After initially
expressing "concern" over North Korea's July 4th missile launches,
China's unwillingness to work towards serious sanctions on North
Korea provides further proof that Beijing has little interest in
restraining Pyongyang. What are we to make of the disconnect
between Chinese rhetoric and action? In many ways, it reflects a
disconnect between the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA)-which
almost certainly does not share any real concerns about North
Korea's missile provocations-and Chinese diplomats, who have
largely been kept out of the loop. At the end of the day,
Washington needs to face the fact that without any Chinese interest
in disarming North Korea there is no viable solution to the North
Korean nuclear problem.
The PLA's
Relationship with North Korea
Provocative
missile launches are nothing new in the Asia-Pacific region. In
March 1996, China recklessly test-fired missiles into the Taiwan
Strait in an attempt to intimidate Taiwan's voters in the run-up to
their first-ever free presidential elections. That series of
missile tests, which for several days virtually closed the
heavily-traversed Taiwan Strait to all shipping and air travel, was
the brain-child of the PLA and acquiesced to by then-President
Jiang Zemin, who at the time had not yet consolidated his support
among China's military.
Indeed, the real
players in Beijing's Korea policy are the PLA leadership. There is
no doubt that the PLA is in close contact with its North Korean
counterparts. Article IV of the July 11, 1961, military pact (the
"Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance between
the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea") obliges Korean People's Army (KPA) commanders and top
Chinese generals to "continue to consult . . . on all important
international questions of common interests." In return, China is
to "render . . . every possible economic and technical aid in the
cause of socialist construction" including "scientific and
technical cooperation."
Just prior to the
opening of the Beijing multilateral talks on North Korea's nuclear
weapons program in April 2003, North Korean Colonel General Jo
Myong Rok camped out for four days in Beijing where he met with
every top PLA leader. In late August 2003, just before the
Six-Party talks began, the PLA's top political commissar, General
Xu Caihou, made a hurried visit to Pyongyang. Those talks were a
disaster-at least from the American point of view-as were all
previous and subsequent sessions of the talks.
At the end of
October 2005, Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Pyongyang and was
treated to a lavish reception by North Korea's Kim Jong-Il.
Supposedly, the Chinese leader was to have pressured Kim Jong-Il
into moving forward on a "Statement of Principles" drafted during
the September 2005 session of the Six-Party talks,
but none of the public statements by either Hu Jintao or Kim Jong
Il even alluded to the talks. When the next round of Beijing talks
ended in November, there was still no progress. North Koreans
instead accused Washington of sabotaging the talks with financial
sanctions imposed on North Korean bank accounts in Macao that
happened to be stuffed with counterfeit U.S. currency.
In April 2006,
Chinese defense minister Cao Gangchuan spent four days in
Pyongyang, where according to the North Korean media, he and his
KPA comrades discussed ways to "strengthen military ties" and
exchanged "valuable" opinions.
Significantly,
General Cao was accompanied by PLA Air Force Deputy Political
Commissar Liu Yazhou, whom Professor Alfred Chan calls "realist, a
nationalist and a hardliner against Japan." General Liu's views on
Chinese foreign policy are legendary in the PLA. In a monograph
published in 2001, he praised China's improved relations with
fundamentalist Islamist countries saying China "should do what the
West fears." His outspoken ideas on other areas of grand strategy
are equally eye-opening.
Just days before
the July 4 missile tests, Beijing is reported to have been the
transit point for ten Iranian missile scientists who visited North
Korea with the mission, according to Japanese government sources
quoted in Tokyo's Sankei Shimbun, "to confirm the
performance of missile-related equipment introduced by China"
during launch preparations for North Korea's Taepodong 2 missile.
It is likely that
those ten Iranians were at North Korea's Musudanri launch base when
the KPA launched the Taepodong 2 missile to mark the July Fourth
celebrations, and at least some of the Iranians may have been at
the Kitdaeryong base for the tests of North Korean Scuds and Nodong
missiles. After all, there is no better way to "confirm the
performance" of Chinese components in North Korean missiles than to
observe several test firings.
News of the
Iranian engineers' presence was followed up by a Wall Street
Journal report detailing North Korea's sale of its newest
missiles to Iran.
On July 6, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, when asked
about the Teheran-Pyongyang missile nexus, simply acknowledged that
"one of [North Korea's] only exports aside from counterfeit bills
is weapons and weapons technology. That's what they deal in. The
bazaar is open as far as they are concerned."
All of this
explains why Chinese diplomats evince so much frustration when
speaking about North Korea. The Chinese leadership does not seem to
consider North Korea's nuclear or missile ambitions to be
diplomatic matters-except insofar as Beijing's foreign ministry can
use diplomacy to ease outside pressures on North Korea. North Korea
is a military matter, and the evidence suggests that basic policies
toward North Korea are handled by China's PLA.
PRC-DPRK army-army
consultations appear to exclude China's diplomats. They are simply
out of the loop. In public, the diplomats are simply ordered to
repeat talking points drafted directly by a Politburo "small group"
on North Korea. In private, they muse with supposed authority about
what they wish China's North Korea policy was-often misleading
their foreign friends.
Senator Joseph
Biden (D-DE) told CBS News the day following the North Korean
missile launches that his top Korea policy aide was assured
privately by the top Korea negotiator in China's foreign ministry
that he was "sure that North Korea was not going to launch." There
is every indication that Mr. Biden's aide believed his Chinese
diplomatic interlocutors told him the truth as they wanted to
believe it. And Mr. Biden continues to assume China really did try
to discourage the North Korean launches. "It's going to be
interesting," the Senator continued "to see whether or nor [the
Chinese] respond."
China's
Response to the Missile Launches
The Chinese have
responded, but not the way Senator Biden had hoped. On July 6,
China blamed the United States for the missile tests. Vice Minister
Wu Dawei told interviewers that "this latest act" by the North
Koreans "was in large part caused by American financial
sanctions."
Blaming Washington
while covering for Pyongyang has been Beijing's consistent stance
since the North Korean nuclear contretemps began in October 2002.
For the three weeks prior to the July Fourth missile tests, the
Chinese foreign ministry could only admit to "noting" unspecified
"positions of various parties" and having "serious concern" over
unspecified "current developments." The day after the missiles
flew, the foreign ministry demurred that "we have already expressed
serious concern" about "the affair" and "hoped that all the parties
concerned will be cool and restrained . . . and refrain from
adopting actions that would cause further tensions or
complications."
Even to the
untrained ear, the clear message is this: In view of the fact that
North Korea's "tensions and complications" are done with, China now
is more concerned about the United States or Japan "causing further
tensions and complications." Beijing's official statements show
that Beijing steadfastly refuses to "condemn" or "criticize"
Pyongyang on the missiles or anything else.
But hope springs
eternal. On July 6, President Bush called his Chinese counterpart,
President Hu Jintao. According to the Chinese press, President Bush
told Hu "We appreciate all the efforts China has exerted for peace
and stability on the Korean Peninsula, and we wish to maintain
channels with the Chinese side."
To the U.S. media, Mr. Bush insisted that other world leaders,
including the Chinese one, "like me, are concerned."
"Concerned" was the lowest-common denominator-specifically, the
Chinese denominator. When the State Department spokesman's
assertion about North Korea's neighbors "being united in their
condemnation" was challenged by reporters, he backtracked, "We
would encourage China" as a country that "might have diplomatic
leverage . . . to use that leverage."
Instead, China is
using its leverage on the U.S. As a substitute for criticizing its
North Korean allies, China's leaders have dispatched a vice foreign
minister for Northeast Asia, Mr. Wu Dawei, to accompany Vice
Premier Hui Liangyu to Pyongyang. Vice Minister Wu's mere presence
in the delegation is supposed to reflect some more profound level
of "concern."
But Vice Premier
Hui, in fact, expressed no "concern" whatever. He brought Mr. Kim a
personal message from Chinese President Hu Jintao that offered
"warm felicitations" and averred that "Over the last 45 years both
China and the DPRK have jointly accelerated the cause of socialist
construction and defended the peace and stability of the region,
respecting and supporting each other and closely cooperating with
each other on the principle and spirit of the treaty." China's
leader also reaffirmed that "It is a steadfast strategic policy of
the Chinese Party and government to steadily develop the Sino-DPRK
friendly and cooperative relations."
These words speak for themselves.
Conclusion
Beijing's giant
yawn at Pyongyang's antics is surely too big to escape notice, even
in Washington. It is now incumbent upon the Bush Administration to
face facts. Fact one: Beijing is not interested in restraining
North Korea's behavior. Washington should listen carefully to the
words of Vice Premier Hui and Vice Minister Wu on July 11 while
they celebrate China's nearly half-century of alliance with North
Korea. Those words will be spoon fed from the Politburo in Beijing.
If there are no sharp words in public, then Washington can be
assured there were no sharp words in private, either.
Fact two: Those in
Beijing (and in the Chinese embassy in Washington) who wring their
hands and claim to credulous American interlocutors that China has
little leverage over North Korea are not telling the truth. Beijing
supplies at least 90 percent of North Korea's petroleum, and
without petrol, North Korea's armies cannot move. U.S. estimates
are that China gives $500 million in food to North Korea each year.
China controls all North Korean land transportation.
China does not
really fear a sudden inrush of North Korean refugees should its
economy collapse. North Korea's economy has nowhere lower to fall.
As of August 2003, China had deployed 150,000 regular army troops
at the Korean border to discourage crossings. And China's
protestations that it does not believe in economic sanctions would
be incredible to Taiwanese businessmen and to Mongolians who found
their only railroad link to the outside cut in November 2002 during
the Dalai Lama's visit. If Beijing believes North Korean nuclear
and missile threats are as dangerous as the Dalai Lama, rail and
pipelines into North Korea would have been shut down long ago.
Finally, fact three:
Without Chinese interest in disarming North Korea, much less
moderating any of Pyongyang's other odious behavior, there is no
solution to the North Korean problem. It is now a fact of life.
America's new problem will be to retool its foreign policy to
confront a world where China abets the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and their delivery systems while the U.S. tries to
rein them in.
John J. Tkacik, Jr., is
Senior Research Fellow in China Policy in the Asian Studies Center
at The Heritage Foundation.
For a fascinating outline of
General Liu's views, see Alfred Chan, "A Young Turk in China's
Establishment: The Military Writings of Liu Yazhou," The Jamestown
Foundation, China Brief, volume 5, issue 19 (September 13,
2005), at .