[bilbo0s]

China's position is not about humanitarianism...

their position is about the US and Russia.

This situation happened back in the mid-1950's as well, only difference was that it was Russia that wanted North Korea reigned in. China gave essentially the same response at that time.

[dogma1138]

It's not about being humanitarian, it's about the fact that a large scale humanitarian disaster such as the one that would follow the total collapse of NK would be detrimental to Chinese interests.

On some level China doesn't want NK to collapse for the same reason that the US wouldn't want too see quite a few south and central american countries completely collapse they don't want to deal with the fall out.

If China had a way out with NK that didn't involve 20 odd million starving refugees crossing the Yalu river into China or a huge and likely lengthy presence or a large mass of US troops on it's borders it might have taken it rather than having to babysit the cousin that has to wear a helmet to dinner well past it's novelty.

South Korea also has this problem, it fears unification just as much as it fears a total collapse in both cases they'll get a wave of millions of starving, often poorly educated and for all intents and purposes brainwashed refugees lacking many of the skills needed to survive in the modern South Korean society (look at how long it takes SK to re-educate defectors, with some defectors actually returning to NK because they cannot adapt to life in SK).

[bilbo0s]

What I'm saying is that China's priority is the prospect of a large mass of US, (or Russian), troops on its southern border.

Sure, refugees might be a problem...

but I don't believe you'd be able to find a single government on this planet that would not categorize the presence of large formations of enemy troops, artillery and armor to be a higher priority problem. Especially if those enemy formations are on its border.

So China is worried FAR more about Russian or American troops on its border, than they are about refugees. And those concerns are just military sense.

[dogma1138]

China would lose in either outcome, a more or less "civil" collapse of the NK government and existing infrastructure would result in millions of refugees spilling into China which will cost them billions if not trillions.

It would also tie Chinese forces in the region and force them to deal with the problem nearly exclusively since China is not likely to accept a any international troops on it's border, since it would likely be composed of majority NATO or Indian troops or a healthy mix of both.

[bilbo0s]

"...since it would likely be composed of majority NATO or Indian troops..."

Well NATO troops are not gonna happen right... because the EU is doing its own thing with China.

So we're really only talking US troops, Russian troops or, in your view, Indian troops.

But in the Chinese view, Indian troops and Russian troops are the same thing. Because India and Russia are strong military partners, and have been for a long, long time. So when you consider that the Chinese are close to being surrounded by Russia, I'm pretty sure Indian troops won't happen. (Russian troops are obviously to the north, and the Russians are the chief allies of most of the nations to the West. Including India. So Indian or Russian troops in NK would seal up the Eastern border. This is also a reason that the US would never want large masses of Indian or Russian troops in NK. It essentially gives Russia enormous influence over China, because Russia would surround them militarily. For US policy makers, the idea is for the US to surround China, the worst possible outcome would be for Russia to surround China.)

For all these reasons, and more that I haven't mentioned, both China and the US would be vehemently opposed to any outcome that increased Russia's influence. You characterize such an outcome as "likely", but I'd characterize it as "extremely unlikely".

[isostatic]

He said china wouldn't accept any international troops