By Tong Kim
The Washington summit between President Barack Obama of the United States and President Hu Jintao of China on Jan. 19, regardless of U.S. intention, publicly marked the beginning of an era of shared influence, leadership and responsibility by the G2 superpowers over complex regional issues and challenges in Asia.
Their cooperation on global affairs would also affect all the nations of the world, which were never interdependent on each other so much before in history. The symbolic frame of agreement coming out of the summit was mutual commitments by the United States and China to cooperate on ``a wide range of security, economic, social, energy, and environmental issues … to promote peace, stability, prosperity, and the wellbeing of people throughout the world.”
Of course, the major thrust of discussion at the summit was focused on how to address trade imbalances that affect jobs in the United States. The United States had an estimated trade deficit of $181 billion with China for 2010, while the United States exports more than $100 billion a year in goods and services. The United States argues the undervalued Chinese currency is largely the cause of the imbalance, but China does not accept this claim.
Hu pledged to work for a more balanced trade, through strengthening intellectual property rights protection for American software, assuring competitive U.S. participation in China’s government procurement programs, and expanding market access for U.S. goods and agricultural products. China is also committed to expanding its domestic market and to promote currency exchange rate reform. During the summit the United States and China also announced a $45 billion deal to import U.S. products. To these Chinese commitments, the American business community showed a largely positive response, albeit that there are still contentious issues not fully addressed.
Handling the issue of human rights in China was a touchy issue for both sides. It is an important political issue in the United States, which President Obama had to deal with upfront. Many Americans believe the United States should press China to improve the treatment of its people. Protests against China’s imprisonment of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner is only one example of American concerns about the human rights situation in China.
In the joint summit statement, ``the United States stressed that the promotion of human rights and democracy is an important part of its foreign policy. China stressed that there should be no interference in any country’s internal affairs and its people have the right to choose their own path…” At the joint press conference, Hu said China respects ``the universality of human rights” but also conceded that ``a lot still needs to be done in China, in terms of human rights.” Hu also said, ``… we will continue our efforts to promote democracy and the rule of law in our country. However, Hu’s comments on human rights were not reported in China.
Aside from these two central issues ― trade and human rights, the Korean Peninsula was a high priority on the summit agenda, in which Koreans of both sides were most interested. There were concerns among South Koreans at least that the summit might determine the direction of inter-Korean relations and change their position on the six-party talks.
As I predicted in the previous edition of this column two weeks ago, the Obama-Hu summit did not produce an agreement on any specific set of conditions for the resumption of the multilateral talks. The joint statement highlights the U.S.-Chinese agreement on the important of ``maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula,” while expressing ``concerns over heightened tensions triggered by recent development.”
The 41-point statement made no direct mention of the sinking of the ship the Cheonan or the North Korean shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, for which South Korea had demanded North Korea’s responsibility as a precondition to any serious dialogue. In the joint statement China agreed on the U.S. position that ``an improvement in North-South relations” through ``sincere and constructive inter-Korean dialogue is an essential step” for the multilateral talks.
The statement also expressed concern regarding the North’s uranium enrichment program, an issue China had never acknowledged before. The United States and China called for ``concrete and effective steps” to achieve denuclearization as agreed in the 9/19 Joint Statement of 2005. Both sides also agreed on the ``necessary steps” for an early resumption of the six-party talks, without specifying what those steps are.
The United States, with the support of South Korea and Japan, had insisted that the North must stop committing provocative acts and show the seriousness of its commitment to denuclearization by its actions, which would include suspending uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities, an invitation to IAEA inspection, and a moratorium on nuclear and missile tests.
The joint statement has reconfirmed the obvious differences between Washington and Beijing regarding North Korea. What we know from the view of Chinese experts is: (1) China wants stability in the region, (2) it does not want the collapse of North Korea, (3) it does not believe North Korea’s nukes are aimed at China, and (4) the six-party talks provide as a minimum a useful forum to diffuse tension and manage stability and peace on the peninsula.
Obama took advantage of the press avail to supplement what he could not have Hu agree on for inclusion in the joint statement. For example, Obama said, ``We agreed that North Korea must avoid further provocations. I also said that North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile program is increasingly a direct threat to the security of the United States and its allies.” Then he added that “the international community must clearly state that North Korea’s uranium enrichment program is in violation of North Korea’s commitments and international obligations.” This part of the press statement was pleasing to the South Korean ear, as President Lee Myung-bak had asked for a review of the issue at the United Nations.
It is also interesting to note a New York Times story of Jan. 20, which reported Obama warned Hu that ``if China did not step up its pressure on North Korea, the United States would have to redeploy its forces in Asia” against North Korean threats, a development that would be detrimental to China’s strategic interest in maintaining the stable status quo on the Korean Peninsula. The unidentified administration source for the story claimed that this pressure on the Chinese leader ``opened the door to a resumption of dialogue between North and South Korea.”
The White House spokesman took credit for the North Korean proposal for inter-Korean military talks as a positive spin-off from the Sino-American summit. The Nelson Report, which provides good insights and interesting comments on U.S.-Korea issues, said in its Jan. 20 edition that China had warned North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, ``If you start a war, we won’t be with you.” North Korea’s latest charm offensive, in my view, while it may have been influenced by the power relationship of the United States and China, stems more from their broader strategic calculations ― including the needs to stabilize the succession process and to improve economic difficulties to feed the people.
It remains to be seen how or whether the United States and China will carry out their summit commitments, how they will impact the future of the Korean Peninsula. What’s your take?
Tong Kim is a research professor with the Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He can be reached at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.