Tag: China and North Korea

Categories
Quick Analysis

China, Unfair Trade, and North Korea

It is becoming increasingly evident that despite comments and UN votes to the contrary, China currently has no intention of taking effective steps to reduce its support for North Korea’s regime. The U.S. could take effective economic action to punish Beijing for its support of Pyongyang’s aggressive nuclear ambitions.  Those potential measures could also have benefits for U.S. workers and the American economy.

The White House recently noted that a peaceful solution to the North Korean nuclear challenge would remain elusive as long as Beijing continues to provide energy and other assistance to prop up Kim Jong-un’s government, in violation of international sanctions. In a tweet, President Trump stated that China had been caught “red handed,” a reference to images caught by U.S. reconnaissance satellites of Chinese ships providing oil to North Korean vessels.

China has signaled its disapproval of any military action against North Korea.   An attack against Pyongyang thus entails the risk of a much wider conflict. But the Beijing government has its vulnerabilities, particularly in its trade policy.

The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s 2017 “Report to Congress” disclosed that “The U.S. trade deficit in goods with China totaled $347 billion in 2016, the second-highest deficit on record…China’s foreign investment climate continues to deteriorate as government policy contributes to rising protectionism and unfair regulatory restrictions on U.S. companies operating in China.

The United States has the need, the justification, and the leverage to impose significant restrictions to Chinese imports in response to Beijing’s violation of international sanctions in support of  North Korea.  A disruption of China’s economy would be deeply disturbing to the increasingly centralized and authoritarian rule of President Xi’s government.
Reactions: All solutions may cialis online uk cause reactions, yet numerous individuals have no, or minor, symptoms. http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/rango-the-dog/ order cialis Female sexual dysfunction may be triggered by a pathogen or an antigen (allergy). It works in the similar way that the viagra best works. They generic levitra 10mg can be caused by stress, wrong lifestyle, medical (and even economical) condition.
If the U.S., by restricting trade with China, caused substantive economic disruption within that nation, President Xi’s regime, not supported by any widespread democratic election, would endure significant criticism, particularly since it would be over an issue not particularly relevant to the Chinese people.

The Clinton Administration vigorously pursued greater openness to trade with China, and the results proved harmful both to the American economy as a whole and to U.S. manufacturing employment in particular.

Despite its unfair practices and its recent explosive growth, China’s economy faces troubled times ahead. Kimberly Amadeo, writing for The Balance reports: “China’s economic growth rate slowed to 6.6 percent in 2016, the lowest since 2009. It grew 6.9 percent in 2015, 7.3 percent in 2014, 7.7 percent in 2013, 7.8 percent in 2012 and 9.3 percent in 2011. Before that, China enjoyed 30 years of double-digit growth. Unfortunately, that was fed by government stimulus spending, business investment in capital goods, low-interest rates and state protection of strategic industries like banking. This success led to 5.5 percent inflation in 2011, a real estate asset bubble, growth in public debt and severe pollution. The government’s emphasis on job creation and exports left little for social welfare programs. That forced the Chinese population to save for their retirement, strangling domestic demand. Most of the growth occurred in the cities along China’s east coast. These urban areas attracted 250 million migrant workers. Chinese leaders must continue to create jobs for all these workers or face unrest. They remember Mao’s Revolution all too well. At the same time, they must provide more social services. That would allow workers to save less and spend more. Only an increase in domestic demand will enable China to become less reliant on exports.”

Imposing trade restrictions on China in an effort to induce Xi’s government to cease enabling North Korea’s nuclear weapons program would receive popular support within the United States while causing exceptional problems for the Beijing regime. Unless China quickly starts to take action against Kim Jong-un’s atomic weapons program, it is a strategy that is viable and justifiable on many levels.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Past U.S. Policy Failures Led to North Korean Crisis

The reality that the entire U.S. mainland, and indeed, much of the world, is now in range of North Korea’s nuclear capability is a sobering one, particularly when combined with the fact that even North Korea’s limited atomic arsenal is fully capable of destroying the entire USA through an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.

Over the past several decades, the U.S. “gave peace a chance.”  President Bill Clinton tried buying off North Korea with aid.  President Bush largely ignored the crisis as he concentrated  on the Middle East. President Obama reduced the size of the U.S. military. All of those approaches failed.

