U.S. and China See North Korean Problem Differently

, China project manager and senior analyst | April 13, 2013, 7:42 pm EST
Bookmark and Share


U.S. and Chinese leaders both seek a denuclearized North Korea. But they disagree, fundamentally, on how that can be achieved. U.S. analysts and observers frame that disagreement inaccurately, contributing to misunderstanding that unnecessarily undermines strategic trust between China and the United States.

U.S. policy makers believe increased economic and political pressure will force North Korea to the negotiating table. North Korea’s fragile economy is supported by Chinese aid and trade. From the U.S. point of view, this theoretically gives China leverage over North Korean decisions.

Chinese policy-makers know that theory can be proven false. Decades ago China was as politically and economically isolated from the international community as North Korea is today. But neither its erstwhile Soviet patrons nor its American adversaries could stop China from building the bomb, which they still believe protects China from external military coercion. When Chinese leaders look at North Korea they are reminded of their own experience. From China’s point of view, greater foreign pressure is highly likely to increase North Korea’s resolve to acquire a credible nuclear deterrent.

China’s refusal to cut off economic assistance to North Korea is often interpreted by U.S. observers as either self-serving or antagonistic. Some say China fears an influx of refugees or economic disruption. Others claim China wants to preserve a divided Korea and the North as a buffer state. But no authoritative Chinese voice makes such claims. China’s official statements consistently argue for mutual restraint and renewed negotiations as the only viable path to a denuclearized North Korea.

The North Korean leadership’s unwillingness to negotiate is as frustrating to China as it is to the United States. That frustration can be detected in Chinese public statements and in private discussions with U.S. officials. But because the Chinese leadership sees increased economic and political pressure as counterproductive, it is unlikely that continued U.S. entreaties will lead to a change in Chinese policy.

U.S. officials should avoid misinterpreting Chinese unwillingness to exert pressure on North Korea as a sign of selfishness, indifference or hostility. China’s leaders simply disagree with the U.S. approach and their historical experience provides sufficient cause to trust their own judgment. Recognizing that this disagreement exists and that it reflects a legitimate difference of opinion can help avoid making the North Korean problem another point of contention in an increasingly troubled U.S.–China relationship.

Posted in: Nuclear Weapons Tags: , , , , ,

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • Kestrel

    This is an excellent assessment of the situation. In addition, it gets to the heart of the matter driving the mindset of countries to develop nuclear weapons. The key point is the concern that any sovereign country would have when dealing with an increasingly aggressive policy of coercion by the US and international community. No country wants to be relegated to role of a vassal — especially within an environment where powerful countries claim the right to preemptively strike or sanction those that might pose a threat or even a perceived future threat. Most countries would feel compelled to have or develop capabilities that would protect them from being manipulated through this intimidation. Increasingly more aggressive economic sanctions and threats serve only to further NK’s resolve to have the means to ensure and maintain their sovereignty. More proliferation is the natural outcome of a foreign policy which uses force and intimidation as its primary tool for compliance.