Chapter 5: Shifting Tides: China and North Korea

North Korea’s last three missile tests conducted since the outbreak of the North Korean nuclear crisis in October 2002 had limited diplomatic impact, mainly because the test launches involved only short-range or shore-based anti-ship missiles.^[2] Since North Korea already possessed such missile capabilities, there was no evidence that North Korean missile technology had improved substantively since the Taepodong-1 was test-fired in 1998. However, when intelligence confirmed that North Korea was going to test-fire long-range missiles in June 2006—missiles capable of reaching the west coast of the United States—reactions by the United States and Japan fundamentally changed. These tests were also significant because they damaged China’s credibility as an impartial mediator and decreased its presumed influence on North Korea.

Following the long-range missile tests on 5 July 2006, an intense debate arose in the United States regarding the possibility of using a preemptive strike capability on North Korean missile facilities. Although such a strike was ultimately ruled out by the White House, the United States announced that the missile defence system in Alaska would enter a higher alert level. In addition, the United States and Japan decided to deploy missile defences in Japan, and the United States sent its only Aegis cruiser equipped with a marine missile defence system into the offshore waters of North Korea. All these moves point to a marked escalation of the military confrontation revolving around the North Korean missile launch—a situation China had been working to avoid with its mediation efforts in the North Korean nuclear crisis and by hosting the Six-Party Talks.

The possibility of North Korea’s long-range missile tests did not at first draw a particularly swift or strong response from China, as it has grown accustomed to such threatening tactics from North Korea whenever the Six-Party Talks stagnate and China’s opinions are brushed aside. It was difficult to tell whether this particular test-launch of missiles by North Korea was yet another bluff in order to pressure the United States to lift the financial sanctions against it.

China’s reaction began to change, however, with the continuous string of reports published in June 2006 regarding the imminent tests. For the first time, the Chinese premier openly demanded that North Korea halt its erroneous action. On 28 June 2006, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao openly called on North Korea to stop the test-launch in an attempt to avoid Chinese domestic alarm at growing tensions in the China-North Korea relationship.^[3] This reaction was unprecedented as China’s senior leaders had never officially demanded anything of North Korea, even when the latter withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), reopened its 5-megawatt graphite reactor or when it declared possession of nuclear weapons in February 2005.

The reasons for China’s change of position are numerous. First, it is important to note that the Chinese leadership’s direct call for a halt on the missile testing came after South Korea’s explicit request to China through official channels to prevent North Korea from carrying out the test launch. Since the second round of Six-Party Talks on the North Korean nuclear issue in February 2004, China and South Korea have been moving ever closer in their approach and coordination of policies. Considering South Korea’s deep concern over the test launch, its direct request for Beijing to take action against this provocative move by North Korea was a request that China could not decline.

Second, China had become painfully aware of the significance of North Korea’s test of a long-range missile (the Taepodong-2). This would be an open provocation by North Korea, after which China would have little reason to further cushion North Korea from the United States and Japan. Prior to this, China had been hoping to ‘comfort’ North Korea through softening the ‘pressure and isolation’ policy adopted by the United States and Japan and to protect North Korea from any further setback and harm. With Japan’s extreme sensitivity to North Korea’s missile test-launch, the firing of the new Taepodong-2 missile would only give the United States and Japan a pretext for Japan to accelerate its cooperation with Washington in developing a ballistic missile defence capability, enhancing the US-Japan military alliance and promoting Japan’s plan to intensify its military development plan. These developments would in turn complicate China’s Japan policy considerably. Due to the current tension in China-Japan relations, any moves by Japan’s military have the potential of stirring domestic nationalism in China that runs high with anti-Japanese sentiment. These changes in China’s security environment would provide a basis for the Chinese military to demand a bigger budget and scale up its military forces. The Chinese leadership headed by Hu Jintao (China’s President) does not want to see the escalation of military confrontation between China and other big powers in the region; nor does it want China’s defence strategy to be manipulated by internal nationalist passions.

North Korea’s missile tests have diverse implications for China. First, they show that North Korea has little regard for China’s own security interests. China is deeply frustrated by North Korea’s intransigent behaviour and thinking, despite five rounds of Six-Party Talks and the signing of the Joint Statement in September 2005. China had hoped that it could influence North Korea through a multilateral mechanism to create—and make routine—an exchange acceptable both to North Korea and the other parties. China’s strategy in attaining these goals can be characterised as a ‘soft approach’, aimed at arriving at a diplomatic solution, and gradually but concretely affecting North Korea’s actions. Time and again, China sternly rejected calls by the United States to increase pressure on North Korea and even took various actions to protect North Korea from further isolation. At the same time, China teamed up with South Korea, continuously providing North Korea with substantial aid, supporting South Korea’s ‘peace and prosperity policy’ toward North Korea and respecting the requirements of Kim Jong-il for a ‘security assurance’ and ‘fair treatment’. The quid pro quo of such an approach, however, was the willingness by North Korea to fully cooperate with China and South Korea, to give up its brinksmanship behaviour and to respect China’s role as host of the Six-Party Talks. The launching of the missiles shows undeniably that North Korea not only lacks a basic appreciation of China’s painstaking efforts on its behalf, but is showing contempt for China’s security interests in Northeast Asia.

The missile tests also deeply shook the Chinese leadership’s belief in the North Korean regime’s ability to carry out reform and opening-up in emulation of China’s model. The Chinese people also hold highly negative views of the North Korean regime. A February 2006 public opinion poll showed that 44 per cent of Chinese people dislike North Korea more than any other country (closely following Japan, which 56 per cent of people polled most dislike). Conversely, among the three East Asian nations, South Korea is considered by the Chinese public as the country with which China most needs to deepen bilateral relations (48 per cent), followed by Japan (40 per cent), with North Korea a distant last (12 per cent).^[4]

The Chinese leadership now understands it may have deluded itself about the North Korean Government. China has pursued a neighbourly policy with North Korea, thinking that it would gradually be won over by China’s approach. However, the missile tests have finally revealed to the leadership in Beijing the true nature of the North Korean Government. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions stem in large part from the need to safeguard its own security and interests rather than its country and people. It has also shown itself to be highly skilled in its resistance to internal reform.^[5] North Korea has refused to accept China’s advice and continues to take measures that intensify confrontation and defy the international community. This can only mean that the current mentality of its leaders is simplistic and arrogant. In the end, North Korea will not give serious consideration or cater to the interests of China, or take decisive steps on the road to reform and opening-up. China now objectively concedes that it is a delusion to expect the North Korean Government to make wise decisions and restart the process of merging into the world community.

Soon after the missile tests of 15 July 2006, China voted in favour of UNSC Resolution 1695 (which condemned North Korea’s missile launches and imposed limited sanctions on North Korea), clearly indicating the most significant change of China’s policy toward North Korea in recent years. It signifies China’s growing resentment toward North Korea and implies an end to China’s ‘umbrella’ policy for North Korea—a policy that has been in effect since the end of the Cold War and is meant to prevent the UNSC from getting entangled in North Korean affairs, and to protect North Korea from UN sanctions. With North Korea’s deep dependence on China’s economic and diplomatic assistance, anything that causes China to distance itself from North Korea will no doubt have implications for the survival of the Kim Government in North Korea. From the latter’s perspective, China’s support of the Resolution was an act of treachery by its socialist big brother. China’s refusal to continue as North Korea’s ‘protector’ in the UNSC opens the door for the possibility of new, tougher UN sanctions.