Steven caught a quiet press report about a possible Chinese military buildup on the North Korean border. And he did write about a possible Chinese occupation of North Korea. I e-mailed him a question a few days ago about China's potential for mischief while America's alliance is occupied with terrorists and host states, and must have missed it. Do the Chinese intend to declare eminent domain on Kim Jong Il and his 120,000 square kilometer prison? I'm certain they'd try if they were confident they could get away with it. Most of the rest of the world, more than happy to qualify China as "not as bad" as North Korea, would accept Chinese occupation, U.N. mandate or not. Depending on the strategic stakes involved, the Bush administration - surprisingly deferential to the Chinese over the past three years - might go along with the idea as well.
But that's been my worry: In a global political climate popularizing security from terrorists and tyrant states (the latter a classification from which China is inexplicably excused), China's oligarchy would step in, smile for cameras about "doing their part," and absorb a neighbor or two. As Michael Ledeen pointed out shortly after September 11th, economic success risks being galvanized into nationalistic, authoritarian ambitions, and much of our "engagement" amounts to feeding a hungry lion in an attempt to tame it:
Mr. Bush has to contend with the present state of affairs, and must evaluate the risks and challenges of contemporary China. Classical fascism was the product of war, and its leaders praised military virtues and embarked upon military expansion. Chinese leaders often proclaim a peaceful intent, yet they are clearly preparing for war, and have been for many years. Optimists insist that China is not expansionist, but optimists pooh-poohed Hitler's imperialist speeches too, and there is a lot of Chinese rhetoric that stresses Beijing's historic role, as if there were an historic entitlement to superpower status.
Beijing is only coy now because China lacks military and strategic advantages - behavior that fits in perfectly with the cool-headed totalitarian profile. And I'm even less agreeable with the idea that China's going to collapse like the Soviet Union or dog-paddle its way to liberalism like Taiwan. We can always hope, of course, but national security doesn't work like that.
Having just left political fashion of the Cold War and those years' unfortunate need for some moral equivalence, no elected leader over the past twelve years has bluntly warned the world's dictatorships that they lack the authority and reputation to participate freely in maintaining the security of the world (e.g., they're the sole reason for instability). Exceptions are made for strategic purposes, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but for how long? It's very likely that the most capable despots will seek conquest - internal or external - under the auspices of global justice (for real, not like the lame accusations against Bush by the nihilist left and isolationist right).
However polite and sophisticated, China is a dictatorship and until Beijing's regime finally falls, its purported good intentions should be viewed as suspicious at best. "World responsibility" aside, the country's treatment of its uncooperative citizens and conquered territories speaks volumes. Receiving the blessing of their democratic military and economic superior - the United States - for removing Kim Jong Il and his nuke-tipped histrionics would be a great prize, and would enable the Chinese to move south at their leisure. And remember: in an invasion, they wouldn't bind themselves to the same "economically disadvantageous" humanitarian concerns as South Korea or the United States. So as Steven kids, "so how is your realpolitik?"
Interesting as this development is - assuming we can describe it as that - if a Chinese expansion goes unchallenged, it doesn't bode well for the world ten or twenty years down the road.
UPDATE: John Derbyshire happened to write about China today, and the topic is Tibet's plight. Free China, he says, and you free Tibet. Indeed. A wealth of culture and ingenuity in both places, under the thumb of tyrants - that's a crime.