sanguine views overlook the fact that Beijing has only once put serious pressure on its client state, North Korea—and only for a very brief time. In 2006, after Pyongyang’s first nuclear test, China halted fuel shipments to remind North Korea who was boss. The country gets ninety percent of its oil from China, and pays via a friendly barter agreement whenever it can.
The move certainly got North Korea’s attention, but was short-lived and has not been repeated. China’s apologists and partnership aficionados point to the fact that Beijing allowed the UN to pass tough sanctions resolutions on North Korea. But these are tough only on paper.  In the real world, China allows them to be circumvented.
The soothing, convenient view that China is our partner will no doubt continue to be held by our big business and government elite. GE CEO Immelt and his equals in countless boardrooms have been major boosters of China long before his revealing statement this week. Immelt recently threw $2 billion of his shareholders’ money at projects there, including for “research and development centers” one can only imagine will avail China of more U.S. technology like the kind it steals so proficiently.
Noticeably absent from the financial reports of GE and companies like it is any solid proof of profitability from doing business in the world’s biggest kleptocracy.  But China remains the ‘it girl’ for our government and business betters. Taxpayers and shareholders get the raw end of this deal, but then who ever cared about that.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Siege - A Poem By Ahmad Faraz Against The Dictatorship Of Zia Ul Haq

Related Posts: 1.  Did Muhammad Ali Jinnah Want Pakistan To Be A Theocracy Or A Secular State? 2. The Relationship Between Khadim & Makhdoom In Pakistan 3. Battle for God; Battleground Pakistan - a time has finally come to call a spade a spade 4. Pakistan - Facing Contradictory Strategic Choices In An Uncertain Region 5. Pakistan, Islamic Terror & General Zia-Ul-Haq 6. Why Pakistan Army Must Allow The Democracy To Flourish In Pakistan & Why Pakistanis Must Give Democracy A Chance? 7. A new social contract in Pakistan between the Pakistani Federation and its components 8. Birth of Bangladesh / Secession of East Pakistan & The Sins of Our Fathers 9. Pakistan Army Must Not Intervene In The Current Crisis - Who To Blame For the Present Crisis in Pakistan ? 10. Balochistan - Troubles Of A Demographic Nature

India: The Terrorists Within

A day after major Indian cities were placed on high alert following blasts in the IT city of Bangalore, as many as 17 blasts ripped through Ahmedabad, capital of the affluent western Indian state of Gujarat . Some 30 people were killed, some at hospitals where bombs were timed to go off when the injured from other blasts were being brought in. (Later, in Surat, a center for the world's diamond industry, a bomb was defused near a hospital and two cars packed with explosives were found in in the city's outskirts.) Investigators pointed fingers at the usual Islamist suspects: Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Bangladesh- based Harkat-ul Jihadi Islami (HUJI) and the indigenous Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). But even as the police searched for clues, the Ahmedabad attacks were owned up by a group calling itself the " Indian Mujahideen. " Several TV news stations received an email five minutes before the first blasts in Ahmedabad. The message repo

Mir Chakar Khan Rind - A Warrior Hero Of Baluchistan & Punjab Provinces of Pakistan

By Sikander Hayat The areas comprising the state of Pakistan have a rich history and are steeped in the traditions of martial kind. Tribes which are the foundation stone of Pakistan come from all ethnic groups of Pakistan either they be Sindhi, Balochi, Pathan or Punjabi. One of these men of war & honour were Mir Chakar Khan Rind. He is probably the most famous leader coming out of Baloch ethnic group of Pakistan. Mir Chakar Khan Rind or Chakar-i-Azam (1468 – 1565 ) was a Baloch king and ruler of Satghara in (Southern Pakistani Punjab) in the 15th century. He is considered a folk hero of the Baloch people and an important figure in the Baloch epic Hani and Sheh Mureed. Mir Chakar lived in Sibi in the hills of Balochistan and became the head of Rind tribe at the age of 18 after the death of his father Mir Shahak Khan. Mir Chakar's kingdom was short lived because of a civil war between the Lashari and Rind tribes of Balochistan. Mir Chakar and Mir Gwaharam Khan Lashari, hea