China has the capability of completely turning off the North Korean economy.  Despite verbally opposing Pyongyang’s atomic program, it has taken no effective steps to do so.  Russia has seen the entire situation as yet another opportunity to take advantage of America.  Both have urged the U.S. to essentially abandon South Korea in return for a denuclearized North Korea, which would be a major victory for China and Russia and the beginning of the end of democracies in the Pacific region and Asia.

Kim Jong Un has observed that, over the past 8 years, the U.S. was kinder to its enemies than its friends.  The entire Obama Mideast policy tilted in favor of Iran, despite that nation’s constant devotion to the policy of “Death to the USA.”  Meanwhile, Obama assisted in the destruction of Muammar Gaddafi, who had given up his nuclear program and turned away from terrorism.  The same thing occurred in Egypt, which under Mubarak had favored peace in the region and a rejection of terrorism.  Obama urged his ouster, and favored his replacement with a Moslem Brotherhood advocate.

From his perspective, Kim’s actions are wholly rational.  He is doing what he has observed led to the enrichment and survival of regimes such as those in Iran, and avoiding the policies of those governments such as that of Libya, which acceded to U.S. demands and were subsequently wiped out. Add to that the fact that, despite the horrors of his regime, he now has China and Russia openly advocating the U.S. abandon its South Korean ally in return for North Korea’s pledge to eliminate its nuclear arsenal, a pledge North Korea has repeatedly violated, and one can easily discern the logic of what Kim is doing.
The active ingredients cialis usa online of this herbal shrub contain petasin and isopetasin. These drugs enhance hard on by increasing blood circulation in pelvis and relaxing the penis muscle but is also known for increasing sexual vigor in men. free viagra helps to maintain an erection required for sexual intercourse. It may be quite problematic when you see prescription viagra online your relationship getting spoiled due to miscommunication or negative communication. Explain the term erectile dysfunction/Impotence Impotence or erectile dysfunction is a sexual problem, which needs to be treated with cialis in india price extra care.
After all the years of equivocation by Washington, Kim does not believe the U.S. will take any action, so he feels free to engage in whatever provocation he wishes, assured that he can only gain by aggression, and lose by compromise.

Kim also knows that the state of American politics is such that President Trump will be portrayed by leftist within the U.S. as a warmonger if he takes any military steps against North Korea. Kim is also fully aware that the American military is at its lowest level of strength in many years, a result of the disinvestment that occurred as a result of both Obama’s policies and the sequester.

There are steps short of military action available to Washington.  An attempt must be made to induce China to act more responsibly by beginning to limit the importation of Chinese goods to the U.S. and allied nations. America’s commitment to its Asian and Pacific allies, and the permanence of that commitment, must be made clear through the enhanced placement of military assets in the region.  The U.S. anti-ballistic missile shield should be dramatically strengthened. U.S. powerplants should be hardened against an EMP attack. And, of course, the disinvestment in America’s armed forces must be reversed, even more so than the recent defense budget provides.

It is far too easy to portray the North Korean regime as being irrational.  Each action it has taken has had a proven track record of success—all of it leading to the current and very real crisis and threat of nuclear attack.  Until the United States clearly demonstrates to Kim and his allies in Beijing and Moscow that there will be dire consequences, the world will move ever closer to nuclear war.

Categories
Quick Analysis

China Trade Practices Impact U.S. Economy, Korean Crisis, Part 3

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its three-part examination of China’s trade relations with both the United States and North Korea.

China’s economic practices are not merely inappropriate from a trade perspective; they are also national security risks, and are quietly assisting the North Koreans.  The FBI reported in June that “The United States has filed a complaint to civilly forfeit $1,902,976 from Mingzheng International Trading Limited (Mingzheng), a company based in Shenyang, China. The complaint alleges that Mingzheng is a front company that was created to launder United States dollars on behalf of sanctioned North Korean entities. According to the complaint, Mingzheng conspired to evade U.S. economic sanctions by facilitating prohibited U.S. dollar transactions through the United States on behalf of the Foreign Trade Bank, a sanctioned entity in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and to launder the proceeds of that conduct through U.S. financial institutions.

