WILL CHINA SOLVE THE NORTH KOREA PROBLEM?

Author: Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow Cato Institute

December 6, 2016

Text has been edited

Washington should develop a comprehensive diplomatic strategy to persuade the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to cooperate with the United States, South Korea, and Japan in pressing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) to abandon its nuclear program.

The North Korea problem continues to worsen, as the Kim regime tests more nuclear weapons and develops longer-range missiles. Tighter sanctions have proved little more effective than diplomatic entreaties. Many officials and analysts alike see action by the PRC as the best and perhaps only solution.

The objective should be to convince Beijing to back an allied denuclearization deal and cut all assistance for the North if the DPRK says no.

The United States should acknowledge the PRC’s geopolitical interests and encourage Beijing to both reevaluate its policy toward the North and press for either fundamental policy reform or a leadership change in Pyongyang. Denuclearization, as well as a reduction in the North’s other confrontational policies, could be achieved either way. Although the United States likely would prefer new leadership, a push for regime change likely would spark the strongest resistance.

America and its allies must convince the PRC leadership that they are better served by working with the United States, South Korea, and Japan against North Korea.

Making the Case to China

Pressure from the PRC appears to offer the best hope for changing leadership, policy, or both in Pyongyang. Beijing must be confident that the United States is not seeking to undermine China’s stability and contain its rise; otherwise, it will not only refuse to partner with the United States but may instead increase efforts to shield Pyongyang from international penalties in response to provocations.

There are other important reasons to improve bilateral relations, of course. But the United States is not likely to win significant concessions regarding the DPRK if Washington and Beijing are at loggerheads on other issues, especially security. Bilateral confrontations elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific will make Beijing less likely to ease tensions for America in Korea. Moreover, even if a deal looked feasible, would China trust the United States to implement an agreement? 

Equally important, Washington must speak to China’s interests. Only by addressing the PRC’s specific concerns can American officials hope to convince Beijing to, in effect, switch sides.

President Xi once indicated that the PRC’s priorities were “no war, no instability, no nukes’. That reflected Beijing’s long-standing approach to the Korean peninsula. The order is instructive: in China’s view, the worst contingency would be war, next would be a DPRK collapse. A nuclear North is to be discouraged, but is less feared than contingencies that could be created by the policies necessary to force denuclearization. America must seek to change that assessment.

U.S. Negotiating Strategy

To win China’s cooperation, the United States must convince the Chinese leadership that, despite the preceding considerations, the PRC is better served working with America, South Korea, and Japan against North Korea. Beijing will have to believe that it would be more secure and prosperous even if the attempt to change the North failed and the result was regime collapse. The allies must do more than tout the benefits of denuclearization. They must directly address the PRC’s geopolitical concerns.

Washington’s objective should be to convince Beijing to use its clout to alter the North’s policies of nuclear expansion and reckless confrontation. That might require a leadership (less fearsome than regime) change, though the personalities matter less than the policies. The overriding objective would be reducing the security threat posed by the North, rather than promoting democracy and reunification, which the PRC would not likely favor.

First, the United States should work with Seoul and Tokyo to develop a comprehensive offer for the North. Many Chinese policymakers continue to blame Washington and its allies for threatening North Korea’s security, thereby spurring the latter to develop nuclear weapons. Chinese officials believe allied demands for regime change reinforce Pyongyang’s behavior.

The U.S., South Korea and Japan should abandon fantasies of coercing Pyongyang through sanctions. They should make efforts to ease North Korea’s sense of strategic insecurity. A resolution to the crisis must also include larger carrots to North Korea: a package deal that includes reliable security guarantees.  The PRC wants Washington to offer a peace treaty/security guarantee to create an environment conducive to denuclearization rather than as a reward for denuclearization. Developing an engagement deal would help bridge the gap between Washington and Beijing

The resulting offer should be a joint allied product and include a peace treaty, diplomatic recognition, end of sanctions, participation in international agencies and forums, economic aid, removal of U.S. troops from the South, increased inter-Korean contacts, and discussion of reunification. In return, the North would agree to supervised denuclearization and reduction in conventional military tensions. A dialogue over human rights would follow as part of the new relationship.

The allies then should present their proposal to the PRC, seeking its endorsement and full support in negotiations, whether bilateral, or through renewed Six-Party Talks or other forums. Beijing should insist that the North agree to denuclearization, and if it balks, sanction Pyongyang for failing to accept a proposal that China views as fair. The PRC’s objective would be not just getting the North to the table, but implementing a meaningful agreement.

Of course, Pyongyang could say no even to a generous package. However, such a refusal would further U.S. objectives by shifting blame onto the North. Then the United States could attempt to convince Beijing that the status quo is more dangerous than pressing the North to reform. The situation today is volatile, not stable, and could lead to just the sort of chaos and violence Beijing fears. Furthermore, Washington should detail as clearly as possible how the status quo, already inimical to Chinese interests, is likely to get worse. DPRK provocations are likely to continue, creating a risk of war on the peninsula and encouraging rearmament throughout the region. Under the current circumstances, it would be better for Beijing to act preemptively if Pyongyang refuses to be reasonable.

War could easily erupt from a simple miscalculation or mistake. China has good reason to distrust the North’s current leadership. If war broke out, the United States and its allies would not stop at the DMZ. Watching the conquest of its nominal ally would be humiliating and the fighting might overflow North Korea’s border into the PRC.

China also has good reason to fear a U.S.-initiated war. Washington previously considered launching a preventive war, at least to strike the DPRK’s nuclear facilities.

Rather than threaten China, the United States should point out how North Korea’s current policies worsen the PRC’s security situation. North Korea can be expected to continue its provocative course. In desperation the regime might take additional risky steps, such as engaging in nuclear proliferation to non-state actors, which could spark U.S. military action.

The countries most directly threatened, South Korea and Japan, are likely to continue expanding their own military capabilities and cooperating with the United States in ways unsettling to Beijing, such as participating in the THAAD missile defense.

Conclusion

Pyongyang and Beijing appear to be ever further at odds over the DPRK’s nuclear ambitions. North Korea reaffirms its intent to remain a nuclear power while China maintains its commitment to denuclearizing the peninsula. The critical question for the PRC: Will it enforce or abandon its objective?

It is not enough for Beijing’s attitude toward the North to change. China’s treatment of the North must change. And that will happen only if the PRC decides to emphasize denuclearization over stability.

A policy shift of that magnitude would require a significant debate within a Chinese leadership that faces internal as well as external challenges. Convincing the PRC to reverse support for its long-time ally would be difficult. However, making a serious and systematic case to Beijing is the best strategy among many poor alternatives. Otherwise the United States should prepare to accept the North as a de facto permanent nuclear power.

If Washington and the PRC were able to successfully collaborate in this case, new possibilities for U.S.-Chinese cooperation might open. Progress in Northeast Asia could help ease tensions elsewhere.

The Korean peninsula has reemerged as a candidate for the world’s next big war. In the view of many U.S. officials and observers, the road to a stable, peaceful, denuclearized Korean Peninsula runs, however irregularly and uncertainly, through the PRC.