China's President Xi Jinping, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, US President Donald Trump

Una oportunidad norcoreana para Estados Unidos y China

Jun 1, 2018 Richard Haass

NUEVA YORK – No salta a la vista, pero Corea del Norte podría llegar a ser lo mejor para la relación entre Estados Unidos y China, desde el colapso de la Unión Soviética. Independientemente de si se llega o no a concretar o no este potencial beneficio, no es difícil de entender por qué existe.

La relación sino-estadounidense contemporánea nació casi medio siglo atrás, sobre la base de una preocupación compartida respecto a la amenaza que representaba la Unión Soviética para ambos países. Fue un caso de libro de texto que ilustró el viejo adagio: “El enemigo de mi enemigo es mi amigo”.

Tal relación podría haber sobrevivido a casi a cualquier situación – excepto a la desaparición del enemigo común. Y, por supuesto, esto es precisamente lo que sucedió debido al final de la Guerra Fría en el año 1989 y la desaparición de la URSS a principios de 1992.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Richard Haass

Writing for PS since 2020
127 Commentaries

Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, previously served as Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-2003), and was President George W. Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland and Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan. He is the author, most recently, of The World: A Brief Introduction (Penguin Press, 2020).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 17 Comments on this article

B Wilds Jun 11, 2018

As the summit grows near it is important to remember that North Korea claims a long list of grievances against America dating back to right after World War II. Sadly the validity of such claims are supported by detailed reports from two well-respected groups. To be quite frank I was appalled at the allegations levied against America but knowing how facts are twisted and propaganda is used by governments I should not have been.

If any validity at all exists to the claims made in the 1952 IADL and the 2001 Korea International War Crimes Tribunal reports some of North Korea's fear and distrust of America becomes more understandable. More about these claims in the article below.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2018/06/north-koreas-view-and-something-we.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Frank Tuijn Jun 10, 2018

China has more interests in this matter than shown in the article and comments.

Economically: North Korea will be a much more important trading partner and transport links through that country with South Korea will also be very important. The railway between Dandong and Seoul is mentioned in the agreement between the presidents Kim and Moon. A high speed line between Beijing, Pyongyang and Seoul will probably be realised before the one between San Francisco and Los Angelos.
China will want both parts of Korea to be part of its Belt and Road Initiative.

Militarily: Despite the new agreement valid since January 1, 2015 the South Korean armed forces commander-in-chief is still the US president. China wants to remove that link in the US containment chain. It will mean little to Taiwan as that island has already been indefensible for a long time.

Politically: China wants to see Korea united again. I expect a period of one country, two systems.

The sanctions against North Korea are legally based on Security Council resolutions as is the Iran agreement Trump abandoned so there is a precedent for China and Russia to abandon the sanctions. In that case North Korea would miss out on a Trump Tower and a MacDonald's establishment.

Would the South Korean population accept a continued US military presence if that means no steps to reunification and none of the economic advantages which in the current economic situation would be more than welcome?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jun 2, 2018

Richard N. Haass believes the US-China relationship would benefit from a successful summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un. Indeed, despite economic resentment and geostrategic rivalry, both the US and China want to eliminate the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. Even if they work together to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula, it may be wishful thinking to assume that such a cooperation would “provide a foundation for the next era of bilateral relationsip” and help “define international politics in this century.”
According to the author, the “value of the Sino-American cooperation” had in recent decades been undermined by mutual distrust. Despite the importance of their bilateral relationship, a constructive, cooperative rapport has not be fully developed. There have been episodes rife with tensions, but both sides seek to avoid an all-out conflict as it will have enormous consequences for each country and for the capacity of the international system to manage regional and global issues.
The US is genuinely worried about North Korea’s nuclear missiles that could hit Los Angeles or New York, even though Pentagon seeks to develop military options to protect the country. Last July after Pyongyang tested its second intercontinental ballistic missile, former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson accused China and Russia of being “the principal economic enablers of North Korea’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile development program,” saying they must bear “unique and special responsibility” for North Korea’s “growing threat to regional and global stability.”
While Russia has a closer relationship with North Korea than much of the rest of the world, Kim does not rely on Moscow like he needs the revenues provided by his largest trading partner, China. Russia also does not face the same threat that South Korea and Japan do. On the global stage, a statement from Russia was never far away when the US and North Korea traded threats of military action. Dodging sanctions, the North had used the Russian ports of Nakhodka and Kholmsk to load coal which was shipped to South Korea or Japan.
Beijing, as North Korea’s most important trading partner and main source of food and energy has helped sustain Kim’s regime. China has historically opposed harsh international sanctions on North Korea in the hope of avoiding regime collapse and a refugee influx across their 1,420 kilometres (880 mi) long border. Pyongyang’s nuclear standoff with the US complicated its relationship with Beijing, which had called for the resumption of the Six Party Talks, the multilateral framework aimed at denuclearising North Korea.
The author points out that “the contemporary Sino-American relationship was born nearly a half-century ago on a foundation of shared concern about the threat posed to both countries by the Soviet Union” – following the adage, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Since China’s economic rise following Deng Xiaoping’s economic reform in the 1980s, many Americans regret the decision to support Beijing’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, citing China’s double-digit growth was a one-way street.
Despite economic growth, the Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping’s leadership has no appetite for political reform. China has not only reaped benefits from the existing international order, it also seeks to change it to accommodate national interests. Many countries in Asia do not believe that China’s rise to global power is “peaceful” and benign, seeing its infrastructure programme from Central Asia to Africa, the Belt and Road Initiative, as a “geo-economic tool” to expand Chinese clout. Beijing’s “broad claims” to the South China Sea and building of military bases there are viewed as a “provocation.”
In the US China’s “unfair” trade practices had become a “source of friction.” Americans complain about their trade deficits with China, “contributing to the disappearance of millions of American jobs.” Instead of opening up its market, China has subsidised state-owned enterprises to make Chinese exports more competitive. Beijing has been accused of intellectual property theft or demanding technology transfer to Chinese partners as a condition of foreign companies’ access to the domestic market.
In the face of these grievances, it is unlikely that the upcoming summit between Trump and Kim would help China and the US forge closer ties. Americans are not comfortable with the idea that China overtakes the US as the world’s largest economy in the coming years. In his speech at the 19th Party Congress last October, Xi laid out a road map to turn China into a leading global power by 2050, to mark the centenary of the People’s Republic of China. He cemented his influence into the next decade knowing that his term limits were going to be scrapped.
The author says “the US-China relationship, however, showed surprising resilience, finding a new rationale: economic interdependence.” China holds over one trillion dollars of US debt. This financial weapon makes China more dependent on the well being of America’s economy than the other way round. A nuclear war between the US and North Korea will only devastate the Northeast Pacific, disrupting trade and stability, on which Beijing relies to justify its grip on power.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Thought Marauder Jun 2, 2018