Indeed, China has found numerous avenues to assist North Korea.  Foreign Policy reveals that an “unpublished U.N. report obtained by Foreign Policy that documents sophisticated North Korean efforts to evade sanctions shows that China has proved a fickle partner at best in Washington’s effort to stymie Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions…China, despite its apparent cooperation of late with international efforts to sanction North Korea, has instead served as Pyongyang’s economic lifeline, purchasing the vast majority of its coal, gold, and iron ore and serving as the primary hub for illicit trade that undermines a raft of U.N. sanctions that China nominally supports, the report’s findings suggest.”

Ralph Jennings, writing in Forbes in 2016, reported “The State Department may look harder at Chinese companies in case they are equipping North Korea’s nuclear development, sanctions coordinator Daniel Fried told the foreign affairs subcommittee … His comment followed an announcement… that four Chinese nationals and Chinese industrial equipment wholesaler Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Co. faced their own sanctions and money laundering charges over suspected military support for North Korea via U.S. financial institutions…But a broader probe would just turn up just one thing for sure: China is North Korea’s BFF…”
In today s world, chronic stress & consequently eminent amounts of cortisol online levitra see address might signify that testosterone’s impacts are barren in the long phrase, which is what you need to shun. More cialis no prescription https://regencygrandenursing.com/about-us/our-care-services than 40% of men ignore consulting doctor for impotence treatment, and most of the affected individual. In any case, somebody who buy cialis in australia needs to avert crown misfortune would presumably say it’s extraordinary. All our products are manufactured by major reputed Indian manufacturers, which are compatible and consistent with FDA standards. viagra canada
The 2016 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission emphasizes that Beijing is using its wealth to “challenge the United States and intimidate China’s neighbors. For example, China’s ability to conduct conventional strikes against U.S. regional facilities recently reached an inflection point with the fielding of new ballistic missiles capable of reaching Guam. The Chinese military’s pursuit of force projection and expeditionary capabilities, while enabling it to provide public goods in the form of antipiracy, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations, will also strengthen China’s traditional warfighting capabilities against its weaker neighbors, many of whom are U.S. allies or partners. These developments are underpinned by advancements in China’s naval, air force, cyber, and space capabilities. In response to conflicting claims in the East and South China seas, China has increased its military deployments there. Moreover, China’s expanding intelligence collection capabilities, including in the cyber realm, have enabled many infiltrations of U.S. national security entities. The information China has extracted could strengthen its hand in a conflict with the United States.

An insiders‘ view of Chinese thinking on the North Korean issue reveals startling facts.  Rather than concentrating on how to reduce Pyongyang’s belligerence,  notes Rowan Callick in The Australian, “A commentary on the People’s Liberation Army website has urged China to target with ­strategic weapons the base where South Korea is deploying the US Terminal High Altitude Area ­Defence system to help defend it against North Korea.”

China’s actions in the economic, foreign policy, and military realms suggest China’s leaders have decided the time has come for China to leave behind its long-held strategy, espoused by Deng Xiaoping, of “hide your strength, bide your time.” China is showing itself to the world now, and the outcome is not what many had hoped for 15 years ago when the country was welcomed into the WTO and the global economic system.

Categories
Quick Analysis

China Trade Practices Impact U.S. Economy, Korean Crisis, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues its three-part examination of China’s trade relations with both the United States and North Korea.

The Financial Times reports that “Over the past decade, the goods and services China has provided for the US increased by 98 per cent and 132 per cent respectively.”  Reflecting the political viewpoint of many of Washington’s elected officials, the Financial Times emphasizes the importance of the relationship. “China has helped the US maintain its economic and financial stability over more than a decade of war and overspending.”

The statistics indicate that China has more to lose in an all-out trade stoppage. In 2015, the U.S. trade deficit with China was $365.7 billion, the highest on record; in the first eight months of 2016, the deficit was $225 billion. The cumulative U.S. trade deficit with China in the 15 years since it joined the World Trade Organization is a staggering $3.5 trillion. As it protects its domestic industry from foreign competition, China continues to dump its massive overcapacity in U.S. and other global markets, materially damaging U.S. industries, including steel.

