A nonsensical logic from Huisten

Comments on Ron Huisten “China and the DPRK: With friends like these….”, 20/12/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/12/20/china-and-the-dprk-with-friends-like-these/#more-15928

Ron Huisten's blame of China for the current situations of the Korean peninsula simply ignores the fact that China has had no troops stayed in the peninsular since the truce of the war while the US has a strong presence in South Korea.

He also ignores the fact South Korea is much stronger than the North economically and in terms of larger population.

What about tactic nuclear arsenals sometimes on the peninsular by the stronger side?

So how balanced or convincing is Ron Huisten's analysis, or more correctly speculation?

Let's look at one example from his post: At least the revelation from the Wikileaks was based on more certain factors than Ron Huisten's pure speculation on what China might have done, re, "It is even possible that Beijing did go down this path ("to revitalise the security assurances that prevailed in the Cold War days would be rejected by Pyongyang and involve a massive loss of face for Beijing") and was rejected, and that we simply do not know about it."

How could an analyst engage in such pure speculation with no fact whatsoever?

Further, Ron Huisten states “The evidence available to us indicates that China made no attempt to test the option of security assurances as a means of diverting Pyongyang’s nuclear program.”

Let’s leave aside this assertion for the time being. However, what security assurance is he talking about, given that the US and the coalition of the willing has invaded Iraq out of false security information of the so called WMD?

In such an environment, few can be sure China’s security given that the US bombed it embassy in Serbia and killed its diplomatic personnel, the US spying planes flew at the Chinese border and its intimidation of Chinese cargoes at open seas and its encircling of China, how could China be able to convince the North Korea that its security can be guaranteed?

If the following statement by Ron Huisten is true, then it directly contradicts the point Ron Huisten argued in his post, namely, “Beijing may have calculated, at least for a time, that the risks of being dragged into a war by its unpredictable neighbour were too great.”

“This acquiescence eroded to breaking point over the course of 2010 with the US eventually signalling its assessment that China has ‘enabled’ Pyongyang in bringing the peninsula closer to renewed conflict than it has been for decades.”

It is an interesting but also appalling piece, I am afraid to say.

PS: Why doesn't Ron Huisten advocate for the US to offer security guarantee, such as withdrawal of, or reducing its troops in exchange for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program? Wouldn't that security guarantee be much more effective than what he said about a Chinese offering?

PS: I note that my comments were not shown in the EastAisaforum site, as of late 21/12/2010.



It is interesting but regrettable that my comments are not shown.


In my view, the post is very much biased in its analysis and selective use of facts and using speculations or assertion.


Not allowing comments to point that out is not a good sign.


It has the effect of promoting and perpetuating that particular view!


Is that what the forum moderators want or wish to do?