[Column] An exclusivist Sino-American diplomacy track?

Posted on : 2006-08-11 13:41 KST Modified on : 2006-08-11 13:41 KST

Gwon Yong-rip, Professor of International Politics at Kyungsung University

With the war between Israel and Hezbollah overlapping with planning for a "post-Castro Cuba," it seems that America has temporarily turned its interest away from North Korea. However, the international political situation on the Korean peninsula now stands at the crossroads. Changes in Chinese policy towards the North - a policy once perceived only in between the lines of diplomacy - have grown more pronounced this summer.

Having cast its vote in favor of the U.N. Security Council resolution on North Korea and thus receiving the gratitude of America for its newfound cooperation, China went on to freeze North Korean accounts at the Macao branch of the Bank of China. Following that, China signed a memorandum of understanding with America in favor of jointly solving such problems as that of North Korea’s currency forgery. China’s cooperation with America on the suspicion that North Korea is forging American Dollars and Chinese Yuan is in itself a signal that China’s strategy for dealing with North Korea has changed.

Furthermore, the Chinese Foreign Ministry appointed an assistant secretarial-level official with expertise on America as the new ambassador to Pyongyang. Despite the delicate situation, they sent an expert on, of all places, America, and in so doing broke the custom of sending veteran officials at the vice-ministerial level. These measures are, in some respects, a warning to North Korea in the wake of its provocative missile launch, but China is not a nation to fly into a rage over a single incident without making further provisions for the future. China’s message is that they will now subordinate relations with North Korea to fit the pace of their relations with America.

As peaceful relations with the U.S. are necessary for their economic development, China must intervene to prevent a North Korea-America military clash, as well as North Korean nuclear development that would spur Japanese nuclear armament, but they also must head off a unilateral attempt by America to topple the Pyongyang regime. North Korea is not like Taiwan, on which China absolutely refuses to cede ground. In this milieu, as hopes dim for a resolution of the conflict between North Korea and the U.S., possibility grows for China’s transferal; from a defensive posture of supporting North Korea from behind, to one of proactive cooperation and compromise with America on the provision that North Korea remains outside the range of U.S. influence.

Regardless of the means used to resolve the North Korean issue, cooperation between America and China is essential. A years-old memo by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, regarding regime change in North Korea, indicated consultation with China. As well, the meeting last September of the American Undersecretary of State and a high ranking official of the Chinese Foreign Ministry included the resolve for "China and America to think up a good scenario for the Korean peninsula together." In "Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating" (the sequel to the book "The Pentagon’s New Map," which serves as a guidebook for American strategy in the 21st century), Thomas Barnett also presents a scenario for removing Kim Jong Il with the cooperation of the four major powers surrounding the Korean peninsula.

The U.S. Department of State sees China as its main adversary, yet the consultant whom they bestow favor on has presented a scenario for intervening jointly with China in North Korea. There are some who see Barnett’s scenario as the reflection of a single individual’s hopes, but, consistent in its assertion that America’s path to securing national security is through forcing those nations who rebel against or fall behind in globalization to become democracies, this scenario must not be overlooked as being merely a reflection of the dreams of a few hard-liners in Washington.

Though the six-party talks have not completely collapsed, their demise is taken to be imminent. If China and America’s "Korean Peninsula Project" takes effect, thus bypassing South Korea, then we will lose all influence over blueprints for the Korean Peninsula of the 21st century. In particular, the process by which the U.N. Security Council resolution was adopted, excluding South Korea (not a member state of the Security Council, but certainly not indifferent to the situation at hand), neighboring countries in effect denied South Korea the right to have its voice heard.

In other words, the poorly thought out "unification diplomacy" track that the South Korean government has pursued has, ironically, ended up restricting the say of the government, despite the fact that South Korea must play a leading role in the resolution of the problems facing the peninsula. If South Korea is to stop such exclusivist diplomacy among China and America about its fate, then it must first confront this paradox.

This columnl was translated by Daniel Rakove

Most viewed articles