hankyoreh

By Seok Jin-hwan, Blue House correspondent in Beijing

It was the evening of June 28, the second day of South Korean President Park Geun-hye’s trip to China. Park had a meeting and a luncheon with Li Keqiang, premier of China and number two in the country’s political hierarchy. The reporters who had been waiting to hear the results of the meeting received word that there would not be an additional briefing afterward. But a short time later, China Central Television (CCTV) reported scenes from the meeting and details from the conversation. South Korean media had no choice but to use quotations from this in their reports. While no reporter accompanying the President on her trip would have been happy about having to write a report using quotes from Chinese media, one could accept this as an issue of protocol and let it slide.

However, when the content of the explanations offered by the governments of the two countries are not consistent, this becomes an entirely different kind of problem. The press statement that the Blue House released the next morning on the results of the meeting with Li was not consistent with what CCTV had said in its report of the meeting. And not only that, but the inconsistency had to do with the key issue of the meeting.

In regard to how to bring about the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, Li said, “China’s position on denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is clear, firm, and unchanging. We hope that the six-party talks can be resumed soon and that the peace and stability of the peninsula will be protected.”

However, the Blue House reported Li as having said that “China opposes North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons and its desire that denuclearization of the Korean peninsula will be realized is firm and unchanging” and that he urged that problems be resolved “through dialogue and negotiations.” This press release added a reference to opposition to North Korean possession of nuclear weapons, which Li did not mention, and omitted the resumption of the six-party talks, which Li had emphasized as the solution to the issue.

The South Korean government, which has been reluctant to resume the six-party talks until North Korea takes measures showing its good faith and which has stuck to the principle of not tolerating North Korean nuclear weapons, effectively spun the Chinese premier’s remarks to fits its own purposes.

The same thing happened previously during the June 27 summit. When she met with reporters immediately after the meeting, Park said, “The Chinese leader and I share the view that North Korean possession of nuclear weapons cannot be tolerated in any situation.” However, the joint statement released by South Korea and China on their vision for the future only stated, “both sides agree that the development of nuclear weapons by related parties is a serious threat to the peace and stability of Northeast Asia, including the Korean peninsula.” The name “North Korea” did not appear. This issue is important because the biggest reason people were interested in the summit was curiosity about was how clearly China would express its support for South Korea and put pressure on Pyongyang on the issue of denuclearization.

When one views the joint statement from South Korea and China or the comments by Chinese leaders, it appears that the Chinese government was trying to avoid putting direct pressure on Pyongyang in consideration of its bilateral relations. Nevertheless, the Blue House openly stated on two occasions that China agreed that North Korean nuclear weapons would not be tolerated. This is what arouses suspicions that the government “massaged” the language to inflate the results of Park’s trip to China.

Perhaps out of awareness of this, the Blue House added the following explanation to the summary of the results of the summit that it released on June 30. “Not included in the joint statement, the two leaders arrived at a mutual understanding that North Korea possession of nuclear weapons should not be recognized, and that they should pursue denuclearization of North Korea,” the summary said.

In the arena of international diplomacy, where each and every word and phrase are scrutinized endlessly, is it really appropriate for a government to publicly pass off its own guesswork as the official position of another country?

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