hankyoreh

John Feffer

A coordinated approach between China, Russia, and the US to solving the North Korean nuclear crisis is probably wishful thinking, according to a group of experts who presented on the second day of the Hankyoreh-Busan International Symposium held at the Nurimaru APEC center on Oct. 27. Much more likely is that the divisions between China and Russia on one side, and the US and Japan on the other, will continue to deepen, putting the Moon Jae-in administration in a difficult spot.

“When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled,” said Kim Jae-kwan, a professor of politics and international relations at Chonnam National University. The key, he said, was finding a way for the South Korean government to create leverage to use against both sides, although he did not offer any specific ideas for how this could be achieved.

Kim Joon-hyung, professor of international studies at Handong Global University, said that, “Whenever Trump starts a fire, South Korea has to play the role of extinguisher,” placing much of the blame on the US for the recent spike in tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

This was in contrast to Chonnam University’s Kim, who said he would “give [Trump] an A” for the way he had handled the situation with North Korea. According to Kim, Trump was employing the “Madman Theory” devised by former president Richard Nixon, which had forced China to take unprecedented action against Pyongyang, including agreeing to reduce exports of crude oil and cutting ties with North Korean businesses operating in the country.

This view was clearly in the minority during the panel discussion, “US-China-Russia Relations After Trump,” in which the other participants expressed negative views of the US president’s approach to foreign policy. Perhaps the most stinging criticism was from John Feffer, director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, who bluntly stated that, “Trump doesn’t have a strategy,” for engaging with the Eurasia region. Feffer later modified these remarks by saying that the current US policy toward North Korea is similar to previous administrations, with the only difference being Trump’s use of personal insults directed at North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

“Like every other administration, Trump has found that China’s influence over North Korea is limited. China is clearly frustrated with North Korean actions,” said Feffer. “But at the same time, [Beijing] is not going to do what the US tells it to do.”

Feffer went on to give his analysis on the overall state of the US-China relationship, and the sharp divisions and attitudes present within the Trump administration. One faction, which includes Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, White House economic advisor Gary Cohn, favor continuing economic engagement with China and maintaining a cooperative relationship. This is in sharp contrast to the economic nationalist view, epitomized by now-departed White House strategist Steve Bannon, who views China as the US’ chief rival and advocates for a range of economic reprisals, including labelling the country as a currency manipulator and putting high tariffs on Chinese imports. So far, the Mnuchin/Cohn wing seems to have the upper hand in the debate.

In contrast to the uncertain relationship between China and the United States, Chinese-Russian relations have become quite close, according to Gao Tianming, professor of economics at Harbin Engineering University. Given the two countries deepening ties, particularly in the fields of energy and transportation, the relationship, “goes beyond an alliance. As President Putin said earlier this year, this is a high point in the relations for the two sides.”

Supporting this view was Alexander Gabuev, chair of the Asia-Pacific Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center. “China is very skillful about managing [bilateral] relations, very clever about using them to achieve their foreign policy ends,” he declared. “Russia is slowly drifting to the position of being China’s junior partner.”

During his presentation, Gabuev contrasted this with Russia’s relationship to the United States. “To put it simply, things are bad and they will get worse,” he said, highlighting five areas for this pessimistic viewpoint: divergent security interests in Syria and Ukraine, a lack of an economic relationship (the two sides do only about US$20 billion in annual trade, “which is peanuts,”) lack of person-to-person engagement, Russian interference in the recent US presidential election, and finally, Congressional sanctions that were recently enacted. To the last point, Gabuev noted that, “sanctions are the new normal” and that said it was extremely unlikely that they would be lifted within the foreseeable future.

Circling back around to the North Korean nuclear issue, Gabuev said that, partially due to the strained relationship between Moscow and Washington, “Russia has no incentive to cooperate with the US on sanctioning North Korea.” This of course would undermine the kind of international cooperation that is viewed as being crucial to resolving the problem of North Korean nuclear weapons.

A constant theme brought up by the panelists was the changing nature of the security dynamics in northeast Asia, and the uncertainty caused by Trump’s unpredictable behavior. “In the past, the United States was the country most interested in multilateralism, but with the America First policy, the US is now engaging bilaterally, something that used to be true of China. But now, Trump has pulled back, and China sees the opportunity to step forward. The two sides have changed places,” said Feffer.

In the long run, these developments may cause South Korea to re-evaluate its relationship with the United States and the northeast Asian powers. “Of course the [US-ROK] alliance is important, but the costs of maintaining this alliance are greater and greater,” said Handong University’s Kim. “We need to establish stronger relationships with countries besides the US.” One such way, suggested by Gao, was for South Korea to participate with Russia and China in the development of energy resources in the Arctic region.

Interestingly, this seems to be one of the goals of the Moon administration’s New Northern Strategy, which emphasizes regional cooperation and prosperity. The underlying vision is that if the countries of northeast Asia can become more closely linked together, North Korea will be more likely to engage with its neighbors out of a desire to share in that economic development.

Of course, this still leaves the question of what to do about North Korea’s nuclear program. As Chonnam University’s Kim said, “We need to think about the “double freeze” solution proposed by China. North Korea already has the weapons. The Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye governments couldn’t make any progress on this issue, so we should think of a new approach.”

With US President Donald Trump scheduled to visit Seoul in two weeks’ time, and a possible Sino-Korean summit rumored to take place before the end of the year, this would seem to be an ideal moment for President Moon to outline such an approach.

By Geoffrey Fattig, staff reporter for English Edition

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]