hankyoreh

right

By Son Won-je, Staff Writer

The 6th Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity saw a heated debate over the role on China in North Korean reforms, openness, and denuclearization on Sunday, the third day of the event in Seogwipo. Sharp differences in opinion on this issue were observed in a joint press interview by Korean Peninsula experts Shin Jung-seung, director of the China research center at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security. John Ikenberry, political science professor of Princeton University, Yoichi Funabashi, former editor-in-chief of Asahi Shimbun and Yan Xuetong, dean of the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University.

At the event, which was jointly organized by the International Peace Foundation, East Asia Foundation, and Jeju Province, experts from South Korea, the United States, and Japan said that by unconditionally taking the side of North Korea, China has not been fulfilling its responsibility of guiding changes in the country.

Funabashi remarked that in addition to not holding Pyongyang accountable for its provocations, Beijing has not used its pressure to effect changes in North Korea’s behavior with regard to its third generation transfer of power. Ikenberry said China will likely face a heavy price for its lenient attitude with regard to North Korea’s artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island and other provocations. Shin noted concerns that Beijing places more value on North Korea’s stability than on its denuclearization.

Yan immediately countered that in light of the special nature of Pyongyang’s regime, changing it would require either a military intervention as in Libya or a social revolution as in the Middle East, both of which he said were beyond China’s capabilities. “There is no option but an incremental approach,” Yan said, adding that “forcible measures are not a possibility” with regard to North Korean reforms and openness.

Analysts took Yan’s argument about the impracticability of a forcible intervention in North Korea as representing the official position of the Chinese government. Indeed, Zhao Qizheng, vice chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, said at a separate press conference on his way to the forum Sunday that “regime change is an internal matter for North Korea, and China cannot criticise their domestic affairs.” Zhao was also emphatic regarding Beijing’s limited influence on Pyongyang, saying that “China is not the G2.”

The experts agreed that Pyongyang’s determination to continue possessing nuclear capabilities for purposes of regime preservation is likely to have strengthened in the wake of the recent Libyan civil war and democratization movements in the Middle East.

Funabashi said he believed Kim Jong-il’s determination to keep nuclear weapons grew stronger as he witnessed the events in the Middle East, while Yan said he was likely to have drawn many implications from the NATO attack on Libya.

But Yan also posited an active role by the U.S. as the ultimate solution to the North Korean nuclear issue. “Since the main reason North Korea is developing its nuclear capabilities is for the security of its regime, the key to guaranteeing North Korea’s security is the normalization of diplomatic relations between Pyongyang and Washington,” he said.

“The reason nuclear programs disappeared in places like Ukraine is not because of economic sanctions, but because of social revolution and security guarantees among the countries involved,” Yan added.

Meanwhile, Zhao commented that many countries were “concerned” about Seoul’s demands for resolution on the Cheonan sinking and Yeonpyeong Island artillery attack prior to any negotiations.

“We can certainly understand the feelings of the South Korean government and population in demanding accountability on the Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island incidents, but the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula demands a more long-term and strategic view,” Zhao said.

Zhao also expressed concern about the possibility of negotiations failing to come to fruition in the long term because of Seoul’s position. As this marks the first public expression of concern by a senior Chinese official about Seoul’s linking of the Cheonan sinking and Yeonpyeong Island shelling, analysts are interpreting it as urging the South Korean government to separate the issues of a North Korean apology for the incidents and negotiations on the denuclearization issue.

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