China continues building ‘fixed aircraft carrier’ in disputed water with PH territory

Amid Philippine government’s call for construction freeze within the disputed territories in South China Sea including West Philippine Sea, China openly rejected the proposal.

The Fiery Cross is under Chinese Control

“China opposed it immediately. They should study it before they reject it. If they reject it without studying it, then it looks like China does not recognize that the developments in the South China Sea are creating problems for everyone,” Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario said after attending the regional Ministers’ Meeting over the weekend.

According to del Rosario, China is like saying “What tensions? What problem? There is no problem.” The Philippine top diplomat said problems can’t be solved if it is not recognized.

Planned airstrip at Kagitingan (Fiery Cross) Reef in West Philippine Sea. Internet Photo

Instead of listening to international community’s call to freeze construction, China is busy building its ‘fixed aircraft carrier’ inside Philippine exclusive economic zone in the West Philippine Sea.

According to Filipino fishermen operating in West Philippine Sea, China is creating concrete sea barriers in Mabini reef. They also attested that there is an increased Chinese coast guard presence in the territory.

“The artificial island at Fiery Cross Reef will be an unreplaceable military base with great strategic significance due to its location and size. Such a base will realize the value of the South China Sea for China and ensure China’s status in South East Asia,” a Chinese news provider said.

“It can threaten all our vital economic installations and this is the most awesome, our vital military installations including what would be the installations we can make available at the EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement),” Former National Security Adviser Roilo Golez told ANC.

http://www.angmalaya.net/world/2014/08/14/3149-china-continues-building-fixed-aircraft-carrier-inside-ph-territory

China Declares Australia a Military Threat Over US Pact

China’s state-run media have declared Australia a threat to its national security, after Australia finalized a 25-year military pact with the United States.

The United States currently has 1,200 troops from the Marine Corps and Air Force training with Australian troops for humanitarian and disaster relief. The defense agreement will increase the number of U.S. troops at Darwin in northern Australia to 2,500.

The Chinese regime is none too pleased about the agreement, however.

Li Jie, rear admiral of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy, told Want China Times that Australia could pressure China’s supply lines in the Strait of Malacca in a conflict over the South China Sea.

India, Japan and US naval ships to start joint exercises July 2014

Tokyo: The US, India and Japan are set to kick off week-long war games in the Pacific, beefing up naval ties as they warily eye an increasingly assertive China.
Warships from the three countries are to begin the joint exercises on Friday, after an official opening ceremony at the Sasebo Naval Base in southern Japan on Thursday.
Known as the Malabar Exercise, the annual event usually involves India and the US, but Japan's Maritime Self-Defence Force (MSDF) will take part this year, the third time since 2007.
The exercises off Japan's southern coast come on the back of rising regional tensions as Delhi and Tokyo remain embroiled in territorial spats with Beijing, which is also at loggerheads with some Southeast Asian nations over its claim to large swathes of the South China Sea.
Representational image. AFP.Representational image. AFP.
Washington has been increasingly turning its focus to Asia as it looks to counter China's growing influence and a military buildup that has unnerved some of its regional neighbours.
The manoeuvres also reflect growing ties between India and Japan, on both the military and economic fronts, with Japanese Prime Minister making an official visit to Delhi in January -- when the two nations agreed to "further strengthen" their defence cooperation and conduct regular naval exercises.
The 25-30 July exercises will include three Indian ships, a frigate, a destroyer and a supply ship, along with 700-800 personnel, Indian navy spokesman DK Sharma told AFP.
Sharma said the exercises would include anti-piracy, anti-terrorism, humanitarian assistance and helicopter drills.
"We just concluded... our naval drills with Russia, and since we have already travelled thousands of miles to that side, it's only natural that Japan will participate in the Malabar Exercise," he said.
The US Seventh Fleet, which covers the western Pacific and Indian Ocean, will take part in the war games while Japan is dispatching two escort ships, one US-2 search-and-rescue amphibious plane and one P3C patrol plane, said an MSDF spokesman.
He said several hundred Japanese personnel would take part.
"The purpose of Japan's participation is to improve the strategic capabilities of the MSDF and to strengthen the cooperation among the three militaries," he added.
China has lashed out at Abe after his cabinet formally endorsed a reinterpretation of Japan's pacifist constitution banning the use of armed force except in very narrowly-defined circumstances.
Beijing argued that it could open the door to remilitarisation of a country it considers insufficiently penitent for its actions in World War II.

