Why does the U.S. governments foreign policy often hinge on the naïve and moralistic expectation that other countries should act against their own interests? Wouldnt a more realistic U.S. foreign policy be better for everyone concerned?
Lets take an example. North Korea is a mostly isolated, totalitarian, unpredictable, and downright weird regime. Its only friend in the world is China, which provides fuel and food to prop up a North Korean regime that cannot even feed its people during bumper harvests. With increasingly better relations with a South Korea that has a GDP greater than 30 times that of the North, why does China continue to provide a lifeline for the destitute North?
A New York Times editorial answered this question and then moralized by saying something that the Obama administration would likely agree with:
China has long enabled North Korea, making clear that its only real concern is stability on its border. But China should realize that an erratic neighbor armed with nuclear weapons is anything but a recipe for stability. . . . After the [North Korean] shelling [of South Korean islands], China called only for a resumption of six-party nuclear talks. It has said nothing about the [newly discovered North Korean nuclear] enrichment plant.
But if this were the full story, the Times argument would appear logical and valid. Why would China prop up a volatile nuclear power on its border?
When policy seems to defy logic, usually something is missing. In that same days newspaper, buried in a regular news story related to Chinas reaction to North Koreas shelling of South Korea and the discovery of the Norths enrichment plant, the Times unearthed something that confounded its own moralizing about Chinas shoring up of the nefarious North Korean regime. Times reporters reference and then quote Cai Jian, professor of Korean studies at Fudan University:
The [Chinese] support continues because China fears that the vacuum created by a sudden collapse [of North Korea] there would open the door to rule by South Korea, and that will put an American military alliance on the doorstep of China.
Although never mentioned by the Times, the implicit conclusion is that Chinas seemingly irrational propping up of pariah North Korea becomes logical if China fears encirclement by a superpower and its allies practicing neo-containment more than it does a small, erratic nuclear country on its border.
Given these uncomfortable facts, the United States could undermine Chinese support for North Korea by giving South Korea five years notice that it will abrogate the U.S.-South Korean security alliance. This alliance is an anachronism from the early years of the Cold War before South Koreas economic miracle, when North Korea was backed by both the Soviet Union and communist China. If given time to beef up its military before the U.S. withdraws, the now wealthy South Korea could easily defend itself from the impoverished North. Furthermore, because South Korea refuses to significantly open its markets to U.S. goods, the United States is essentially paying a rich nation to defend it.
Thus, even if North Korea collapsed, the Korean peninsula was reunited, and South Korea ruled the unified country, China would no longer have to fear a U.S. alliance on its border. With this greater threat eliminated, China might very well rather deal with a more rational, wealthy, and stable united Korea, rather than have to prop up an erratic and bellicose North Korea. Thus, the Chinese might very well have an incentive to end assistance to the Norththe only thing that keeps the regime from collapsing. Also, a U.S. withdrawal from the South would greatly diminish the possibility that the United States could be embroiled in a brush-fire war over a peninsula that was of questionable strategic value even during the Cold War.
China, South Korea, and the United States could all benefit from the disintegration of North Korea. Thus, everyoneexcept North Koreawould benefit from a more realistic U.S. policy toward the Koreas.
|Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and Recarving Rushmore.|
RECARVING RUSHMORE (UPDATED EDITION): Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty
Taking a distinctly new approach, Ivan Eland profiles each U.S. president from Washington to Obama on the merits of his policies and whether those strategies contributed to peace, prosperity, and liberty. This ranking system is based on how effective each president was in fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution.