[Interview] Recent US-China summit a moderate success for both sides

Posted on : 2017-04-11 16:36 KST Modified on : 2019-10-19 20:29 KST
The focus of the two sides’ first summit was on setting the stage for future progress
Alan Romberg
Alan Romberg
Alan Romberg is a Distinguished Fellow and the Director of the East Asia program at the Stimson Center in Washington DC. He spent 27 years working for the US State Department, with extensive experience working on Asian affairs. He recently conducted an email interview with the Hankyoreh’s Washington correspondent, assessing the outcome of the Apr. 6-7 summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Hankyoreh (Hani): What’s your overall assessment of the recent US-China summit at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida? Was it more successful than you expected?

Alan Romberg (Romberg): I think the summit at Mar-a-Lago can be called a success for both leaders. Contrary to the expectations of many people, the leaders established what at a minimum is a cordial relationship and one that will facilitate, if not total resolution of the many issues on the table, at least reasonable management of them. I was not surprised at this. It has become a pattern that President Trump uses sharp language going into meetings, but if his counterpart is reasonably forthcoming--and Xi Jinping was clearly determined to be just that--Trump is quite willing to respond in kind.

Hani: What do you think will be the most important outcome of this summit?

Romberg: While they are not “best friends,” this meeting helped to establish a relationship for them to communicate effectively in the future. Also, it set a framework for addressing key issues.

Hani: How do you assess the agreement on North Korea issue? In my humble opinion, US-China just agreed to fully implement UN resolutions without no extra sanctions, or no breakthrough for negotiations. Nothing is changed comparing with before summit..But, my diplomatic source said the China promised to impose additional sanctions beyond UN resolutions-particularily finanancial transactions between Chinese and North Korean banks.

Romberg: Secretary Tillerson said “we would, and are, prepared to chart our own course if this (North Korea issue) is something China is just unable to coordinate with us are, prepared to chart our own course if this (North Korea issue) is something China is just unable to coordinate with us” in a news conference. What can we imagine the actions which the United States could take without the help of China?

We will have to see what China can and will do to apply greater pressure on North Korea both to refrain from provocations and to allow Beijing to attract the US and others to return to the negotiating table at some point in the future. I don’t rule out that China will take actions of its own to convince the United States it does not need to adopt sanctions that would affect Chinese firms and banks. If that could happen, then China would avoid allowing the impression that it cannot defend its own interests and is subject to US leverage.

Keep in mind that, while China values stability on the Peninsula above virtually all else, the PRC’s vital interests are threatened in a variety of ways by Kim Jong-un’s policies and actions, including its interest in stability. So, although China will want to preserve the North as a viable entity rather than acquiescing in unification that could come out of chaos--unification that would inevitably be under Seoul‘s leadership and allied with the United States--that does not mean Beijing would avoid all actions that could affect the regime in Pyongyang.

As to what the US can do, I think we see an example just today with the deployment of an aircraft carrier battle group to the Western Pacific both to remind Pyongyang of the real power it has arrayed against it and to deal with any contingency should the North engage in provocations.

In addition, working with Seoul, Tokyo and others, there is little doubt that the US could be more effective than it has been to date in denying North Korea access both to the international financial system and to materials relevant both to its nuclear and conventional weapons programs. That may require the US to apply some pressure on other countries, not just China, but this is not out of the question.

Hani: What do you think about the speculations that President Trump ordered the attack on Syria to send a message to adversary countries, including North Korea and Iran. Furthermore, some analysts argued that Trump intended to send the message to Xi that if China didn’t cooperate in sanctions against North Korea, the United States might use military forces against North Korea.

Romberg: It is likely that President Trump felt that the strikes against Syria provided “proof” that he is willing to use force where he feels important US interests are at stake, and so in that sense thought perhaps it was a useful demonstration not only for China but for many others. But it strains credulity to suggest that he ordered the attack against Syria in the expectation that Xi would somehow change his policy toward Korea or that Xi would somehow not see the fundamental differences between the situation in Syria and that in North Korea.

Hani: It seems like neither side made any compromises on the South China Sea issue. What do you think about that?

Romberg: We don’t know what was discussed with regard to the South China Sea. I think avoidance of high tensions is possible, as we saw happen after the Obama-Xi meeting a year ago. In any case, the South China Sea will very likely be a prominent issue to be taken up in the diplomatic and security dialogue, so it is much too early to draw conclusions about where differences over the South China Sea will end up.

Hani: Do you think the so-called “100 day plan” for US-China trade balancing, which was announced by US side only, could work well?

Romberg: I think it is quite likely that there will be agreements to promote US exports and, as announced by Secretary Ross, to “reduce” the US trade deficit with China. I don’t think it is remotely feasible to eliminate that deficit, nor do I think that is a particularly worthwhile goal. But the sense of “fairness” in the economic relationship--including not only trade imbalances but how US and other foreign firms are treated in China, market access, protection of intellectual property, etc.-- is important both economically and politically. And, although it is far too early to predict how far they will get, I would be surprised if some meaningful progress were not made.

Hani: The US and China didn’t release a joint statement and didn’t hold a news conference. Why do you think that is? Do you think there was nothing to announce because they didn’t come to any agreements, or that they wanted to avoid controversy domestically?

Romberg: A joint statement was never going to happen. The focus of this meeting was on setting the stage for future progress, and I think the briefings given by Foreign Minister Wang Yi and by Secretary Tillerson and his Cabinet colleagues amply reflected reasonable success in that effort. Trying to coordinate joint statement language for that type of meeting would not have been worth the effort. Much better for each side to express its perceptions separately, although I’m sure efforts were made to ensure there were no glaring contradictions.

By Yi Yong-in, Washington correspondent

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

 

button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)

Related stories