We read a lot, in discussions of various economic problems, about how the problem will have to be addressed eventually. And how the solution will only be more painful the longer it is put off. I wonder if the same thing might not be true with regards to North Korea.

Eventually, North Korea will collapse. Maybe it goes out in a blaze of "glory," by starting a shooting war with South Korea. Maybe it just succeeds in one of its recurring attempts to starve the population to death...and the elites discover (perhaps to their surprise) that they can't get along without the masses after all. Or maybe they just end up with a coup/civil war among the current North Korean elites, where nobody comes out in one piece.

Whichever way it goes, South Korea ends up with a lot of the burden of cleaning up the mess. But China ends up with another big part of the clean-up. Both, especially China, seem motivated by a determined hope that if they just refuse to act, the problem will miraculously go away -- which it won't. And the longer China keeps supporting the North Korean government, the worse the mess that they will end up having to deal with. I wonder how long it will take for them to admit that to themselves.

@ jouris

I don't think China is waiting for the problem to go away. I suspect rather China is waiting, poised and ready, to see which way the wind blows and capitalize on whatever happens as much as possible.

As for South Korea, my guess is that Lee continues to harbor hopes of re-unification. I'm sure he understands the difficulties in bringing this off and he's been sure to direct his actions directly at NK's ruling party rather than NK's people as winning the trust of the people will be key when the NK regime colapses.

To jouris

What you say is probably true

But then what are the options?

The best case scenario is that Kim dies and there is a relatively peaceful transition to a more extroverted and amenable administration which could work towards peaceful coexistence or reunification.

I doubt China is simply waiting to 'capitalise' on any outcome.
The Chinese have more at stake than anyone regarding the transition of a post-Kim NK....In the case of sudden regime collapse, millions of refugees will not be heading South (they have been indoctrinated that the South is the enemy and China their ally...besides over a million anti-personnel mines in the DMZ effectively rules out a southern exodus)...No they will flood across the Yalu into China destabilising not only NK but Southern China.

Nor does anyone want China to risk its tenuous relationship with NK...What little leverage exists is due to this bilateral relationship. this is the best chance of avoiding the worst case scenario...the regime going out in a blaze of glory (as you put it so well)

Regime collapse may catapult South Korea into the prospect of reunification faster than it would like but plans and contingencies for such a situation have long been discussed by SK, the US, and Japan....and more recently included China. As chaotic as it may prove it will at least be a step in the right direction and the international community will be fully supportive.

So no one is wishing the problem away (except maybe the Kim regime) and certainly not China. But since there is still a possibility that a smooth transition could occur it is not in the interest of anyone outside NK to act incautiously.

There is going to be a huge fallout whatever occurs and the options are really just bad, very bad, disastrous, and catastrophic...there really isn't a 'good' option.

You mention the millions starving within NK...unfortunately the truth is that the NK population are of little concern in equations of international relations and politics (apart from the obligatory lip-service). The population only becomes a factor after the regime is gone or beforehand if NK refugees begin to migrate en masse into Chinese territory....The MAIN issue for China and the one China wants to avoid at any cost.

No easy solutions here I'm afraid.

There you go again ! Remember how the West always 'sets up' a situation as an excuse for war? Lusitania, and then the excuses for the Vietnam war? and Israel's bombing of any Arab state it chooses? No. There is no evidence, and if there is, you will find it hard to convince me that it was not planted by the West. Why trust a repeat liar?

Did the Koreans also cause the financial collapse. a crime far far worse than killing a few hundred sailors.

To Ghalib

So you are predicting a war?
Between whom?
North and South Korea?
The US and NK?

And you base this on the conspiracy theory version of history?

You line says it all:
"There is no evidence, and if there is, you will find it hard to convince me that it was not planted by the West."
....well thanks for keeping an open mind then!

Let me guess...9/11 was the US government too?
And we never went to the moon either?

Ghalib wrote: "...Lusitania...There is no evidence, and if there is, you will find it hard to convince me that it was not planted by the West."

I have never heard that the Lusitania sinking was faked, or done by other than the German U-Boat. Can you provide proof? You state, probably truly, that even faced with evidence you will be convinced that any thing is a plot by "the West."

You are likely a victim of propaganda, probably paranoid and certainly delusional.

