The Achilles’ heel of US North Korea policy has been the belief that China, the only country with any real leverage over North Korea, would use that leverage to help the US achieve its objectives. China provides North Korea with most of its food, fuel, and other supplies and is North Korea’s closest ally. The relationship between the Chinese and Korean peoples was once described by the two governments as akin to the relationship of lips to teeth. China, a participant with the US in the failed six-party talks, however, has been unwilling to withhold vital commodities from North Korea or support meaningful international sanctions that might force the Kim Jong-Il regime to change its behavior.

The principal reason cited for Beijing’s fence-sitting is China’s fear that millions of destitute North Korean refugees, including members of Kim’s million-man army, will pour into China should Kim’s government collapse. Then again, why would China want to weaken an ally that it may one day need in a conflict with the United States.

Not even North Korea’s most recent tests appear to have changed Beijing's calculus. Wall Street Journal reporters in Washington and Beijing observed that North Korea's recent tests have "deeply angered China" and that "Chinese thinkers are coming to see Kim Jong-Il's regime as a liability." Nevertheless, “The change in attitude doesn't indicate China will support punishment that could threaten the stability of its neighbor. China appears ready to support modest sanctions at the United Nations Security Council, along the lines of the restrictions on North Korean companies it has supported in the past.” In other words, China remains more interested in the continued viability of the Kim regime than it is in forcing it to stop or abandon nuclear weapons and missile programs.

If recent events won’t sufficiently change Beijing’s calculus on how to deal with North Korea, what will? Syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer suggested one way to do that is to raise the specter of Japan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. The Chinese fear a nuclear-armed Japan ss much as they fear North Korean refugees. Washington, however, is not about to suggest, and Japan is not about to pursue, such a strategy. That day may come should North Korea deploy nuclear tipped missiles that target Japan, but we’re not there yet. The legacy of World War II remains too deeply etched in the Japanese psyche.

There remain, however, a range of other measures the US can take to signal its strong displeasure to Pyongyang and Beijing. The first and easiest thing to do is to reinstate money for US missile defense programs that President Obama has eliminated from the US defense budget. Cutting US missile defense programs in the face of North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests and Iran’s nuclear weapons program makes absolutely no sense.

At the same time the US should work with allied and friendly countries in the region to accelerate their missile defense programs and bolster their military capabilities. The US can announce that it intends to work with Japan to accelerate the co-production of PAC-3 Patriot missiles to defend it from North Korean and Chinese ballistic missiles. And it can announce the sale of F-22 Raptor fighters to Japan to significantly upgrade its air defense capability. If the US ever goes to war with North Korea or with China, Japan and our bases there become prime targets. The better Japan is able to defend the home islands, the more US resources are freed up to pursue victory.

The US can notify Congress of the sale of the three additional PAC-3 missile batteries to Taiwan that the Bush administration failed to notify just prior to leaving office when it approved only half of Taiwan’s request. Approving the three additional missile batteries and working with Taiwan to improve its C4ISR capabilities would give Taiwan a missile defense capability to defend against Chinese missiles much earlier than now possible. If Beijing fails to recognize the connection of these actions with the North Korea problem, someone could spell it out for them.  

On the Korean peninsula, missile defense capabilities in South Korea currently are provided by US PAC-3 missile batteries. The US can publicly encourage Seoul to accelerate the purchase of PAC-3 missiles and establish its own missile defense capability at the earliest possible time. Stationing a carrier battle group in international waters off the coast of North Korea with Aegis ballistic-missile-defense cruisers capable of shooting down North Korean missiles in the midcourse phase is another strong signal that should make Pyongyang and Beijing sit up and take notice. Kim has abrogated the cease fire that ended fighting in the Korean War. We should respond appropriately.

Finally, as former Bush administration UN Ambassador John Bolton recommends, we should put North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, limit its access to international financial markets, strengthen the Proliferation Security Initiative, seek the strongest possible sanctions in the United Nations, and put increased political pressure on China in our bilateral relationship to convince it to change its stance.

All this may be too muscular for some. They’ll argue that we should continue to pursue negotiations. I would recall for them the words of Fredrick the Great; “Negotiations without arms are like notes without instruments.” When we do these things, North Korea and China will understand that we will not, to borrow one of their favorite phrases, “sit idly by” while North Korea's nuclear proliferation destabilizes the world. Perhaps then, China will get off the fence and use the leverage it has with North Korea to do what's necessary.