There is more than enough justification, even outside of the North Korean dilemma, to justify tough action on China’s aggressive trade practices. The 2016 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission notes that “China continues to violate the spirit and the letter of its international obligations by pursuing import substitution policies, imposing forced technology transfers, engaging in cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, and obstructing the free flow of information and commerce. China is also becoming a less welcoming market for foreign investors, with a host of restrictions and anticompetitive laws that proscribe foreign participation in broad swathes of the economy and promote domestic companies. At the same time, the extensive subsidization of and policy support for favored companies and sectors puts international competitors wishing to export to China at a distinct disadvantage. It has become all too apparent that the CCP has no intention of opening up what it considers key sectors of its economy to significant U.S. or foreign competition and control…

“China’s willingness to reshape the economic, geopolitical, and security order to accommodate its interests are of great concern as China’s global influence grows. This influence has been manifesting most recently with China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative aimed at connecting China with great portions of the rest of the world via a wide range of investments and infrastructure projects. Last year, the Commission tracked the initiative’s impact in Central Asia. This year, as part of our examination of China’s rise and South Asia, we considered its impact on some of the countries in that region. China’s emergence as a major player in South Asia is affecting the geopolitics of the region, and is causing the region’s traditional major power, India, to grow increasingly concerned about the prospect of Chinese encirclement.
To get and maintain better erections you need the increase blood tadalafil 5mg supply after the sexual stimulation. It can become very enabling, and disrupt your quality of cost of prescription viagra life. sildenafil online no prescription However, for the majority of men, the cause could be more complicated and men experience it as a result of heart issues. The BEST news is: a free “Consumer’s Guide To Choosing Your Ganoderma” is available to each and every viagra pills canada person willing to let go and let them become more independent sooner or later.
Bloomberg reports that “China’s Worst Trade Abuses Are Hidden… China has also become adept in using non-tariff barriers to prop up favored companies. The European Union Chamber of Commerce in Beijing recently identified a raft of such measures China was using to protect manufacturers, including subsidizing local businesses and forcing foreign firms to turn over technology to Chinese partners… China failing to disclose measures that may violate WTO requirements, it is refusing to even discuss them.

“According to the American Chamber of Commerce in China’s 2016 Business Climate Survey, more than three-fourths of surveyed U.S. companies reported they felt foreign businesses are less welcome in China than in years past. Meanwhile, Chinese investment in the United States is growing rapidly, driven by the Chinese government’s “going out” strategy, a generally more open policy environment for outbound investment, and capital flight. The increased acquisition of U.S. assets by Chinese companies, which often receive state funding, has led to growing concern over the economic and national security implications of such acquisitions.

“In 2015, the U.S. goods trade deficit with China increased by 6.5 percent year-on-year to $367.2 billion, a new record. Over the same period, the U.S. deficit with China in advanced technology products reached $120.7 billion, a decrease of $3 billion from 2014. In the first eight months of 2016, the U.S. goods deficit with China fell 5.7 percent year-on-year to $225.2 billion due to weaker imports. The United States has a substantial but much smaller trade surplus with China in services: in 2015, the U.S. trade surplus in services with China totaled $29.5 billion. China continues to stall on liberalizing key sectors in which the United States is competitive globally, such as services…

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

China Trade Practices Impact U.S. Economy, Korean Crisis

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a three-part examination of China’s trade relations with both the United States and North Korea.

U.S. policy makers need to take an intensive look at the entire framework of Chinese-American economic relations.  This is an urgent issue, since Beijing’s continued support of North Korea is the linchpin allowing Kim Jong-un to develop his nuclear arsenal, and the threat of trade restrictions may be the only way to change that paradigm.

During his presidential campaign, President Trump sharply criticized the imbalance in U.S.-China trade, and Beijing’s unfair economic practices. At the time, he proposed significant tariffs. Now, in the wake of North Korea’s threats of nuclear attack, President Trump has gained some concessions from China, a feat his predecessors failed at.  But are they sufficient, and will Beijing live up to its word?  Unfortunately, based on precedent, the outlook must be less than optimistic.

According to the 2016 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission China’s actions supporting North Korea are similar to its general foreign relations “…hopes that China would stick to its path of “peaceful development” and become a global power that upholds and strengthens the rules-based liberal world order have not been met. China’s leaders have taken advantage of the existing international order when convenient and sought to rewrite the rules when it benefits them. This was starkly illustrated this year by an international tribunal’s ruling that many of China’s activities in the South China Sea are unlawful—and by China’s obstinate rejection of the proceedings. On North Korea, although China signed on to the UN Security Council’s strictest sanctions on Pyongyang to date, there are already indications that China does not intend to enforce them in a way that might deter Kim Jong-un from his increasingly dangerous behavior, illustrated by two nuclear tests and a dozen ballistic missile tests in 2016 alone. Closer to home, China has been employing new levers of coercion in Taiwan and Hong Kong in ways that infringe upon longstanding practices and agreements, and which threaten to erode autonomy and democratic values in both places.”

The issue may be confronted soon.  According to the U.S. Commerce Department,  on September 24, U.S. Commerce  Secretary Wilbur Ross and Ambassador Terry Branstad met separately with Premier Li Keqiang, Vice Premier Wang Yang, Minister Miao Wei, NDRC Chairman He Lifeng, and Economy and Finance Director Liu He. The Secretary also met with Minister of Commerce Zhong Shan.
But at the very beginning the cost of branded drugs such as cialis online http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/MOTS-11.16.19-ALLEN-reschedule.pdf, too high for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Then illegal drug identification is a careful http://mouthsofthesouth.com/locations/estate-auction-of-brenda-parrish-deceased/ generico viagra on line science, requiring a good eye for size, shapes, colors and textures. It is also known that Kamagra works well for the condition is online generic cialis Sildenafil tablets. This is an free prescription for levitra embarrassing problem that a lot of craze.
The meetings were in anticipation of President Trump’s planned visit to Asia later this which is expected to concentrate on, in addition to the North Korean crisis, a range of trade issues including the need to rebalance bilateral trade and investment relations, protect intellectual property, lower tariffs and non-tariff barriers, and guarantee fair and reciprocal treatment for U.S. firms. According to the Commerce Department, “Ross is seeking to reduce the trade deficit through increased exports of high-value U.S. goods and services to China and improved market access for U.S. firms.” However, the possibility of stringent trade restrictions in reaction to China’s continued support for North Korea will certainly be a factor.

China’s economic relations with America has been a contentious issue since at least since the 1990’s.  President Bill Clinton greatly assisted Beijing’s rise to financial prowess both through his authorization of the sale of Cray super computers, and through his signing of legislation that freed Beijing from having to get yearly recertification of its trade status, as well as guaranteeing Chinese the low-tariff access to the U.S. market.

Investopedia notes that “…the trade balance of the U.S. vis-à-vis China is negative, and this deficit is financed partly by the capital flow from China. That is to say, China is also the largest creditor of the U.S. holding the largest part of the US Treasury securities with an amount of $1,270.3 billion as of May 2015. This is about one-fifth of the total US treasury securities ($6134.8 billion as of May 2015) outstanding.” In essence, in return for lending funds to federal elected officials who may use them to finance popular programs, those politicians have not taken action against Beijing’s unfair economic practices.

The Report continues tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russia, China, North Korea, Iran: The Combined Threat

Several deeply disturbing international military actions were reported recently involving Iran, North Korea, China and Russia. It would be a serious mistake to consider these events in isolation, for they are, together, pieces of a coordinated threat that places the United States and its allies in increasing jeopardy.

The development of a powerful Iranian rocket, swiftly followed by another North Korean ICBM test, while Russia and China engaged in an extraordinary joint naval maneuver in the Baltic Sea sent a clear warning to the west. The actions headlined both the military prowess of each of the four nations involved, as well as the coordination and inter-cooperation of this unified threat.

According to the U.S. State Department “With its latest launch of a Simorgh space launch vehicle on 27 July, Iran has again demonstrated activity inconsistent with UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2231. We condemn this action. This resolution calls upon Iran to not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such technology like this launch. Space launch vehicles use technologies that are closely related to those of ballistic missiles development, in particular to those of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. This step follows missile launches into Syria on 18 June and the test of a medium range ballistic missile on 4 July. Iran’s program to develop ballistic missiles continues to be inconsistent with UNSCR 2231 and has a destabilizing impact in the region. We call on Iran not to conduct any further ballistic missile launches and related activities. We are writing to the UN Secretary General with our concerns. The governments of France, Germany and the United Kingdom are discussing these issues bilaterally with Iran and are raising their concerns.”

Iran’s rocket launch was swiftly followed by a North Korean ICBM launch. The State Department  issued a similar statement: “The United States strongly condemns North Korea’s launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile, the second this month, in blatant violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions that reflect the will of the international community. All nations should take a strong public stance against North Korea, by maintaining and strengthening UN sanctions to ensure North Korea will face consequences for its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. As the principal economic enablers of North Korea’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile development program, China and Russia bear unique and special responsibility for this growing threat to regional and global stability.”

China and Russia were apparently not content to just “bear responsibility” for their client states. While those missile and rocket tests were underway, Beijing and Moscow engaged in a joint naval exercise in the Baltic Sea. The U.S. Naval Institute (USNI)  notes that the maneuver “is raising eyebrows in northern Europe, NATO headquarters and Washington.” The German publication DW writes “China and Russia are signaling to NATO that they are willing to cooperate militarily and deepen diplomatic ties with joint naval maneuvers currently taking place in the Baltic Sea…”
You also purchase viagra in australia https://pdxcommercial.com/sick-of-portland-changing-too-bad-here-are-7-places-where-this-city-could-soon-go-big/rosie-struve_06-jpg/ have various exercises to increase sperm count. You should simply reach your own self and see buy cialis no prescription its motivation. Recently, we were delighted to see that many obese people started to select orlistat again, they are abandoning immoderate exercise and unhealthy diets, began to look for healthy ways to lose weight. viagra sale in india There could viagra online canadian be several reasons for hampered blood supply to penis.
The Chinese official organ People’s Daily described the joint operation: “The drill aims to develop China’s and Russia’s comprehensive strategic partnership, deepen friendly and pragmatic cooperation between the two armed forces…[the exercise is] the farthest from China for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy…‘an embodiment of confidence and power.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping added an exclamation point to China’s newly aggressive stance, including its alliance with Russia and its continued backing of North Korea, during a military parade held concurrently with its naval maneuvers in Europe in which his armed forces paraded its advance weaponry.  President Xi instructed his armed services to be an “elite force.”

According to Douglas Schoen and Melik Kaylan, authors of a study on the Moscow-Beijing alliance, the most formidable crisis facing the United States is the “unprecedented partnership developing between Russia and China…From their support for rogue regimes such as those in Iran, North Korea and Syria to their military and nuclear buildups…Moscow and Beijing are playing the game for keeps.”

There has been little discussion in the media about the interrelationship of these actions.  The inadequate analysis of the unified threat against the U.S. and its allies is a troubling reminder of the failure of many news outlets—and, inexcusably, many politicians–to comprehend the nature of the clear and present danger that is rapidly escalating.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Danger on the Korean Peninsula includes China, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of the danger on the Korean Peninsula.

The extremely uncomfortable question that remains unanswered about North Korea’s nuclear and missiles programs is why does China object to reasonable defense measures by South Korea and the United States?

The Washington Post notes, “Given how angry Beijing gets about [the U.S. anti-missile system] THAAD, you may be forgiven for thinking that the U.S. missile system, deployed to South Korea, is primarily aimed at China. However, Washington and Seoul have justified the system by saying it is necessary to defend South Korea from North Korean aggression.”

China’s semi-official newspaper, the Global Times,  proclaimed: “China has not been able to prevent THAAD from being set up in South Korea…Beijing should keep calm and adopt resolute and efficient measures to minimize its threat toward China. ..We should start from increasing sanctions toward Seoul…we can take the current opportunity to squeeze South Korean cultural products out of the Chinese market. This is the price the country must pay for the THAAD deployment. China should also focus on military countermeasures and strategically deal with more threats. The deployment of THAAD in South Korea has two consequences – it directly threatens military activities within China, moreover, it sets a precedent that Washington can arbitrarily implement its anti-missile arrangements around China. Both will jeopardize China’s security.Can we neutralize THAAD technically? Research in this field must be enforced. If possible, Beijing must realize it at all costs. One thing is for sure, China’s related strategic weapons must target South Korea’s Seongju County, where THAAD will be installed.”

The “threat” that China sees, therefore, is that it believes the THAAD system could have an application against its own growing nuclear arsenal—aimed at the U.S.

cialis online The patient with Type 1 diabetes requires insulin injections. cialis sale With this anti-ED oral medicine, even older men are able to ingest it given its softness. Have a look on these instructions: Do no take the ED pills without recommendation Check expiry date on the before gulping the medicine * Do not overdose the medicine in any case Take the medicine with the lowest cost. generic cialis buy Show to your spe cialis canada cheapt if any of them appears. China’s complicated relations with North Korea is this: it is not bothered that the “hermit Kingdom” threatens its neighbors and the U.S. Beijing just doesn’t want the threat to prompt South Korea, Japan or the United States to strengthen regional defenses.

Russia, too, has objected to the THAAD deployment, notes Townhall: “Russia’s Foreign Ministry said that the ThAAD deployment would escalate tensions in the region: ‘Such actions, no matter how they are explained, very negatively affect global strategic security, adherence to which is so often discussed by Washington. They may also result in escalation of tensions in the region, new difficulties for resolving acute problems of the Korean Peninsula, including the task of its denuclearization.’”

While China takes public steps apparently indicating that it wishes to discourages North Korean advances in strategic weapons, it clandestinely assists those same activities. Commerce Secretary Wilbur R. Ross recently announced that China’s Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd., known collectively as ZTE, has agreed to a record-high combined civil and criminal penalty of $1.19 billion, pending approval from the courts, after illegally shipping telecommunications equipment to Iran and North Korea in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR).

Some key observers believe there is more than a passing relationship between the technological military personnel of China and North Korea. 38 North explains:

“Some analysts are skeptical that Pyongyang could have achieved success at such an impressive rate without aid from a more technologically capable benefactor—namely, China. These analysts have noted similarities between the KN-11, North Korea’s indigenous SLBM, and the Chinese-made JL-1. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that China offered the North direct technical assistance in recent years. As Henry Kissinger once stated, Beijing is fully aware of the costs of complicity in helping advance Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program. A nuclear North Korea risks the nuclearization of East Asia—most notably, Japan and South Korea. Such proliferation would shift the balance of military power in Asia, boding poorly for Chinese interests. China has, however, tolerated indirect assistance to North Korea that likely helped to accelerate its nuclear and missile program. The recent US indictment of Ma Xiaohong, the CEO of Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Development Company, demonstrates both the scale and nature of Chinese complicity. By one estimate, the Hongxiang Group’s trade with North Korea totaled in excess of $500 million over the last five years. The concern is that the company’s subsidiaries have exported dual-use commodities with nuclear and missile applications. Beijing’s early cooperation on this matter suggests that it may not have provided direct support to Pyongyang’s weapons program and that it is willing to enforce the US Treasury Department’s sanctions against North Korean companies, at least for the time being.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

China Must Take Responsibility for North Korea’s Nukes

There is a great deal of debate on how to respond to North Korea’s ongoing nuclear weapons and ICBM development.  The irrationality and belligerent attitude of the “Hermit Kingdoms’” leadership make the issue all the more urgent.

The Congressional newspaper The Hill reports that “Senators from both parties are pushing for stronger sanctions against North Korea after the country said it detonated a hydrogen bomb.”

The problem with almost all the proposed responses is that they are aimed at the wrong target, or at the very least, a target that is beyond reasoning with.

A glance at the history of arms control deals with Pyongyang indicates that the North Koreans will only use negotiations as a bargaining chip to gain concessions, then violate the terms of any agreement after getting what they want. China is the only nation with any real influence in the matter, and it has absolutely no intention of using its position to stop the weapons program.

The Arms Control Organization notes that  “For years, the United States and the international community have tried to negotiate an end to North Korea’s nuclear and missile development and its export of ballistic missile technology…The United States has pursued a variety of policy responses to the proliferation challenges posed by North Korea, including military cooperation with U.S. allies in the region, wide-ranging sanctions, and non-proliferation mechanisms such as export controls.

“The United States also engaged in two major diplomatic initiatives in which North Korea [agreed] to abandon its nuclear weapons efforts in return for aid. In 1994, faced with North Korea’s announced intent to withdraw from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires non-nuclear weapon states to forswear the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons, the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework. Under this agreement, Pyongyang committed to freezing its illicit plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid.

