Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
I'm not convinced that China "threatening America's hegemonic status" is a major issue here. It looks to me that China's emergence as a trading power of increasing prosperity is moving China's national interest closer to, rather than farther from, that of the US, especially where issues like North Korea are concerned. To put it simply, regional instability is bad for business, and China needs to do business. They've little interest in rocking the boat; the status quo is running rather nicely for them.
This is a tangent, but I just want to say that I didn't say they were "rocking the boat." Just that their sheer weight, and what people project it to be in the future, has caused some creaks and groans as the system has struggled to cope.

I'm not trying to say that external events have no impact on North Korea, I'm trying to say that the impact of any given event is likely to be extremely unpredictable, and that any external effort to influence North Korea is likely to be ineffectual and filled with possibilities for unintended consequences. I don't see any action that the US could take - especially unilaterally - that would be likely to have much positive impact.
That's why we need to be thinking in terms of 'dual use.' Policies that would be good in their own right, but could also shape things in this part of the world to our benefit. This, incidentally, would take care of the unilateral part, as we can advertise the first use to our allies.

I didn't say that the US could unilaterally exploit North Korea's perennial shortages of food and fuel. That would have to take place in the context of a regional sanctions package emerging from the 6-party format. It's clumsy, but it's necessary: it's a regional issue and requires a regional strategy.
Are you (or the 6 parties) really going to be willing or able to stop anyone from donating food? NGO's? Anyone else who wants to cultivate their 'good guy, anti-American' image?

George Singleton: You've basically delineated the Chinese approach, applied to North Korea. That's probably the closest historical precedent; however it can't be applied exactly. North Korea is probably near rock-bottom at the moment, with its agricultural problems. China's free trade didn't start until decades after their Great Leap Forward disaster. The first step for North Korea, therefore, would be to fix these agricultural problems. I don't know too much about their source, but letting in foreign experts to survey the problem, and heeding their recommendations - however politically incorrect - may be a good start. These advisors could also confirm that any aid we decide to give them actually makes it to the proper places. NK can't be expected to produce goods for foreign trade when their traditional systems of domestic production are dysfunctional. (Incidentally, this sentiment coincides with their 'juche' philosophy of extreme self-reliance, and thus may be more saleable to a North Korean audience.)

But that's what the N Koreans can do, and what they will decide on their own time. The bigger question is what we can do, now.