THE COLDEST COLD WAR (1) A Case Study: North Korea

China is a key player in the international arena, and has been for some time. This is not only because it one of five permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and has the second biggest economy on the planet, but also because it is the un-proclaimed leader of the “human-rights depriving world”. Pariah countries like North Korea and Myanmar (Burma) as well as noxious nations like Iran are all closely linked with China and like China have abysmal human rights record. Moreover, Chinas relationship with its other minor partners, the Western nations, led by America, is asymmetrical because they need China. For the very same reasons that make China a world power –its economy, its vote on the UNSC, and its considerable influence in the “human-rights depriving world”. One could argue that China is already the most influential nation in the world.

Regardless it is Chinas paradoxical relationship with the West and parts of the East, that are at the heart of the coldest of cold war’s.

The cold war that we are all familiar with was termed “cold” because it was fought by proxy, i.e. it was never hot between America and the Soviet Union. Instead a form of political passive aggressiveness prevailed, where both sides smiled at each other but attempted to undermine each other at every turn. At the same time there was no ambiguity about who (and why) was behind a given global event. For example, America covertly took the Afghan “freedom fighters” side in their “just” struggle against Soviet expansionism , yet no one doubted who was supplying advance stinger missiles or how mountain fighters knew where the next Soviet convoy was traveling.

The coldest cold war is very different for one simple reason –the passive aggressiveness is rooted in the subconscious. In other words, the two sides in this coldest of cold wars are actively undermining each other but are unwilling to acknowledge that they are in direct opposition.


Why is the reality being ignored?

Because of the paradoxical relationship between the West and China. Unlike the Soviets and the West, the former are economically intertwined -the implications of which are evident here.

In part one we will look at one example, of the coldest cold war. This example with illustrate that their is a "coldest cold war" but the fact that it is a war is being ignored becasue of the nature of the China-West relationship.

A team of civilian and military experts from South Korea, the U.S., Australia, Britain and Sweden, concluded that North Korea was responsible for sinking a South Korean Warship in the Yellow sea near the border between the two Koreas. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during a visit to South Korea, declared that North Korea must pay for its offensive provocation. She also called for an international consensus to condemn and sanction North Korean in the UNSC. As expected, despite the overwhelming evidence, China shied away from openly condemning North Korea, its ally. Essentially shielding it from real international repercussions.

Yet without China's support for further sanctions of North Korea the international community’s efforts will not be enough to stop further provocations, which would likely lead to war. Thus without Chinas intervention war is more likely between the two Koreas.

I would be reticent not to ask why China refuses to act in a way that would prevent a war in its back yard?

To be fair, some China apologists explain that China does not want to back a volatile North Korea into a corner. Ok, but this answer also implies that China was unaware of North Koreas intentions prior to its decision to kill over 50 South Koreans in the worst Navel incident in the latter nations history. This conclusion may be a lot easier to digest then the alternative – China gave its tacit approval.

But are the apologists correct? Is Chinas support for North Korea going back to the Korean war of 1950, and its current economic (and military ?) aid with which North Korea could not survive, not mean that China has a say as to whether North Korea goes to war?! Alternatively, North Korea was sure that its blatant and unprovoked attack on South Korea would not force China to sanction and cut off its vital support for North Korea. How could North Korea have been so sure?

It is difficult to come to any other conclusion other than that China approved North Koreas actions. Which goes back to our original question, why did China not stop North Korea, and why does it not now at least condemn them, so as to do all it can to prevent a war?

In the Soviet era, it would be clear who was behind such ostensibly irresponsible but in reality calculated actions, and America would respond accordingly, pointing publicly to the hidden hand of the Soviets. In this coldest cold war the passive aggressiveness is so deeply imbedded that it is not even acknowledged that this is in fact a passive aggressive event, with roots in China and America.

So why did China do what it did, and why hasn't the West called it as it is?

Put otherwise the reason China supported/supports North Korea is to degrade Americas foot-hold in its neighborhood. Thus South Koreas will feel like its distant ally is unreliable and weak pushing them into the hands of China -as they see that only China can control North Korea. Of course the willfully blind mainstream media will interpret Clintons desperate effort as simply another wordy reassurance that Americas is still a staunch and reliable ally. What they won’t report is that every escalating North Korean provocation is a proxy attempt by China to battle American influence in Asia. At the same time the economic marriage between the West and China prevents both sides from delving into the nature of the their political interactions.

To the extent that China is willing to allow a war? Yes, despite the frigid air, this is the coldest cold WAR. As long, as it the war is not labeled as a proxy battle.


In part two we will explore the question of which is the greater force in the China-West cold war, economy/stability or influence/change in world order?