AFP
http://www.firstpost.com/world/india-japan-and-us-naval-ships-to-start-joint-exercises-1632251.html

Beijing closer to Iskander‬-E ‪ ‎missile‬ system deal with Russia

‎BEIJING‬, After the Russian delegation attending the Seventh International Exhibition of Weapons and Military Equipment held in the Belarus capital of Minsk between July 9-12, the nation is ready to export the Iskander-E short-range ballistic missile and Vasily Kashin from the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies told the Voice of Russia that it's likely that the missile will be sold to China.
Kashin said that Russia is currently discussing the sale of the S-400 surface-to-air missile with China and Belarus. Russia will likely sell the Iskander-E together with the S-400 to both nations if the deals are successful. The Iskander-E was designed to replace the SS-21 Scarab-B Tochka-U tactical missile commissioned by the Soviet military back in 1989.
The Iskander-E could confer an advantage to the People's Liberation Army in the event of any potential conflict with India, Japan, South Korea or Taiwan. This is firstly because the missile is very difficult to intercept, as it is capable of making 30G evasive maneuvers and can release decoys during the terminal phase, and because it can hit targets with a very high level of accuracy. Even if the enemy has air supremacy, the Iskander-E can still perform well on the battlefield.
Kashin said that several modifications will be carried out on the Iskander-E if China agrees to purchase the missile from Russia. It can be redesigned as a cruise missile with an attacking range of 2,000 kilometers, for example. As the Soviet Union signed the Treaty for the Elimination of Medium-range Missile with the United States in 1987, Russia cannot make its own version of the Iskander-E cruise missile, however, China is not a signatory.
(PHOTO) Iskander-E – mobile theater ballistic missile system export version, specially designed to meet MTCR restrictions. Range: ~280 km.

Why Japan's Smaller Military Could Hold Its Own Against China

image: wiki

China's soaring military spending - up 12.3% this year - and aggressive gestures in the Pacific could be setting the scene for major conflict. With various countries feuding over Pacific territory, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe compared the ratcheting tensions to Europe before World War I.
China's $188 billion military budget far surpasses the $49 billion budget of Japan, its biggest regional rival, even if it doesn't come close to America's budget of $640 billion.China's military is also much bigger than Japan's, with 2.3 million active personnel compared to 58,000 and lots more equipment. Consequently, China ranks third on the Global Firepower Index, which heavily weights sheer numbers, behind the U.S. and Russia and well ahead of Japan at tenth.

But is China's military actually stronger than Japan's?

First of all, it should be noted that any military conflict between China and Japan would likely draw in Japan's superpower ally. The U.S. is bound by a mutual defense treaty to protect Japan, including the contested Senkaku islands, and it operates numerous military bases in Japan.Even on its own, however, Japan's smaller military has a qualitative advantage over China.The majority of Chinese weapons systems are in various stages of decay, as detailed by Kyle Mizokami at War Is Boring. Only 450 of China's 7,580 tanks are anywhere near modern. Likewise, only 502 of China's 1,321 strong air force are deemed capable - the rest date to refurbished Soviet planes from the 1970s. Only half of China's submarines have been built within the past twenty years.China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, is a refurbished Soviet ship from the 1980s that is too small to launch most long-range places and will probably be limited to hugging China's coast.

In comparison, Japan has been supplied with advanced military equipment from the U.S. In this coming year alons, it is slated to purchase completely new anti-missile destroyers, submarines, amphibious vehicles, surveillance drones, fighter planes, and V-22 Ospreys from the U.S. Japan also expects to receive deliveries of F-35s starting in March 2017.The F-35 is Liaoning's worst nightmare, China's state-owned Global Times reported based on a Kanwa Asian Defense, which found that the F-35 could strike the Liaoning with hard-to-intercept joint strike missiles from a safe distance of 290km. The F-35 should also be able to locate and engage China's main aircraft, the J-15, before the F-35 is even detected.The Japanese islands are also well-protected by a missile defense system equipped with Standard Missile-3 and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptors. These missiles are capable of shooting down a ballistic missile both inside and outside of Earth's atmosphere.

"Japan has the strongest navy and air force in Asia except for the United States," Dr. Larry M. Wortzel, the president of Asia Strategies and Risks, said in a presentation at the Institute of World Politics last September. "They're still restricted by Article 9 of the Constitution, which forever renounces war as a sovereign right of the nation ... but you don't want to mess with them."While Japan maintains a significant qualitative advantage, however, the vast size of China's military should not be understated, nor its rapid expansion and modernization. No wonder Japan has responded with its first military expansion in more than 40 years.

businessinsider

Japannese upset Chinese Flybys Over East China Sea

Japan protested to Beijing on Wednesday after Chinese fighter jets flew within 100 feet of Japanese military planes in airspace claimed by both nations. Similar flybys in the same area took place several weeks ago.
In two separate episodes on Wednesday morning, Chinese Su-27 fighters flew dangerously close to two Japanese propeller-driven reconnaissance airplanes in skies over the East China Sea.
The flybys are the latest escalation in an increasingly tense test of wills between China and Japan for dominance of the East China Sea, which includes a group of uninhabited islets that both nations claim. Japan took control of the island group when it was a rising imperial power in the late 19th century, but now a newly resurgent China wants to regain what it sees as stolen territory.
The ministry said the Japanese planes had returned safely to base, though the faster Chinese jets came close enough that the crew of one Japanese craft photographed what appeared to be white missiles on the underside of the jets.
A similar encounter took place late last month, when Chinese fighter planes flew as close as 100 feet to Japanese reconnaissance planes in the same area.
Japan’s Defense Ministry said the incidents had taken place in airspace where both nations claim overlapping “air defense identification zones” — areas bordering sovereign airspace where foreign aircraft were required to identify themselves and to provide flight plans. Japan has ignored the Chinese air zone since Beijing declared it late last year.
The flybys could be a sign that China has begun trying to enforce its air zone. 
nytimes

Submarines powers in Asia Pacific Region

heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/chinas-submarine-challenge

Sea-power trends in the Pacific Ocean are ominous. By 2025, China's navy could rule the waves of the Pacific. By some estimates, Chinese attack submarines will outnumber U.S. submarines in the Pacific by five to one and Chinese nuclear ballistic missile submarines will prowl America's Western littoral, each closely tailed by two U.S. attack submarines that have better things to do. The United States, meanwhile, will likely struggle to build enough submarines to meet this challenge.

A misplaced diplomacy leaves some U.S. Navy commanders reluctant to admit publicly that China's rapidly expanding submarine force in the Pacific is a threat, but if the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the latest Pentagon "Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China" (MPPRC Report) are any indication, they are undoubtedly thinking it. In a speech sponsored by the Asia Society in Washington earlier this month, for example, Admiral Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, commented,
I'm always asked about the Chinese threat and I say, 'It's not a threat,' because you have to have two things to have a threat, and that's capability and intent. There is no question that the PLA navy is modernizing and building its capability and is moving very quickly, but what is the intent?
The Pentagon has already begun to answer this question, but it has yet to do so in a way that shows it takes this threat seriously.
China's Intent
The QDR addresses the question of China's intent:
Chinese military modernization has accelerated since the mid-to-late 1990s in response to central leadership demands to develop military options against Taiwan scenarios. The pace and scope of China's military build-up already puts regional military balances at risk. China is likely to continue making large investments in high-end, asymmetric military capabilities, emphasizing electronic and cyber-warfare; counter-space operations; ballistic and cruise missiles; advanced integrated air Defense systems; next generation torpedoes; advanced submarines; strategic nuclear strike from modern, sophisticated land and sea-based systems; and theater unmanned aerial vehicles…
According to the MPPRC Report's executive summary, China's specific intent is to "build counters to third-party, including potential U.S., intervention in [Taiwan] Strait crises." The report continues, "Deterring, defeating, or delaying foreign intervention ahead of Taiwan's capitulation is integral to Beijing's strategy." To this end, China is expanding its "force of ballistic missiles (long-range and short-range), cruise missiles, submarines, advanced aircraft, and other modern systems."
China's Sea-Power Goals
If they are curious about China's intent, Pentagon planners might look to comments by General Wen Zongren, Political Commissar of the Chinese People's Liberation Army's elite Academy of Military Science. The MPPRC Report quotes General Wen as asserting that China must "break" the "blockade [by] international forces against China's maritime security… Only when we break this blockade shall we be able to talk about China's rise… [T]o rise suddenly, China must pass through oceans> and go out of the oceans> in its future development." In fact, it is the explicit goal of the Chinese Communist Party to "increase the comprehensive strength of the nation."
The Chinese navy-and its submarine fleet, in particular-is a key tool in achieving that goal. The September 2004 promotion of Admiral Zhang Dingfa, a career submariner, to Chief of Staff of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and a full seat on the Central Military Commission was a clear signal of the primacy of submarine warfare in China's strategy for the Asia-Pacific region.
Growing Submarine Force
Admiral Zhang led PLAN's submarine modernization program and oversaw the acquisition of four modern Russian-built KILO subs, including the stealthy Type-636. Orders for eight more are on the books, with the first new boats to be delivered this month. That three Russian shipyards are at work to fill China's orders for new submarines betrays this build-up's urgency.
Admiral Zhang isn't relying solely on the Russians. He has also increased production-to 2.5 boats per year-of China's new, formidable Song-class diesel-electric submarine. China is also testing a new diesel-electric that the Defense intelligence community has designated the "Yuan." The Yuan is heavily inspired by Russian designs, including anechoic tile coatings and a super-quiet seven-blade screw. The addition of "air-independent propulsion," which permits a submarine to operate underwater for up to 30 days on battery power, will make the Song and Yuan submarines virtually inaudible to existing U.S. surveillance networks-and even to U.S. subs.
These new submarines will be more lethal when armed with Russian SKVAL ("Squall") torpedoes, which can reach 200 knots. There are reports that the SKVAL is already operational on some Chinese subs. As well, Russia has also transferred the Novator 3M-54E three-stage anti-ship cruise missile to China's submarine fleet for use against aircraft carriers. Each Chinese KILO is armed with four of these missiles.
America's Endangered Submarine Supremacy
In February 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld commented that the size of the Chinese fleet could surpass the United States Navy's within a decade. "It is an issue that the department thinks about and is concerned about and is attentive to." Indeed, the U.S. Navy will hold a series of major naval exercises in the Pacific this summer that will involve four aircraft carrier battle groups, including a carrier normally based on the U.S. East Coast. This will be the first time the Navy has deployed an Atlantic Fleet carrier to a Pacific exercise since the Vietnam War.
However, there is little indication that the Pentagon is taking the Chinese submarine challenge seriously. If it were, the QDR issued earlier this month would have recommended that the erosion of the U.S. submarine fleet come to an end.
But the QDR envisions a "return to a steady-state production rate of two attack submarines per year not later than 2012 while achieving an average per-hull procurement cost objective of $2.0 billion." This means that the U.S. sub fleet will continue to decline for another six years, during which time America's industrial base for constructing subs will further diminish and the per-unit cost of submarines will jump past $2 billion, impelling further cuts in the fleet.
Of the U.S. Pacific Fleet's 35 submarines (including three nuclear attack submarines based in Guam during 2006), about a dozen are underway at sea on operational duties at any one time. Under the QDR's most optimistic estimates, Pacific Command's sub fleet will diminish to about 30 by 2025.
Electric Boat (EB), the nation's preeminent submarine contractor, has announced plans to lay off 900 of its 1,700 designers and marine draftsmen engineers over the next three years. This is a crisis. It will mark the first time in 50 years that the U.S. has not had a new submarine design on the drawing board. EB laid off nearly 200 submarine engineers and machinists in early February-and EB is the only shipbuilder in the nation that maintains submarine designers. As the build-rate for subs collapsed, EB used maintenance and repair work to pay designers' salaries and maintain its staff of highly-skilled steelworkers. But without new orders, EB will lay off almost half of its workforce of over 5,000 over the next three years
U.S. Navy combatant commanders already require 150 percent of the attack submarine days currently available, and these requirements will only increase as the submarine force dwindles. If the United States allows production to dwindle further, expertise will be lost and costs will skyrocket for any new classes of submarines contemplated for the post-2012 period.
Meanwhile, China's fleet of modern attack submarines is growing: China already has ten Song/Yuan/Kilo submarines in the Pacific today, over 50 older Ming-class and Romeo boats, five Han class nuclear attack submarines, and one Xia-class ballistic missile submarine. In addition, China has 25 new boats under contract now; 16 are under construction today, including a new class of nuclear attack submarine designated the Type-093 and a new nuclear ballistic missile sub, the Type-094.
The U.S. has three submarines under construction today. Although the Navy's new 30-year shipbuilding plan calls for 48 nuclear attack submarines in the fleet by 2035, the Navy's top submarine commander, Vice Admiral Charles L. Munns, has testified before Congress that the Navy needs at least 54 boats to fulfill current critical missions. This number will rise as China's navy expands.
If the Navy does not start launching new subs at the rate of two per year until several years after 2012, the force would dip to a low of 40 in 2028, or 17 percent below the Navy's stated needs. And that rate will not even permit the Navy to reach its sub-minimal target of 48 attack submarines until 2034. All of this assumes that the Navy does not decommission ships faster than expected due to expanded operations in coming years.
Recommendations for the Administration and Congress
The United States must return to building at least two, and preferably two-and-a-half, new attack submarines per year beginning in FY 2009. The U.S. must begin procurement for long lead-time components, such as nuclear reactors, in FY 2007 and 2008. These steps are necessary just to hold U.S. subsurface strength steady.
The Administration should also work with key strategic partners in Asia to bolster their fleets. Japan and India are potential submarine warfare partners. Japan must also be encouraged to upgrade its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and surveillance systems.

Update
2013
Vietnam received the second Kilo-class Russian built submarines. This two has been put in operational mode in South China Sea for surveillance purposes. The rest 4 will be delivered annually till 2016.
2014 The map below shows operators of submarines in green, and operators of ballistic missile in orange.

The table below, information was droned by drone88, shows list of countries that are technologically-capable to build submarines. 

Ballistic Missile and its threats

A ballistic missile (BM) is a a missile that has a ballistic trajectory over most of its flight path

The United States divides missiles into four range classes.

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ICBM           over    5500 kilometers
Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile IRBM    3000 to 5500 kilometers
Medium-Range Ballistic Missile MRBM       1000 to 3000 kilometers
Short-Range Ballistic missile SRBM            up to 1000 kilometers

Ballistic orbit

image: wiki

Here is the list of Asia-Pacific nations that possess ballistic missiles powers. Includes Afghanistan, China, India, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. 

Chinese PLA has possessed a large number of ballistic missiles (including short-range, long-range and intercontinental), which posed an emerging threats to US and its allies in Asia Pacific.

No wonder that Japan doesn't possess this kind of offensive weapons even the nation's army is on world top. Because of  Article 9, has been determined that Japan cannot hold offensive military weapons — this has been interpreted to mean that Japan cannot have ICBMs, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers or bomber fleets. 

How China Could Benefit From a United Korea

By Shannon Tiezzi (http://thediplomat.com/)

North Korea has found its way into the news again recently, thanks in large part to basketball player Dennis Rodman’s controversial trip to the closed-off state. There have also been more traditional attention-grabbers related to the North Korean nuclear program. In mid-December, South Korean mediareported the possibility of another North Korean nuclear or missile test. In his New Year message, leader Kim Jong-Un repeated the traditional threats against the United States and warned of a “massive nuclear disaster” should war break out on the peninsula.

Whenever North Korea appears in the media, China usually gets dragged into the stories as well. China is often blamed for enabling or propping up the North Korean regime, despite its belligerence and nuclear threats. A recent New York Times editorial by Brookings Institution expert Jonathan Pollack asked, “Why does China coddle North Korea?” Pollack noted, ironically, that “China’s policy record on Pyongyang over three decades remains unblemished by success.” He argued that it is time for a change.

China’s policy towards North Korea is predicated almost entirely on one simple goal: keeping the state functioning as a viable “buffer zone.” The mainstream line of thinking is that China must support North Korea enough to prop up the Kim regime. Should the regime fall, the resulting instability in North Korea might lead to unification on South Korea’s terms — which would in effect mean a U.S. military ally now borders China. This would be anathema for China.

However, this traditional line of thinking might actually be short-sighted. Below, I argue that in the (extremely hypothetical) case of Korean unification, China could actually be the long-term winner.

For starters, South Korea and China have a remarkably smooth relationship. Of course, there are occasional flare-ups (South Korea’s reaction to China’s new ADIZ being one example), as there are in any state-to-state relationship. However, China has a far better relationship with South Korea than with many of its other neighbors. For one thing, China and South Korea have an extremely important trade relationship. As Jonathan Pollack noted in his New York Times editorial, China’s joint trade with South Korea is currently worth over $250 billion — more than South Korea’s trade with Japan and the United States combined. Further, China and South Korea have recently banded together in their opposition to Shinzo Abe and the Japanese government. Both countries have been vocal about rejecting what they see as Japan’s return to militarism.

