They don't need to run it directly. Just replace Kim with some council of generals that's a little less extreme.
They'd gain the buffer they want between them and SK, international recognition - the South China thing is one of the few instances of them projecting force outside their borders.
If they couple a less aggressive stance on the South China Seas with their usual belt and road spending, they'd be playing the optimal strategy. After all, that's how the USA beat the USSR: outspend them until they collapse in on themselves.
>North Korea has been offering that compromise for decades
North Korea is in no position to offer anything. They would be wiped off the earth if they used their nukes.
They would be wiped off the earth if the US used their nukes at any point for the past sixty years. That's why they desired nukes. If you fear North Korea using them then stop threatening then.
You can't threaten "then" with self defense. I live in a stand your ground state. If someone starts getting violent, and I remind them of the potential consequences of their actions, I cannot be charged with a crime.
Thought to be clear, I don't think NK should be pre-emptively nuked. And I don't think they should be invaded.
But they can't have it both ways. They regularly get away with things that would be acts of war if done by a larger nation (like shelling SK territory).
It's only been sixty years since the US literally razed the entire country to the ground. It doesn't need to happen again for them to be worried that it might, particularly as we have had nukes pointed at their face for the entire time. This is clearly a threat, not "self defense."
>But they can't have it both ways. They regularly get away with things that would be acts of war if done by a larger nation (like shelling SK territory).
Ignoring the fact that they are already at war with South Korea and the US, the US has continued economic warfare on the country killing uncountable amounts of people over that time. Many North Korean actions are inexcusable, but they are not the sole bad actors in this conflict.
What does China gain here? Integrating North Korea would be no simple task, and there would be no real military benefit over the current situation. Meanwhile they'd give up their (legitimately weak) claim over parts of the South China Sea oil reserves and trade routes.
>That + making NK a nuclear free zone could be a compromise that benefits everyone
North Korea has been offering that compromise for decades, the US refuses to make all of Korea a nuclear bomb free zone.