Sagepaper

Many tragedies in history were born of misperception. The failure of a state to correctly interpret another state's intentions can lead directly t war. Our Ambassador to Iraq, before the invasion of Kuwait, failed to answer Iraqi inquiries with forceful and decisive language expressing our opposition to any invasions of neighboring states. Saddam asked our permission, so to speak, and was given a wishy-washy answer that did not foretell the Gulf War.

It is difficult enough for powerful people to navigate their way through struggles, negotiations, and cooperation when there is no cultural difference. An example would be CEO's of large corporations operating within the same country. When there are different cultural mindsets, the game gets truly dicey.

The Chinese are not foolish, and have an advantage over us because they can act patiently, taking the long view. In addition to that intrinsic strength, they are also sharp observers. They watched the US and the Soviet Union engage in proxy wars for decades. Why spill your blood if you can spill someone else's? Beyond this, though is the matter of plausible deniability. If you use a puppet, you can suddenly claim it pulled its own strings. The trick is in knowing how to deny it and defuse a confrontation that could go all the way to the Super Powers themselves.

Time and again during the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union each left foreign, third world allies hanging. Each side would "sponsor" an ideologically compatible group. There was a limit to this patronage, however. Neither side would risk thermonuclear war over a bunch of scruffy rebels in the wilderness of a backwater country. Shamefully, we time and again let our allies down when it came to the crux of the matter.

To use my previous analogy, if you do not want to be held accountable for the behavior of an agent, such as a dog, you must disavow yourself of the agent. You can punish your own agent, or leave it to the wolves. If you continue support for an ally who has gone too far, you are signaling an ongoing willingness to tie your fate to that of your ally.

The People's Republic of China is in danger. The scary part is, they might not know that. Using diplomatic speak, administration officials are using increasingly strong language in an increasingly public way to denounce China's unwillingness to help more with North Korea by cutting back trade with North Korea. This is a distressing path. It's like when a dog's barking begins to turn into a low, menacing growl. What we are trying to say, diplomatically, is that China needs to exercise its power and authority, or stand aside.

All the hoopla has been about North Korea. We are approaching an anniversary (by Western calendars, anyway) of North Korea's exit from the six-party talks. A year is a significant time unit in the West. Three-hundred seventy days just isn't the same. Now, as it appears that North Korea will not negotiate, we are turning our attention to the PRC.

Perhaps, because of a cultural divide, we should be a bit blunt about how we view things. It was obvious to the US and the USSR, Western Powers, how the dance moves went. China is a beginner in this. We need to tell them straight up that if North Korea nukes an ally, we will retaliate against China. If they don't already know, they need to understand they are in dangerous waters.