The Future of The Hermit Kingdom

https://thoughtmarauder.com/2018/05/11/the-future-of-the-hermit-kingdom/

Much is made of the President Trumps un-artfulness and deficit of intellectual heft, but tell me who else has forced this much movement on the matter?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jonathan Dembo Jun 2, 2018

Well, it’s no wonder at all that the US and China and a North Korea are still at odds if Mr. Haass and the people he represents believe that the best that the US can expect is to ratify a continuing North Korean nuclear weapons program. If Trump settles for “Meaningful constraints” it means that the North Koreans will have won permission to maintain a nuclear weapons program. That’s not good enough. It is especially bad because it would send a signal that Iran and whoever else in the world wants nuclear weapons will be given permission to do so under similar terms. Trump has succeeded where previous American president have failed - so far - because he has focussed on the total elimination of the North Korean nuclear program. North Korea is coming to the negotiating table because Trump’s sanctions and military threats have forced the North Koreans and their Chinese backers to do so. The North Koreans need sanctions relief to prevent regime collapse. They will give up all their nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of regime survival and sanctions relief. Trump should ignore Mr. Haass and concentrate on getting his deal: the total elimination of the North Korean nukes. That will also pave the path to a settlement with Iran.
- Zijian Ma Jun 2, 2018
  
  North Korea is not coming to the negotiation because of the maximum economic and military pressure from the US. This only accounts for a small portion of the reason why the North Koreans want a compromise. They are willing to negotiate because they are at a position of strength, as they have completed their nuclear program and thus the geopolitical leverage to secure a better deal for the preservation and development of their regime. Desiring a complete dismantlement of the North Korean nuclear program is potentially dangerous. The idealistic approach that the Trump administration should take is to demand a gradually and step-by-step restructuring of their nuclear program. I think Mr.Haass is right to point out that the US should be more realistic and less aggressive, and work with China to make a peace deal with the North Koreans jointly.
  - Jonathan Dembo Jun 2, 2018
    
    If North Korea gets any stronger, its entire population will be dead from starvation. NK is a dead man walking and even its leadership knows. China’s greatest fear - greater even than nuclear war - is that North Korea gets so strong that its people flee en masse causing China a gigantic refugee crisis. Mr. Kim has already pointed out the economic weakness of NK in a speech to the leadership earlier this year and has declared that economic growth is his highest priority. North Korea today is weaker than it was in 1950. North Korea is about to implode and is desperately hoping that Trump will provide them relief. I think that he may but only if the North Koreans totally eliminate their nuclear program. PS: I forgive you your comically slavish devotion to the North Korean propaganda line. I hope you are well paid for your efforts. If not, I suggest that you switch to stand-up comedy. You have all the skills.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Jun 1, 2018

Prof. Michael Pillsbury said in The Hundred-Year Marathon that he at last found he had been deceived by China. It was surprising that it took so long a time to find it. No one needs to find it; it has been there all the time. China has been known by its many characteristics and deception is one of them.
Civic liberty is another; civic liberty in China has been tautological with anarchy; this is why China never liberalizes its society.
The consciousness, and this consciousness is pervasive, of being the Middle Kingdom is another characteristic. Those who have a little diffculty in understanding it might as well remember how Buckingham Palace was treated a few years ago by Xi Jinping. That was the Middle Kingdom culture.
A distinguished Japanese expert, well versed in Chinese literatur said, probably a little before October, 1949, "The Chinese communists are leaving the counrtyside and entering cities. What will they do? Every dynasty had its power base in urban areas." The Chinese middle-class supported the dynasty; they wanted to enjoy mundane pleasures; they did not want anything like freedom of speech or press, unlike their Western counterparts. I would like readers here to read, if interested, my (Michi's) comment, It Is Not China's Fault, nov.16, 2015, on Michael Pillsbury/The Hundred-Marathon, amazon usa.

"...remind people in both countries of the value of Sino-American cooperation...the world's two major powers working together might provide a foundation for the next era that will define international politics in this century." Here again, Prof. Haass does not see the so obvious that is so easily visible of China. China is willing to cooperate with the United States where it will benifit them, but not where there is no interest to gain and not where it can harass American diplomacy.

"The US does not want to live under the shadow of a North Korea...nuclear payloads to American cities." American officials and news media often say this; I wonder if they and Mr. Haass do not mind North Korea's payloads to Japanese cities; do they think that Japanese do not mind such terrible things?
- P. Kamath Jun 4, 2018
  
  Yoshi: Yes , you are right! I found the book with yellowed pages falling apart. The book I read in my little library is,' The birth of Communist China" which was. a revised version in Penguin series 1964 ed. so many of his pointed analysis are correct re: the behaviour of today's China. No one can deny the fact that there is something so fascinating and beautiful about its Civillization but also the uglier side. It's large size to day didn't exist say thousand years ago. It was the result of bullying, intimidating and occupying weaker neighbours. Resettling with Han people in conquered lands is a common practice. It knows when to stop when it faces a powerful armed neighbour.
  
  I was a contemporary of the times when China invaded Tibet (~1959- 1962) with brute force as there was no one to oppose . It was a mesachre and ill prepared Indian troops were over run. Others looked other way. Now resettling the country with Han people, appears to be successful. Chinese couldn't care less with ethics or morality of their action.
  
  Anyway, space is not enough to delve into such topics! So take care!
  PK.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- P. Kamath Jun 2, 2018
  
  You are right here!
  I have read similar observations made by historian Fitzerald who spent nearly two decades in China before the Communist revolution! Sorry can't give the exact reference at this time😊.
  - Yoshimichi Moriyama Jun 3, 2018
    
    Did you mean C. P. Fitzgerald/China: A Short Cultural History? I read it, too, though I cannot say that I ate it and "digested" it all.
    The back cover says, "during the war (he) served with the British Foreign Office, Far Eastern Affairs branch. He returned to China in 1946 as Cultural Attache of the British Embassy and Deputy Representative of the British Council, and remained there until 1950." Thank you.
    - Fred Richardson Jun 3, 2018
      
      Try: Revolution in China, C.P. Fitzgerald, Cesset Press, London, 1952. Excellent, great overviews of 1910-1950. Wish I'd read this one much earlier. Would have been unpublishable in the USA in the '50s and '60s. Not pro-Communist, but he certainly sees why Mao had the support of the Chinese people.
      - Yoshimichi Moriyama Jun 7, 2018
        
        PS. What I wanted to say in my June 4 reply and failed to make clear was that the political system set by the first revolution was not washed away by the second revolution.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      - P. Kamath Jun 4, 2018
        
        Wrong FRED! I bought the Penguin edition in around 1965 in USA. Prof. Fitzerald was not a political agent , for he was by training and other norms was a historian!
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      - Yoshimichi Moriyama Jun 4, 2018
        
        Thank you for telling me. It is intriging.
        
        Prof. Fitzgerald said in Chapter VI The Formation of A Centralised State, China: A Short Cultural History, "In the long course of Chinese history there have only been two revolutions which have radically altered the political and social structure of the state. The first was the great revolution of 221 B.C., by which the feudal system of ancient China was utterly destroyed and a centralised monarchy formed in its stead: the second, the revolution of 1911, by which that ancient monarchy was overthrown, and the Chinese people, under the impact of cultural influence from the West, attempted to readjust their political and social conditions to the new age of international contacts."
        
        P. Kamath Jun 4, 2018
        
        Oh BTW, if you are interested in a good latest book about Chinese mindset, read the book:
        
        Everything Under the Heavens: How the Past Helps Shape China's Push for Global Power by Howard W. French (Author). He is journalist writer and a professor of Journalism at Columbia Univ. or view some UTube videos available!
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Jun 1, 2018

Haas is right about the common US/China interest in curbing North Korea's nuclear ambitions, but is not clear about what arrangements would "stabilize" the situation in advance of a resolution. The obvious model is the unification of Germany, but without the advance of Western weapons towards China's borders. That probably means some restrictions on US fleet and troop deployments in return for unification of the Koreas and establishment of a western style democracy throughout the peninsula.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/9vqcTSOes

Una oportunidad norcoreana para Estados Unidos y China

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Una oportunidad norcoreana para Estados Unidos y China

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification