[ajross]

The problem with that plan is that China has only marginally more control over Kim than we do. He's a rogue from their perspective too, and their ability to effect a "regime change" is limited by the same "don't poke the nuclear nutjob" problem we have.

[dforrestwilson]

There's some truth to that (see the recent Malaysian assassination under the nose of Chinese security), but China very clearly has benefited from the status quo and I would bet that there are powerful people in the NE region of China who do have influence and are pedaling it like mad right now.

[lostmsu]

I am not convinced that Kim is rogue. How do you know his actions are not dictated by China?

[boomboomsubban]

We can't know, but there's no reason to suspect they are. Why would China want a North Korea able to nuke Beijing? Why impose sanctions on North Korea if they're following your orders? And when has North Korea ever listened to anyone?

[jonnathanson]

China has been playing a dangerous game in nurturing the Kim regime and allowing it to obtain nuclear weapons. China has benefitted over the years from the presence of a hedge on its border against the US and South Korea, and from the frustrations the Kims have caused for the US, South Korea, and Japan. But it's been keeping a wild animal as a pet in its own backyard, and now that animal's got claws and rabies.

Interestingly enough, I see the emergence of common ground between Washington and Beijing on this issue. Sooner or later, China is going to calculate that Kim Jong-Un is more trouble than he's worth. When that happens, I can see the US and China arranging an unwritten agreement to take out Kim in exchange for the US's acceptance of the legitimacy of the North Korean state.

That would be a bitter pill for the US and its allies to swallow. But it seems preferable to the current course and speed of events, which basically have Kim developing usable ICBMs within a decade or less. To assume that a growing nuclear arsenal will somehow make Kim less of a threat, or endow him with a newfound sense of global stewardship and responsibility, is to place a particularly strange bet.

[sova]

The people of North Korea suffer greatly in poverty, lack of food, lack of resource, lack of education. The greatest issue is not taking out the head of the snake, it's the millions of refugees that would go to South Korea, flooding one of the most tech-advanced countries with people needing help and livelihood. That's the big tsunami that nobody wants to look at.

[jonnathanson]

I don't think anyone is saying that accepting the DPRK is a good option. I'm saying it may end up being the best worst option available to us at some unspecified point in the next decade or so.

Hopefully we can encourage or entice China into forcing systematic reform on a post-Kim DPRK. I don't think China will all too keen to foster democracy and open markets, so we shouldn't expect too much. But we can probably inveigh on China that an economically and socially stable DPRK is preferable to an unstable one, and that the global soft power China desperately craves will come when it is seen as having at least a shred of concern for human rights. Up to us and China to come to terms on exactly what the bargain would be. But my best guess is that it won't be something we'd currently find conscionable or acceptable.

My point is, from a realist perspective, our bargaining power is only going to incrementally diminish over time. Today we have the strongest hand of cards we are ever going to be delt, and it is a really shitty hand. Tomorrow our hand is going to be even shittier, and China's stronger. You dont need to stretch your imagination too far to see that we have no real way to win this game. Previous presidents have tried checking. Trump has tried bluffing. Sooner or later, someone at the table is going to call.

[sova]

What do you mean by "accepting?" There are going to be millions of resource-less refugees when North Korea falls apart. The US already "accepts" North Korea in the way that there is lots of foreign aide sent there, and most of it gets gobbled up at the "top of the food chain." Adding legitimacy to a foul empire is not any sort of solution that embarks upon the path to positive change.