Iran, China and North Korea: Why is Kim Jong-il in China Now?

Lame and perfunctory denials aside, it has become as clear as it's likely to get that North Korean despot Kim Jong-il is in the midst of an unusual (and unusually visible and extensive) visit to China that began last Tuesday.

The White Swan Hotel in Guangzhou was under heavy guard from 2 p.m. on Thursday, with metal detectors at the entrances and the police turning up every manhole cover around the hotel. Hotels nearby forced foreign guests to check out, citing a special order from the authorities...

How unusual is this? For starters, past forays out of the Hermit Kingdom by KJI and his late father have not been reported until they were over - if they were reported at all. With China's ability to keep a lid on pretty much anything it wants to (large public demonstrations being the exception), I'm running on a different assumption: that China and North Korea want the world to know about this. It's the easy leak that authorities want to get out - its legitimacy increased by the appearance of its being covered up (a little).

Which begs the question: Why? Why is this story an open secret all over Asia and a big yawn in the Western media? (There's been nothing on any of the wire services, much less the major media outlets all weekend after an initial flurry of rumors late last week about a trip to Russia and secret negotiations with U.S. officials.) Granted, there have been stories with bigger punch right now (Iran, Iraq, Pakistan), yet I suspect there is a bigger story here that won't become apparent right away. The cover story is that Kim is attempting to learn from Chinese economic reforms:

It would make sense for Kim to visit not only Guangzhou but also nearby boom cities spearheading the economic reforms like Shenzhen and Zhuhai, sources said. They say Kim is trying to learn from the Chinese economy with a field trip to cities visited by Deng Xiaoping during a historic trip in 1992 to stress the importance of reform and opening.

I believe it. As with all good cover stories, the best one is the truth. It's just not the whole truth. Learning about economic reforms does not answer the question why now? What were Kim and his delegation doing in China earlier last week when his whereabouts were more mysterious? Is it really such a coincidence that U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill was in China at the same time as Kim - and for the purpose of re-starting talks with North Korea no less? Are we really to believe that these two visits were unrelated?

There's one other thing that's not an accident of timing here and that's the escalation of the nuclear crisis with Iran. Let's review the bidding...

North Korea has supplied long-range missile technology to Iran. They may not be bosom buddies (reasonable people could argue about whether they should be called 'allies') but they share certain important objectives. Foremost among those is the obliteration of Western Civilization. Never mind that in one case what follows is a paradise-on-earth of strongman-led Islamic law and in the other case a paradise-on-earth of strongman-led Communism. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And no, that did not start with George Bush.

Even the starting point (the focus for nutty rhetoric in each case) shares certain characteristics. For Iran, Israel must be wiped off the map in order to rally the faithful. For North Korea, the Korean peninsula must be re-united under North Korean Communist rule before such bliss is complete. (Causing havoc in Japan is seen as equally desirable.) No compromise is possible. Too much of each leader's legitimacy depends on having a visceral enemy that does not deserve to live much less be negotiated with. The left often lightly tosses about the term 'unilateralist' in reference to the U.S. They would do well to look to these cases for a better definition.

The commonality (between Iran's visceral target and North Korea's): small, prosperous country under U.S. security umbrella whose existence much less success is a daily insult to the values of the mullahs and Kim Jong-il respectively.

China of course, is a wary ally of both. Wary of North Korea because they know that Kim is a nut. Wary of Iran because they know that a) the mullahs are deranged and b) that they depend on Iran's oil for their continued growth. China has to play in this. Even as they keep a low profile, it's in their interest as much as ours to keep either pot from boiling over. So China is the obvious venue.

Back to the question: Why is Kim in China now?

I suspect (and it is only conjecture at this point) that Kim was meeting - perhaps through intermediaries, perhaps not - with U.S. officials. I.e., Chris Hill and his deputies. That Condi Rice was on the receiving end of vile misogynist rhetoric out of Russia and scheduling meetings with South Korea at about the same time are just head fakes. Both the U.S. and Kim would have reason to keep such negotiations secret - out of the glare of expectations and the need explain and save face.

So is the Bush administration pulling a Madeleine Albright and caving to North Korea? Yes. And no. They are 'caving' but for very good reason and with no illusions about the results they are likely to achieve. Those results are time. A little bit of time because with Iran we sure as heck don't have any. A friend put it succinctly in a phone conversation late last week. Paraphrasing:

Better to have a ticking clock with more time on it and a maniacal despot who responds at least temporarily to financial incentives than a maniacal despot (in Iran) who - driving a 30-year old car and fancying himself the usher of the next Shiia messiah - feels he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by making Jerusalem a smoking radioactive crater as soon as possible, economic incentives be d**ned.

UPDATE I:To try finishing the thought and tying up a few loose ends that just occurred to me in the shower... All indications are that Ahmadinejad doesn't care about material wealth and personal survival. Kim does. He's one of Mercedes' best customers. He likes his Scotch. He likes his harems of virgins in this life. This has all been documented.

Will U.S. incentives stay Kim's hand on the nukes? Not for long. He's proven a liar and worse in the past. I take it as a given that he cannot be trusted. At least this administration knows that. But all of this might distract him temporarily and put the smallest wedge between NoKo and Iran. One was courted by the U.S. One was not. Divide and conquer. Classic strategy.

Getting China involved is also essential at this point. Alone we cannot throw enough weight around to bring this to an outcome anybody likes without a really really big mess. With China we might not either. I don't like what we have to give up in the cozying up to China that's implied in this, but again: the clock is ticking. If the amazing were to happen and we were to get China to recognize that sanctioning Iran in the Security Council was a whole lot better than 20% of their (China's) oil going offline overnight, then maybe just maybe...

We'd still have mess, but we might be able to forestall a war with Iran exploding into a war with China too. I'm way way out on a limb here, but simply signaling that we have shared interests in the Middle East and in fewer nuclear states may give China just enough pause when the shootin' starts as I still think it will.

UPDATE II: To add just the tiniest bit of Team America levity into an otherwise grim situation, this site is good for a couple of giggles at Iranian President Ahmadinejad's expense. Laugh now... 'cause if the worst goes down nobody will be laughing for several generations.

UPDATE III: Excellent analysis of the Iran situation over at The Belmont Club, concluding (in essence) that the real possibility that President Ahmadinejad will step over a hidden tripwire (e.g., nuclear first use and/or a step-function increase in the magnitude, tempo or target of terrorist activity) and thus instantly re-galvanize U.S. public opinion (oh yeah, right, we're at war... forgot about that) is a blessing in disguise in terms of being able to affect positive change:

The ayatollah's fundamental defense lies in the well-founded belief that the United States has expended too much political capital in deposing Saddam to undertake another regime change operation in Teheran... Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad alone can strip Iran of its invulnerability to military action in a single rash moment. In that sense he is not, as some pundits think, the worst possible leader Iran could have at the moment. On the contrary, this unstable, bellicose man is from another point of view the answer to all his enemy's prayers.