To McJakome

In conspiracy circles the Lusitania was sent into the Atlantic in full knowledge that German U-boats has made a claim that all shipping was 'fair game'.

The conspiracy angle is that if the Lusitania was sunk that then would provide a pretext to bring the US into the war against Germany.

Its right up there with the FDR and Churchill knowing about Pearl Harbour but doing nothing so as to bring the US into WW2

Like America ever needed a pretext to go to war!

Controversy over South Korea's sunken ship
--Physicists' research casts doubt on idea that North Korean torpedo downed vessel.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100708/full/news.2010.343.html

"Experiments carried out independently by Panseok Yang, a technician specializing in mass spectrometry at the geological sciences department of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, found that the ratio of oxygen to aluminium in the rapidly cooling aluminium would be much lower than suggested by the JIG."

US Professors Raise Doubts About Report on South Korean Ship Sinking

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/US-Professors-Raise-Doubts-Abo...

"the cracked portion of the bottom of the ship does not show the signs of a large shock that are usually associated with outside explosions."

The U.N. managed to condemn Israel with lightening speed over the flotilla incident despite video showing that the Israel soldiers were attacked first, yet they've dithered for months and come out with a worthless toothless resolution over a blatant act of war and murder by N. Korea. The U.N. is biased, anti-semitic, and corrupt. It should just be eliminated!

Look this is just insanity.
Japan has had missiles fired over its airspace and citizens kidnapped from sovereign territory to name a few violations.

South Korea has faced similar threats to the sinking of their military ships.

North Korea may be a proxy for China but like Israel it is a dangerous proxy that it cannot control and could very well lead it into a nuclearized South Korea and Japan or worse a north asian war that could expand into China - US confrontation.

Its not worth it for any nation except North Korea. Unify North and South Korea and eliminate the potential of war for northeast asia.

Enough already. These talks should not be about how to deal with North Korea but how to remove it from existence.

Unlike Israel, I think China would agree to unify Korea if Russia, South Korea, Japan and the US put a legitimate offer on the table.

These 6 party talks do represent a bigger picture. They represent a potential future 4 party anti-china alliance in which each has a stake in protecting their sovereign territory. China would be smart not to keep north korea and give birth to such an alliance.

China and South Korea should be having back-room discussions right now on how to deal with a collapsed North Korean state.

To think that China block the originally strong-worded UN statement is because of ideology reason, as some of the western media has claimed, is totally ignorant of the reality. China now is a communist country in name only, as one of the high ranking Chinese official claimed, “ we are communist, so it is up to us to decide when the communism will become reality in China”. So the China’s attitude towards NK is more of national interests than ideology. Having said that, I am sure the China has carefully analyzed the situation of NK, including the fall out should its government collapses. It is obvious to their conclusion that current status quo between North and South must be maintained, at least for the time being. It is therefore in the China’s national interest to “cover” NK in the UN.

Anyone has issue with China’s protection of NK should consider the way US handle its alley - Israel .

I don’t think that the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is comparable with that between China and North Korea. China does have a “blood brother” (or an “Alliance Forged by Blood”) but it is Pakistan, not North Korea.

Pakistan generals actually can go to China’s arsenal and choose what they like – including nuclear weapons. In contrast, North Korea pleaded with China to sell it several jet fighters China directly declined its plea.

Unlike Pakistani, Koreans (including North Koreans and South Koreans) are unreliable. They are so selfish that they can betray you at any time. A unified Korea is definitely NOT China’s best interest. China’s best interest is maintaining a half-dead and half-alive North Korea. Reasons: (1) North Korea should be half-dead. So South Koreans will not pursue reunification because it will bring a huge burden to South Koreans, (2) North Korea should be half-alive. So it will not collapse and send a lot of refugees to China.

From Americans’ point of view, the reunification of Koreas is also NOT the best interest for Americans. This is because Koreans have many records of betrays. Who knows whether they will swing to China after the reunification. Thus, Americans are also not interested in helping South Korea to reunite with North Korea.

Russian investigative team find no conclusive evidence for North Korean sinking of the Choenan. Even the North has vehemently denied involvement in the sinking. Given the fact that the US and South Korea were holding their exercises there, many people in the South and elsewhere believed it to be caused by friendly fire.

