Canada’s positioning on the North Korean crisis must reckon one basic fact: Between the North Koreans and our American brethren, it is actually the Chinese who are the most geopolitically astute.

The stated Chinese position on the crisis is that should the North Koreans attack first, Beijing will remain neutral. But if the Americans attack first, then Beijing will side with Pyongyang.

How should we understand this position? Answer: the Chinese will always side with North Korea. Period.

For us and the world alike, this means that an American war with North Korea quickly evolves to an American war with China. Such a war would assume global proportions within a day, enveloping at least four continents — Asia, Oceania (to begin with, Australia and New Zealand), Europe (given the activation of Russia, China’s ally), and yes, North America.

If there is some doubt that North Korea can strike American or Canadian cities today, then we must understand that China and Russia can easily have done so yesterday — in conventional and nuclear form alike.

The attraction for Canada of a Western war with China (and possibly also Russia) is zero. It would collapse a global order in which our country is generally faring well, further radicalize and destabilize our American neighbours and, critically, expose our territory for the first time in generations to direct attack and even occupation by serious foreign militaries.

Do we trust American analytics on this crisis? We should not. While we rely on American classified and popular assessments of any threat from North Korea, these analytics today suffer from three major weaknesses:

The absence of direct American relations with and therefore direct insight into North Korea.

Patently mediocre talent in national security positions in the White House.

A lack of trust between the U.S. intelligence services and the presidency.

Should we trust American strategic judgment on this crisis? Definitely not. And not just because of the general capriciousness and international inexperience of President Trump, but also because of the treatment of the North Korean file in particular by this administration.

For reasons of military doctrine, ideology and, to be sure, domestic political instability, the threat of North Korea has been amplified by the U.S. in recent months well beyond its proper proportions.

Certainly the notion that “preventive” or “pre-emptive” military action, including the use of nuclear weapons, “over there” in northeast Asia, may soon be warranted, at the potential cost of the destruction of several major cities and the death of millions of people, is not shared by countries like South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. They have far better analytics on North Korea and a deeper appreciation of what it is like to have large-scale warfare on their territory.

The bottom line for Canada is that we should not participate in any military action unless the U.S. is directly attacked. Until then, we should mobilize all our diplomatic, political and creative energies to push for de-escalation and an exit from the present hysteria.

This should not exclude the possibility of an eventual and, in my judgment, long overdue embassy in Pyongyang — something that would make Canada exceedingly useful diplomatically and strategically in the future of northeast Asian stability. (If Western democracies, such as Sweden and Germany, have embassies there, why not us?)

Should Canada worry that it will be “punished” by the U.S., in the NAFTA negotiations or through other vectors, because of such positioning on the North Korean crisis? No.

The disjointed and temperamental character of the present American executive branch suggests that any professed benefits to any “proper” Canadian behaviour are unreliable, while American punishment, itself not necessarily credible, may come at any time and in response to random stimuli.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Besides, as I have argued for nearly a year, this presidency will not last a full four years, and it will end in tears. War in North Korea, meant perhaps as a consolidation action by an unpopular administration beset by crises, will likely only accelerate this denouement.

Of course, as we in Canada keep our powder dry, the Chinese, who have “gamed” all these dynamics better than every other country, will see war against North Korea as an existential threat. They will not “wait” for a possible nuclear weapon to be deployed in their neighbourhood. And once a major power launches a first nuclear weapon this century, all bets are off among those powers that have the capability to respond.

Irvin Studin is editor-in-chief and publisher of Global Brief Magazine, and president of the Institute for 21st Century Questions.

Read more about: