Day: December 11, 2010

Why won’t China rein in North Korea?

That’s the question on my mind, even if much of what I read addresses the less interesting question of why we know better and the Chinese are making a mistake.  The explanations for Beijing’s behavior are many and varied. From people who live closer than we do:

1. The South Asia Analysis Group (Subhash Kapila) suggests Pyonyang’s behavior “arises from a calibrated strategy operated in tandem with China’s increasing aggressiveness in East Asia”:

  • China exploits North Korea as a strategic proxy against the U.S.;
  • Washington responds timidly for fear of alienating China, hoping it may still emerge as a partner, even an ally;
  • China is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

2. An Australian offers less dramatic explanations:

  • Pyonyang has Beijing in a bind:  “North Korea may be a bad friend, but it would be a worse enemy”;
  • Beijing doesn’t want the international community to get into the habit of asking it to rein in pariahs;
  • China thinks its coaxing will work better in the long term than a more rigorous approach.

The Americans increasingly seem inclined to agree with 1) that China, by not objecting, is in fact enabling North Korean  misbehavior.

Beijing’s main concern is generally thought to be stability.  But why don’t they see North Korean behavior as threatening to stability?  Are they happy to see the Americans, Japanese and South Koreans discomforted?  Are they thinking that recent events will serve them well by hindering any moves towards reunification?

PS:  As luck would have it, Victor Cha Sunday morning (I posted on Saturday) has

an op/ed in the Washington Post this morning that addresses this question, putting the emphasis on stability:

But because they are the only ones helping the North, China’s leaders are afraid that such a move [cutting off oil supplies to North Korea] would collapse the regime and send millions of starving refugees flooding over its border. The Chinese have no easy way of determining how much pressure they should use, so they remain paralyzed, making ineffectual gestures

Paralysis may not last forever.

PPS:  Ed Joseph points out that this question was discussed Sunday on Fareed Zakharia’s GPS:  “China experts provided insights on just that question. Most intriguing theory: China fears a precedent and a non-Communist, unified Korea on its border, according to the expert.” You can watch the discussion, which starts just before minute 33, here.

Tags : ,

Too early to declare a South Sudan success

Rift Valley Institute (Aly Verjee) updates a previous paper on just-in-time preparations for referenda in Southern Sudan (January 9) and in the border area Abyei, where no progress has been made and the referendum there will clearly be postponed.

While I share Michael Gerson’s enthusiasm for the American officials working on getting Sudan right, it is clearly too early to declare an Obama foreign policy win in South Sudan, as his headline writer did (reflecting accurately the contents of the op/ed).  There is a long and difficult road ahead that could be upset by violence, political games, logistical difficulties, technical incompetence, interference from neighbors and miscalculation by Khartoum or Juba.  The American officials of course know that better than I do.

Tags : ,

Kosovo elections preview: opportunity knocks

Talking security for Serbs near Gnijlane, Kosovo, about 2001
Talking security for Serbs near Gnijlane, Kosovo, about 2001

Kosovo national elections will take place tomorrow, the first parliamentary poll since independence.  Unlike Egypt, Haiti and Ivory Coast, the Kosovo government seems likely to gain in legitimacy and authority from a relatively well-organized and executed effort, one in which substantial numbers of Albanians, Serbs and other minorities are expected to choose among a wide array of political options.

By all reports, the campaign and the election-day organization have been good, maybe even very good.  Planning has included 23,000 certified election observers.  Polling places are expected to be available in Serb enclaves; Serbs are guaranteed 10 seats in a 120-seat Parliament but can win more.  Other minorities also get 10.  The system is “open list” with the opportunity to select five candidates.  Women make up one-third of the lists and one-third of the unicameral legislature.

The campaign has been vigorous but peaceful, with eight Serb parties among the 29 contesting the elections.  Two new Albanian parties—the more radical Self Determination and the activist but more centrist New Spirit—joined the competition with more established political forces and their offshoots.  The press in Kosovo is ranked “partly free” by Freedom House, due in large part to weaknesses in the legal environment.  But there do not appear to have been any special restrictions associated with the elections.

The main issues of concern to voters, according to the National Democratic Institute’s pre-election polling, are the economy/jobs and corruption, which are also the two areas in which the most dissatisfaction was expressed.  “Political stability,” whatever that means, is a fairly distant third.  Health and education are viewed as improving.  The only institutions scoring at all well were civil society organizations, though the parliament, government and political parties did better than the new municipalities and the ministry of community and returns.

Participation is expected to be strong in most communities, with the possible and important exception of the Serbs who live in the North, where Belgrade’s influence is most strongly felt.  If tomorrow is peaceful and participation is strong, it will be an excellent sign of interest and even confidence in the political process.

These elections are an opportunity.  If they come off well, they will be an important step in validating Kosovo’s institutions as representative and democratic in advance of upcoming negotiations with Belgrade and give Pristina an important claim to international recognition, regardless of who wins or loses.

Why should Americans care about elections in such a small and out of the way place?  With U.S. leadership, NATO went to war over Kosovo in 1999, and we thereafter spent billions to station forces there and help build the Kosovo state.  As we consider what to do in Afghanistan (as well as Iraq), it is at least modestly gratifying to hear that such efforts sometimes succeed, at least in part.

Tags :
Tweet