China-South Korea ties were highlighted during South Korean President Park Geun-Hye’s June visit to Beijing. Park, who speaks Chinese, met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and reiterated her commitment to improving China-South Korean relations. Also at her New Year’s press conference, Park reportedly said that the relationship with China is closer than ever before. In response, the Chinese Foreign Ministry “highly commend[ed]” Park for her comment, and promised that China will “push for sustained, sound and steady advancement of China-ROK [Republic of Korea, the official name of South Korea] strategic cooperative partnership.”

Despite these positive signs, China-South Korea relations are undermined by one glaring difference: their hopes for North Korea. South Korea’s goal has always been unification. In her New Year’s press conference, Park identified laying “the foundation for unification on the Korean Peninsula” as a “key task” for her administration. Such a task, she said, is “a prerequisite for an era of happiness for the people.”  Yet China, while it shares global concerns over North Korea’s nuclear program, has a very different picture of the ideal outcome. Chinese foreign policy leaders’ greatest hope is that North Korea will open up to the world and become a normalized state — in essence, following China’s own transformation. The Chinese government shies away from supporting unification, and maintains a relationship with North Korea despite repeated provocations. This damages China’s relationship with South Korea more than any other single factor.

The United States is the other obvious wedge between China and South Korea. Ever since the Korean War, the South Korean government has depended on its alliance with the U.S. to provide a guarantee of security against North Korean belligerence. This creates something of a vicious cycle in China’s Korea policy: China is wary of a unified Korea and so continues to support the Kim regime. Yet as a result, the North Korean government continues to issues its threats and provocations, driving South Korea closer to the United States. As Pollack pointed out, this strategy is not really benefiting China.

Now let’s imagine that China’s worst fears come true – the Kim regime collapses and South Korea takes control of its unstable northern neighbor. Korea is now unified, and it’s actually a good thing for China.

For one thing, while China is understandably anxious of a U.S.-allied Korea on its border, once unification is achieved, there’s little strategic value to continuing the U.S.-South Korean alliance — at least from South Korea’s point of view. The major driving force behind the partnership is the need for South Korea to guard against the military threat from the North. With a unified Korea, this threat no longer exists. Would the South Korean government continue to pay over $800 million a year to house U.S. troops on its soil under these circumstances? Rather than fulfilling China’s nightmare scenario of U.S. troops stationed near the Yalu River, a unified Korea might actually boot U.S. troops out of the country altogether.

Further, without the problem of North Korea, South Korea’s foreign policy is more in line with China’s than the United States’. Once Korean unification is achieved, South Korea might decide the alliance with the U.S. is more trouble than it’s worth — particularly as the U.S. is always cajoling South Korea to improve ties with Japan. Korean unification, in other words, could destabilize the U.S. alliance system in Northeast Asia, which would be a huge net gain for China both in its bilateral relationship with South Korea and in its general geopolitical strategy to gain more influence in the Western Pacific.

Even if a unified Korea was unwilling to cut military ties with the U.S., it’s unlikely that the country would make any moves that overtly threaten China, such as allowing U.S. troops to be stationed above the 38^th parallel. As noted above, South Korea’s economic ties with China are hugely important. The South Korean government simply cannot afford to antagonize China, and would likely consult with the Chinese government to ensure Korean unification happened on terms Beijing could accept.

Also, in the event of unification, China would be even more economically important to Korea. Korea would face a massive rebuilding project in the underdeveloped and impoverished north. China would be the logical choice to help jump-start this region’s new economy, which would fulfill China’s long-held dream of full access to North Korean markets and resources. In addition to reaping the economic benefits of new contracts and trade flows, China would also make itself even more indispensable as an economic partner for a unified Korea.

Long-term, Korean unification could be a win for China, both economically and politically. This is especially true if South Korea were to believe that China played a positive role in the unification process. The South Korean good-will China would win from such a move is incalculable, and would go a long way towards cementing a new China-South Korean partnership. On the other hand, if China is seen as actively preventing unification, it could easily cause the relationship with South Korea to go sour.

However, there’s little sign that China’s leaders are willing to change the traditional thinking on North Korea,even in the wake of Kim Jong-Un’s purge and execution of his uncle. Of course, unification would be a long, hard process, one that would likely bring numerous short term issues (such as a surge of Korean refugees into China). Still, looking at the long-term consequences, it’s entirely likely that unification would be an ideal outcome for China. If Kim’s regime continues to show signs of dangerous instability, Beijing might begin to reconsider the pros and cons of its support for Pyongyang.