Comments by "JW Han" (@jwhan2086) on "CaspianReport" channel.

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
I have been always curious to know why both of the first and second island chains includes the entire Korean peninsula. It looks like Beijing is making a claim on the peninsula saying that Korea is a part of China. Perhaps we are going to see next decade Beijing argues that China must 'restore' Korean peninsula 'if necessary, by force.'
5
@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
South Koreans should take this video seriously because the dilemma that the current German government is facing would be the prequal for them when Mainland China decided to invade Taiwan. Are they willing to support the defence of Taiwan even if it would mean catastrophic damage to South Korea's economic ties to Mainland China? Will Seoul provide Taipei with their cost-effective military equipment as they have done for Manila and Jakarta? Do they have any sort of courage to overcome historical animosity to Tokyo in order to help another fellow liberal democracy in the region? Or, are they, as it is said in this video that 'at heart politics is the most concentrated expression of economics, willing to swallow the sacrificed blood of liberal democracy in Taiwan which Beijing demands, as the incumbent government has actually done regarding Hong Kong's crackdown, and then crawl, in the front of the Xi's feet, like a snake, to be allowed to acquire the access to Beijing's honey jar.
4
In my opinion, on your second assumption, whether or not the North loses or prevails, the Chinese will intervene from the beginning. They did in the 1950s, and still preparing for it.
3
@xmr7 pt95 SORRY but Chine cannot take over both of Korea and Japan even though they can surpass Americans. History can prove it. I'm not coming from my national background but from the concept of geopolitics which this channel is dealing with. If any regime in mainland China to dominate Korean Peninsular, they need a capacity to send their troops across the Yalu River and the Yellow sea due to the mountainous feature of the Korean Peninsula. It cost a lot. That's why the Han and Tang dynasty gave up it. Think about the fact that China has a lot of issues about other regional powers like India and Russia. TO BE HONEST, from my really sincere heart about my Chinese friends, IT IS A OLD KOREAN GEOPOLITICAL PLAYING OVER THE THOUSAND YEAR. .....And we Korean learnt it from Chinese history. Thanks to Sima Qian the Taishigong. (I always call him 'Taichigong' with respect. I'm really serious. If you disgrace him, I will curse you. He is obviously a person who deserves to be respected, as a teacher of Human civilisation.)
3
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
13:29 "The majority of policymakers in Beijing believe that international law is merely an instrument to keep China in check and vulnerable. Most of the Chinese decision-making body adheres to the idea that their country was defeated because of its defensive geopolitical orientation. And so to overcome this, Beijing has come to the belief that it must become more like the West and take a militarily aggressive posture in regard to geopolitical objectives. Thus in a way, China seeks to emulate the Monroe doctrine by establishing exclusive control in the Eastern hemisphere and thereby returned the country to the forefront of the World." For Koreans, this line of thought seems to be something they are familiar with if one changes China in the 21st century to Imperial Japan in the 19th century. Japanese imperialists tried to justify their behaviour in the Korean peninsula in a similar line of thought.
3
The interesting point for me as a Korean Christian is, why the history of Korean Christianity in Caspian Report? Does it have any sort of geopolitical meaning today? (I'm just curious, really. We Koreans are really secular people. You can see it from the fact that there is no single meaningful party in Korean politics claiming they are representing or based on a certain kind of religious value or belief, unlike Europe.)
3
Just few days ago, Americans secretly and indirectly(it took a form of an idea from a think tank, a participant of the talk said. I believe it might have been suggested by Victor Cha of CSIS) suggested South Koreans to export their nuclear power plant to Australia to help Canberra build an acting nuclear industry. It is not official yet, but if incumbent Moon's administration, which has shown their desire of terminating nuclear industry in Korean peninsula, are gone and Conservatives take the office, then Washington would make an official suggestion to Seoul.
2
"States without a nation." A plausible conclusion.
2
I'm sorry, really sorry. We Korean really like to achieve something first in the world, but the first Asian Cardinal of the Catholic church was Chinese. Google about His Eminence Thomas Tien Ken-sin.
2
@xmr7 pt95 Sorry again but let's be realistic. Geopolitics in the east Asia has completely changed since the advance of the US in the 19th century. Due to developments in transportation technology, the world becomes more compacted than before, which means other regional powers like India, Russia, and more importantly, the US become able to play power balancing card. And now it is no more secret that Korean peninsula is significantly important when you are playing power balancing card against China. One of the good examples is American military presence in the South Korea. China may have some economic influence on Korea but it cannot overwhelm American's hard power in Korea. Next, Koreans also want to contain China and restrict Chines influence. We have always wanted it throughout history. Chan Pasado Polska might have well understand this desire to contain strong neighbor. The trajectory of the current Korean administration illustrates this really well. President Moon has shown his favour of Chinese big brother and hatred against Japan and Uncle Sam. He even promised three 'No's to China publicly. Now he has been in the power three years and what he have done? Nothing. The THAAD system still operates, GISOMIA which is the cornerstone of the US-Korea-Japan military triad is still alive, and even Korea is going to join in missile defense system led by the US military. It is not because Republic of Korea is a satellite state or military colony of the US, as some people (especially supporters of Kim in the north) believe. You can see more and more President Moon pursues improving tie with China lower and lower he gets approval rates. So, if Beijing wields its influence to control Korea, Korean public will force politicians to cut off the relationship with Beijing, formalise its relationship with Taiwan. To sum up, China may have some influence on Korea, but it is not so much decisive.