“Following the collapse of this agreement in 2002, North Korea claimed that it had withdrawn from the NPT in January 2003 and once again began operating its nuclear facilities.

“The second major diplomatic effort [was] the Six-Party Talks initiated in August of 2003 which involved China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. In between periods of stalemate and crisis, those talks arrived at critical breakthroughs in 2005, when North Korea pledged to abandon ‘all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs’ and return to the NPT, and in 2007, when the parties agreed on a series of steps to implement that 2005 agreement. Those talks, however, broke down in 2009 following disagreements over verification and an internationally condemned North Korea rocket launch. Pyongyang has since stated that it would never return to the talks and is no longer bound by their agreements. The other five parties state that they remain committed to the talks, and have called for Pyongyang to recommit to its 2005 denuclearization pledge.”
For over 500 Recommended storefront cialis no prescription years, and well into the 19th century, this system was considered standard quo. viagra uk this Kaunch Beej: Improves sexual health, destresses and increases stamina. Both of these components work to ensure a wholesale cialis more potential erection in the man possibly. Vardenafil with discount is http://robertrobb.com/critics-are-wrong-ducey-has-aggressively-tried-to-flatten-the-coronavirus-curve/ buy levitra from canada universal proposed pill by which men satisfy their partner.
Writing in Space Daily, Giles Hewitt reports that “There is room to increase pressure by imposing the sort of extensive economic sanctions that helped bring Iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear programme. But to be effective, these would impact Chinese companies and financial institutions that account for the lion’s share of North Korea’s overseas business. China is likely to balk at any such move and Washington would be wary of pushing Beijing at an already sensitive time for relations between the two powers.” [Hewitt declines to note that the Iran deal fails to forbid Tehran from eventually getting atomic weapons, and that Iran has already violated portions of the agreement]… China, meanwhile, is unlikely to back any moves that could genuinely destabilise the regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, given its overriding fear of a reunified, US-allied Korea directly on its border.

‘China, no matter how strong the language it uses in its criticism on the North, will not join any Security Council punishment that may have a real impact on the North’s regime,’ said South Korea’s former national Security Adviser, Chun Young-Woo.’And North Korea knows that,’ he added.”

Ben Dooley, also writing in Space Daily, believes “China is unlikely to take strong action in response to North Korea’s claimed test of a hydrogen bomb, according to experts who say Beijing prefers the devil it knows to the uncertainty that could follow a confrontation. And whether Pyongyang would even listen is highly questionable, they say… Beijing’s support for Pyongyang gives it particular influence over the hermit kingdom.

“But that is ever less true, experts say… ‘China’s influence on North Korea is becoming weaker and weaker, the main issue is that the North’s leadership do not listen, they are very stubborn’, said Zhu Feng, an expert on international relations. Pyongyang, he added, may believe it can ‘exploit’ its relationship with its main diplomatic protector while Beijing is distracted by tensions with other neighbours and the US in the South China Sea. Beijing — which regularly calls for calm on the Korean peninsula — has become increasingly frustrated with its neighbour’s antics, a feeling undoubtedly exacerbated by its fourth nuclear test.”

Government officials, arms control experts and many pundits are too eager to give a pass to China in their belief that Beijing has no influence.  The facts clearly say otherwise. China could literally bankrupt and starve North Korea with ease, and that gives Beijing enormous influence. Claims that the Chinese leadership fears a unified Korea are accurate, but if that is what keeps Beijing from urging the North from stopping its nuclear program, that could be addressed by using its enormous influence to threaten internal regime change within the North’s Communist Party.

North Korea’s nuclear program helps China. First, it detracts from Beijing’s own enormous strategic weapons development program. Second, it makes China a wanted partner in arms control negotiations in the region. The third reason is speculative, but must nevertheless be carefully considered. If Beijing eventually chooses to damage Japan, the Philippines, or even the United States, a nuclear attack that comes from North Korea would achieve that objective while giving Beijing a way of avoiding blame—and retaliation.

While diplomatic attempts to halt Pyongyang’s atomic program should continue, the US must also strengthen missile defenses for itself and its allies. Further, Washington should inform China that any use of nuclear weapons by North Korea against America or its allies will be construed as an act encouraged, supported, and aided by Beijing.