It is true that for political and geographical reasons, China is the "economic lifeline of North Korea," but such economic aid, from a Chinese perspective, is necessary to maintain the stability of North Korea so as to avoid a "hard landing" or even an "implosion," as some Western media have anticipated.
Immediate and harsher economic sanctions by China against North Korea, including totally cutting off supply of oil and food, may win applaud from the West, but would not slow down Pyongyang's steps toward fulfilling its nuclear ambition. While the West think China has not done enough in terms of economic sanctions, North Korea bit hard the fingers which used to feed it. A February KCNA commentary said that "it [a neighboring country, which often claims itself to be a 'friendly neighbor'] has unhesitatingly taken inhumane steps such as totally blocking foreign trade related to the improvement of people's living standard under the plea of the UN 'resolutions on sanctions' devoid of legal ground."
Following North Korea's fourth and fifth nuclear tests, China actively participated in international sanctions against North Korea, but behind-the-door deals reached within UNSC showed China's great concerns for the ordinary people in North Korea. International efforts, if any and if effective, meant to try to slow down, freeze or even get rid of Pyongyang's nuclear development, but should not aim at a regime change or even a regime collapse.
A regime collapse in North Korea would probably incur, among others, 1. a large-scale refugee crisis; 2. uncontrollable proliferation of conventional weapons and/or even nuclear materials; and 3. huge loss of political leverage and economic benefits, especially large amount of investments already made in the hard currency-stricken country.
An influx of large numbers of refugees to China, in tens of thousands maybe, would be the last thing China wants from the Korean Peninsula (apart from the possible contamination from Pyongyang's nuclear activities). That would be a nightmare for China, which has been making great efforts to reinvigorate its northeastern industrial bases, some of which border North Korea, thus an easy target for Korean refugees. Also it has to be kept in mind that China's northeastern provinces bordering North Korea are where China's Korean ethic people predominantly inhabit.
Compared with other countries, China does enjoy a relatively close relationship with North Korea. But this is not because China and North Korea are particularly close, but because other countries are nearly completely estranged from North Korea.
Contrary to Western overestimation, China's leverage over North Korea is limited, and is most probably one-off rather than sustainable. In other words, China certainly has several trump cards in its sleeve to deal with North Korea, but it cannot play these cards easily and repeatedly.
On the North Korean nuclear issue, China has done its utmost. Unfortunately some Western critics have turned a blind eye to the Chinese government's great efforts in cooperating with the international community to solve the thorny issue. This is unfair to China. China's efforts in the past decades should have been recognized with due respect. It should be made clear to all the stakeholders in Northeast Asia that China alone cannot solve the North Korean nuclear issue because it has never been a Beijing-Pyongyang issue. It was created by Pyongyang and Washington in the first place and now it is the U.S. that holds the key to the final solution.
The US as well as others, has to stop anticipating or even pushing the immediate collapse of the North Korea regime. The international community needs to get ready to deal with a nuclearized North Korea although currently North Korea should not – maybe never – be granted the status of a nuclear power.
The US should take into consideration North Korea's national security concerns and make a fresh move. Before any other extreme actions are deployed, the U.S. has to first reduce the military pressure that Pyongyang says it has felt in the past several decades, replace the volatile 1953 truce with a lasting peace treaty, lift decades-old economic sanctions, and establish diplomatic relations with North Korea.
The Chinese government has proposed a dual-track negotiation approach, which includes simultaneous talks on denuclearization of the peninsula and a peace treaty to take the place of the 1953 armistice agreement. Earlier this year, China made a "suspension for suspension" proposal, namely, as a first step, North Korea suspends its missile and nuclear activities in exchange for a halt of the large-scale U.S.-ROK military exercises. This suspension-for-suspension method would help ease the looming tension on the Korean Peninsula and pave the way for future consultations.
It is clear that North Korea's nuclear development is not reversible, especially after Kim Jung-un shifted the regime's policy from using the nuclear issue as a bargaining chip in its negotiations with the U.S. to making North Korea a de facto nuclear state.
The 1994 Agreed Framework signed between Washington and Pyongyang was so far the closest to a possible settlement of the North Korea nuclear issue. But that was not the outcome of saber-rattling.
If all the options are on the table, as more than one high-ranking U.S. official has put it, the U.S. should, at least for the last time, sit down face-to-face with North Korea to seriously talk about denuclearization and other key issues. Only when the utmost tolerance and patience are shown can we say the final choice is Pyongyang's.
This article was originally written by Chen Ping and published in the Global Times.