1
@xmr7 pt95 "20 years in future where China will surpass US in economic, military and technological advancements" my point is that it will not happen because other regional players will not tolerate the rise of China. When the US was growing, the UK was obsessed with containing Napoleon in Europe continent. When the British empire found they had to balance the US during the Civil war, they noticed that it was too late. There was an obstacle for the British empire to play power balancing card at a proper moment: European peer competitors. By contrast, The US has no such geopolitical shackle. And they are reacting now. Thus, before China overwhelming the US in all of those three sectors, the US will do, more precisely, is already doing whatever they want to do without any meaningful hindrance. China is not going to be able to control it. For example, what will happen if the US navy blockade the Persian gulf, Malacca strait? These are just a moderate level of economic cards the US can play at least coming two decades and seem to be destructive to the economy of the People's Republic of China. One more point I will make. If there is any sign that the US is going to be surpassed by China who keeps trying to control Korea, Koreans will necessarily develop their own nuclear means as Kim in the north has done. Unlike Kim, just one year would be sufficient to complete it. I know it may sound crazy but 'Korea as nuclear power' has been Koreans long-held insane dream for the last seven decades. The US has been a shackle of it. Therefore, even if Beijing could surpass Washington within the next two decades, Beijing would not have been able to free to order Seoul to do whatever the CCP wants. Anyhow, it is quite interesting to see trying to ignore the current situation while drawing the future two decades later- that is not REALISTIC.
1
Don't worry too much. Our dear supreme leader Kim in the North will make any sort of trouble soon so that China couldn't focus on the Taiwan strait. Or, there would be a good chance for the third Korean unification by force in terms which is really disappointing for Beijing.
1
Your point that we should ask what the project's end goal is clearly makes sense. But for the same reason, I became a bit more pessimistic. As you pointed out, yes, Russians have proved how much they are incapable. However, the premise of this video is that 'military support to Ukraine has significantly diminished the combat readiness of European armed forces.' Not only Europe has failed to achieve it at the outset, but it also has failed to stop Russians from continuing the war in Ukraine. Yes, the uncomfortable truth is, that Russians are incapable but Europeans are worse. Not because Europeans are poorer, weaker, or stupider, but because the EU in its complicated nature is fragile. I think it is the point this video is talking about, and I agree with it. And, to be honest, I think, what Europeans, to be precise, the EU commissioners are doing is, a game of bluff.
1
What about countering counterfeiting by counterfeiting? I mean, North Korea had had currency reform in 2009 and it was a disaster. Since the aim of the reform was to help the new Kim have control over the market, it had not paid sufficient attention to the currency itself. Thus it had failed. North Korean business community started to avoid using North Korean won preferring the US dollar. The credibility of the regime among ordinary North Korean eroded a lot. The NK regime is more vulnerable at this point than the US regime. The US can counter counterfeiting through various means. On the other hand, if the US launch a massive scale counterfeiting campaign against North Korea, which will lead to hyperinflation of North Korea won, the only means the North regime can do to counter it would be just to have another currency reform and it will test the stability of the regime again.
1
Perfect video for perfect timing. I tried to sum up some thoughts raised in me when I was watching the situation in Pakistan, in particular the North Korean nuclear issue, this video is really insightful for me. So.............................. nuclear weapons cannot guarantee the regime's survival, right?
1
Well, I thought Sejong City was built to boost the birth rate and regional power politics. Democrats, mostly supported by Southernwesterners at that time, had found themselves isolated by the Conservative-led Southerneasterner coalition (PK-TK coalition). So they planned to build the city in the region to persuade regional players in Chungcheong(or Hoseo) to join them and form their own version of the Westerner coalition. Hoseo is a relatively smaller player when it is compared to other major plays like PK, TK, or Honam, but a wild card in nationwide-level elections, in particular, presidential elections. And it is why even conservatives have not been able to abolish the Sejong City plan even though it was the idea by Democrats to beat them.
1
@blackStar-fr3nh Hmmmmm... You make a point. I know some Korean Christian who are pro-China and pro-Kim in the north (even among the leadership in hardcore evangelist groups), but it matters how the CCP perceives the situation. Make a sense.
1