Comments by "JW Han" (@jwhan2086) on "China wants to form its own military alliance" video.

It seems that everybody has forgotten that China already has a treaty-based ally in the region since 1960s: Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so-called North Korea. Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty is formally a bilateral military alliance treaty. It's Article 2 imposes a treaty obligation on both contracting parties to do "all measures to prevent aggression" by "any state" which probably means the US. It also defines the treaty obligation that "In the event of one of the Contracting Parties being subjected to the armed attack by any state or several states jointly and thus being involved in a state of war, the other Contracting Party shall immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal." They also share ideology, even though each of theirs seems to be quite different.
8
@dragosstanciu9866 It's not just mutual aid treaty. Formally, it's a bilateral military alliance treaty. Have a look at Article 2 of the treaty. In any case of being invaded by any state, both contracting parties have a treaty obligation to do all measures to militarily support one another. By any definition, they are treaty-based military allies. The problem with the treaty is that each of them does not trust one other. The Article 2 defines that contracting parties must deliver the treaty obligation immediately and automatically. Both Beijing and Pyongyang find it uncomfortable. Pyongyang has not forgotten that the Chinese, whether they are communists or liberal democrats, still want to conquer Koreans(or at least they believe it.). And Beijing wants to play only a little of this treaty card because of their economic relationship with Seoul: Chinese diplomats very often pretend this treaty is already brain-dead.
5
And it is one of the reasons why the Korean peninsula is a flashpoint where major direct military conflict between Beijing and Washington would like to happen. It's a structural problem in the region. 1. Let's assume that the North provokes the South by bombing by artillery or ballistic missiles like they actually did in the 2020s. 2. And then assume that the policymakers in Seoul decided to retaliate by military means, something like bombing or air raid (in the case of Yeonpyong islands bombing, it could have happened if Obama administration did not prevent Seoul from retaliating against the bombing). 3. It means that treaty obligation is imposed on Beijing, which could mean it is highly likely that the Chinese People's Liberation Army's North Theatre would attack Seoul, intentionally or accidentally. 4. Then, it's time for the bilateral military alliance between Seoul and Washington to come in. According to the treaty, now the US Senate and White House are obliged to decide whether they have to engage in or how far they have to go. (Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea does not impose contracting parties to deliver treaty obligation "in accordance with its constitutional processes") 5. Now we are on uncharted water. Policymakers in Washington can make a choice: whether to bite the bullet and run into the fog of World War 3 against China or whether to abandon their ally in Seoul and put their alliance system across the globe in danger. I'm not joking. This scenario is one of the realistic concerns among security strategies in Washington.
3