It is time for both sides to go pass the rhetorics and move toward negotiations to sign a genuine peace treaty where the North can feel safe enough not to use the threat of nuclear deterrence against the South supported by the belligerent Hegemon.

The Dear Leader is not someone with whom dialogue works, unless the message is etched into a 9mm (or even better, 12.7mm) bullet and delivered directly to his brain at faster than 1km/s.

prisident of S.korea , Lee , doesn't want penisula re-unification.
so he refuse the "Sun-shine" policy to N.Korea which had been used by former regine. And he keep this tension situation to pull the vote and publicy from righ wing. cuz Treathening defence the S.Korea make emersioncy situation apparently. then the public likely to obey and follow the president order to get over the emersioncy air. that's what Lee , president of S.Korea, want to.
in additioin, America and the other developed countries exploit N.Korea to sell more weapones or lift thier ecomony. you know
they found out that the war usually drag the down turn into boom.
So those various reason meet thier the desire.
what I really warry about is the third war between China and USA.
N.Korea would be a fuze to tigger the war... that's the worst case.
the war must be abanond on ears. i hope so but wouldn't be ..
unfortunately cuz of power holders

Though this is off topic to the article, I find it interesting that two people seem to defend the idea that the Lusitania was the marquee event that brought the United States into World War I. Of course it served to harden American opinion against Germany, however the Lusitania was sunk in 1915. The US didn't declare war on Germany and her allies until 1917. And the major catalyst that galvanized US public opinion against Germany was not unrestricted U-Boat warfare, but the Zimmermann Telegram. The Telegram violated the Monroe Doctrine and also promised US land to Mexico in return for their allegiance. Again, I know this is off topic, but let's check our history before making bold statements that the "Lusitania Conspiracy" was concocted by the "West" (are the central European states no longer the West then?) in order to provide a pretext for isolationist America to involve itself in the most costly European War to that time.

Honestly speaking, most of the people in this world do not have the technical knowledge as well as the first hand information to judge by himself whether Cheonan was sunk by North Korea or not. This include the Economist editors as well as the commentators here. Most pepole have to rely on the judgement of these so called "international experters", but "international experts" have indeed a track record of making a lot of mistakes like Iraq's WMD.

Therefore, as an ordinary person, I don't think it makes to advocate a war just because some "international expert" says North Korea is responsible. This is because the cost for a war will certainly be huge, especially to South Korea. Instead, the best way is to wait and see if there is a smooth transition after Kim dies and perhaps North Korea may really start economic reform that China has been advocating for long. If that happens, the Korean Peninsula can suddenly stabilises without any more war and casualty.

The realities of the situation have moved beyond questions of who sank the ship or how the ship sunk.

The lame UN Statement was designed to appease all parties (SK can condemn the NK, NK can claim innocence...all without further sanction).
The scene is set now to resume 6 party dialogue and hopefully engender a smooth transition within NK when Kim departs the scene.

Commentators should resist the comparison between the US and its client states (Pakistan, Israel,etc) with China and NK.
The US would only be indirectly affected by a loss of prestige and a loss of allied support for its global reach and influence.
China, sharing the sole transit border with NK would be affected by the massive influx of refugees, and the destabilisation of its southern regions with negative impacts on its economy, society, and its security agenda.

The argument regarding some Communist fellowship angle between China and NK is irrelevant.....China has rolled back its direct military support on ideological grounds since the early 1980's

The idea forwarded by Chinaeagle is either misguided or displaying simple bigotry....Chinese and US relations with the Korean peoples have nothing to do with betrayal or trustworthiness,

The US has reservations regarding reunification on the peninsula only on the grounds that it will prove exceedingly expensive and be diplomatically sensitive vis-a-vis China US relations as South Korea (a US client) would in reality be moving its border to the Chinese border.

China has reservations from a united Korea as it will loses its security buffer between itself and US backed South Korea

China will also want to secure the NK nuclear weapons program to contain its possible complicity.

China has the most to gain from a peaceable post-Kim transition that leaves NK as a viable and manageable, albeit poor, State which would forestall unification for as long as possible...
Collapse is the worse possible scenario as it destabilises the region and China internally while hastening reunification.

South Korea and the US will implement reunification if NK collapses but both would rather plan and implement reunification over a longer timeframe in a more managed way...

So a managed post-Kim transition is and a delayed reunification are in the interests of SK, the US, and China.