26-Jan-13 WV-China threatens to cut off aid to North Korea

[John]

26-Jan-13 World View -- China threatens to cut off aid to North Korea


Russia blames the West for fomenting jihadist 'blowback'

** 26-Jan-13 World View -- China threatens to cut off aid to North Korea
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 26#e130126



Contents:
China threatens to cut off aid to North Korea
Russia blames the West for fomenting jihadist 'blowback'


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, China, North Korea, Global Times,
Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, Russia, Vladimir Putin,
Sergei Lavrov, Caucasus

[Reality Check]

China has a dilemma: We are further away from the goal of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and there's no possible way for us to search for a diplomatic balance between North Korea and South Korea, Japan and the US.

China should be more relaxed and reduce our expectations on the effect of our strategies toward the peninsula. We should have a pragmatic attitude to deal with the problems and pursue the optimal ratio between our ( China's ) investment of resources and strategic gains .

China can neither take one side of the peninsula conflict like the US and Japan nor dream of staying aloof. We should readily accept that China is involved and may offend one side or both sides.

China's role and position are clear when discussing North Korea issue in the UN Security Council. If North Korea engages in further nuclear tests, China will not hesitate to reduce its assistance to North Korea. If the US, Japan and South Korea promote extreme UN sanctions on North Korea, China will resolutely stop them and force them to amend these draft resolutions.

Just let North Korea be "angry." We can't sit by and do nothing just because we are worried it might impact the Sino-North Korean relationship. Just let the US, Japan and South Korea grumble about China. We have no obligation to soothe their feelings.

Due to China's strength, as long as our attitude is resolute, the situation will be gradually influenced by our principles and our insistence.

China is a power adjacent to the Korean Peninsula. This means that our strategic interests are complex and diverse. China should maintain our national interest to the full extent instead of any other side's interests.

China hopes for a stable peninsula, but it's not the end of the world if there's trouble there ( war on the Korean Peninsula ). This should be the baseline of China's position.

China is doomed to be located in East Asia where the situation is now quite chaotic. But luckily, China is the most powerful among the region's countries, so it will be influenced the least by the situation. China should stay calm."

John, you read this as a warning to North Korea.

It appears to be just the opposite to me.

It is a warning to the United States, Japan and South Korea. Give China what it wants in the South China Sea and the East China Sea, or we will allow war on the Korean Peninsula.

No more diplomatic help from China to prevent a renewal of the dormant Korean war:

there's no possible way for us ( China ) to search for a diplomatic balance between North Korea and South Korea, Japan and the US.

This editorial was written in English, not Korean. It is a warning to the United States, Japan and South Korea, not North Korea.

[burt]

About Jihad ans IslamS you write:

The Great Islamic Revolution and the Iran/Iraq war shook the entire Muslim world, and particularly inspired Osama bin Laden to start his jihadist movement to duplicate Iran's revolution, which was a victory for Shia Muslims, with a similar revolution for a Sunni al-Qaeda state.

I tend to agree, but I cannot see the link with the generational theory where the "generational Crisis war" was for me and for you (? if I understood you?) 1914.
1979 is 65 years later, and if I understand that the "generational Crisis war" was the 80s for Iran and Iraq it was not the case for Sunnis and Shias around the world.

Could you please explain this link, thank you

Regards

[burt]

This editorial was written in English, not Korean. It is a warning to the United States, Japan and South Korea, not North Korea.

I tend to agree. For me, as long as I understand the natural INDIRECT way to communicate that China uses, this is a VERY strong argument, what is your opinion?

As long as I uderstand the very curious link (from our western point of view, not from an asiatic point of view, which I know a little bit) between China and Korea, Korea is only "the mad man" (you know in the western pictures, when 2 cops are there to question someone: one is nice, the other one is mad, but both are PROFESSIONAL cops working for the same administration with the SAME GOAL) so for me this is EXACTLY the same game with Korea and China and one should (on my point point of view) make a BIG difference between what is SAID and the REALITY of the facts.
The langage used for communication OR the natural reader of the communication IS the goal, for example.... (now you have other indirections too)

Your opinion?

[John]

> John, you read this as a warning to North Korea.

> It appears to be just the opposite to me.

> It is a warning to the United States, Japan and South Korea. Give
> China what it wants in the South China Sea and the East China Sea,
> or we will allow war on the Korean Peninsula.

> No more diplomatic help from China to prevent a renewal of the
> dormant Korean war:

> This editorial was written in English, not Korean. It is a warning
> to the United States, Japan and South Korea, not North
> Korea.

I really do think it's a warning to North Korea. That doesn't mean
that it isn't ALSO some kind of warning to the West, although China
issues warnings to the West almost every day, so that wouldn't be
news. What is news in this case is that it's a warning to North
Korea. Global Times publishes in English, not Korean. If the article
had been in Korean, it would have to have been in some other
publication that isn't even seen by the West, and so could have been
completely ignored by the North Koreans. Publishing it in Global
Times in English is a far more powerful way of rebuking North Korea,
by making the criticism public and international. This follows by two
days another major public rebuke of North Korea - endorsing the
Security Council resolution. However, China absolutely does not want
another Korean War. Xi Jinping has much larger strategic war plans on
his plate, and a Korean war would be a major distraction and
disruption to his plans.

[John]

> I tend to agree, but I cannot see the link with the generational
> theory where the "generational Crisis war" was for me and for you
> (? if I understood you?) 1914. 1979 is 65 years later, and if I
> understand that the "generational Crisis war" was the 80s for Iran
> and Iraq it was not the case for Sunnis and Shias around the
> world. Could you please explain this link, thank you

Just like the West, different parts of the Muslim world are on
different timelines. For example, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria are
on the WW I timeline, while Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Palestinian
territories are on the WW II timeline. However, in a Clash of
Civilizations world war, no one will be able to escape, and everyone
will have to choose one side or the other, causing the timelines to
merge.

See the following:

** Book 1 - Chapter 3 -- The Principle of Localization I
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... alization1

** Book I / Chapter 4 -- The Principle of Localization II
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... alization2

[Reality Check]

Xi Jinping has much larger strategic war plans on
his plate, and a Korean war would be a major distraction and
disruption to his plans.

Maybe. But technically a state of war already exists, and has existed, for decades on the Korean peninsula.

China just buried the six party talks and positioned themselves as an impartial, reasonable third party who is going to sit back and watch the war mongers try to extract themselves from the mess they created on the Korean peninsula. They can now deny any responsibility, urge restraint on all parties to the ongoing Korean war, deny any responsibility for what happens and work through the U.N. to re-implement a cease fire when it is in their interest to do so.

North Korea would have to be ape dung crazy to go to war without their only supporter's blessing, and maybe the Chinese are trying to remind them of that as well.

If China was planning a bold attack against the U.S., what better way to catch the U.S. flat than to cause the U.S. to deploy to Korea in response to a serious threat of full scale war between North Korea and South Korea. And then re-deploy back to the United States when the war abruptly ended with a re-instated cease fire. It would cause the U.S. to implement it's East Asia war plan, expose logistic vulnerabilities, including logistic vulnerabilities during the deployment and during the sustainment phase of an East Asia war mobilization by the U.S.

It would also deplete U.S. rapid deployment stocks and reserves and expose the entire U.S. logistics network to asymmetrical warfare when China launched the much larger strategic war Xi Jinping wants to fight.

China could stop the Korean war at anytime it wanted and get a return to the long standing cease fire lines, if the North was losing, simply by agreeing to a U.N. Security Council Resolution that required the North to cease all hostilities and return to the original cease fire lines.

Truism: Amateurs talk ships, tanks and planes. Professionals talk logistics.