Angry Chinese Blogger
 |
 |
Angry Chinese Blogger:
The news and views about China that the big media can't, or won't, tell you The is no single truth Menu: Home |
|
Entries By Country
   |
China to America – 'We will choose our friends as we see fit'
«
H E
»
News and Politics :: Sino-American :: Human rights and personal freedoms :: Sino-N/SKorea :: News and Perspectives ::
email
posted Saturday, 5 November 2005
There is an old saying in Asia 類は友を呼ぶ:- Similarities call out to friends, and in few places is this more evident the relationship between North Korea and China., and if recent announcements and trends hold true, this relationship looks set to evolve, into something much more solid and much more sustainable, much to the distress of nationalist elements in Washington.
Since the end of the Korean War, China has acted to support its ideological partner in terms of military assistance, civilian aid, and political recognition, in what has largely been an ‘aid provider-aid receiver’ relationship that has seen China assisting North Korea for reasons of unity and political face. However, recent moves by Beijing now show clearly that China intends to expand this relationship to a new level, much to the chagrin America, which would see North Korea isolated from the world and resigned to the status of pariah state.
During a high level press briefing, welcoming Chinese president 胡錦濤 (Hu Jintao) return from a three day ‘good will’ visit to North Korea, Wang Jiarui, the head of the International affairs department of China’s ruling central committee that China announced that China was now moving steadily to expand its dealings with North Korea to cover a broad range of area, and indicating that that Beijing soon hoped to develop the uneven Sino-North Korean relationship into a full two way economic relationship that would bring the two countries closer together than ever.
“China and the DPRK [are exchanging] views on developing domestic economy, science and technology and education.”
Wang Jiarui, Head, International Department of the Central Committee, China
Though Wang’s pledge of support comes as no surprise to even the greenest of China watchers, and mirrors numerous past statements of support for North Korea, it is also indicative of an increasing trend in Beijing’s foreign policy. Trends under which China is now increasingly seeking to transform its unproductive Cold War era relationships into economically viable relationships that see China gaining more than just face in return for its support.
In line with this change, from face to more tangible benefits, China recently moved to ‘restructure’ its relationship with Zimbabwe. Offering it assistance in the developing its economy in areas that China can either export to or import from, while investing in its mining and agriculture sectors in return for favoured access to Zimbabwe’s markets and produce.
Though still in its early stages, and currently limited in some part by the poor state of North Korea’s economy and industry, China’s future relationship with the North is likely to be based on similar footings to that which China is building in Zimbabwe, and has already been to cemented at some level with the joint stamping of a number deals to construct factories and conduct exchanges. Some of which have already been completed.
During his briefing, Wang also advised that China's intention, to take its relationship with North Korea to a new level, shouldn't be viewed 'in a narrow way'. A statement seen by some as a barely cloaked warning to the west, and in particular to the US, that China intended to substantially expand its relationship with North Korea regardless what other countries thought, and that it would brook no interference from the international community in the matter.
Coexistence but not subservience
While China has made substantial moves to integrate into the wider international community over the last decade and, as such, has moved to align itself closer to the broader international stance on a number of issues, Beijing has fiercely defended its decision to maintain an independent foreign policy. Stating that it has the indelible right to position itself in accordance with its own world view, and that it will choose its allies as it sees fit.
In this light, Beijing has continued to maintain a strong political and national relationship with North Korea in direct defiance of demands from Washington that alter its ties with the North; crafting them into a form that is either more in keeping America's own, or which do not hinder execution of America’s own foreign policy towards the isolated communist state.
And North Korea Makes Three
Although there are many long-standing differences of opinion between Beijing and Washington, China's support for North Korea has long been a particular stumbling block in Sino-American relationships. With Washington, and elements close to it, often voicing that China's continued support for its neighbor serves to artificially prop up a non viable North Korean state, and that diplomatic and economic assistance from Beijing has allowed Pyongyang to flout efforts to force it to reform through sanctions, isolation and international pressure.
As such, Washington has made not secret of its desire to hasten the demise of North Korea by putting pressure on China.
Historically, Washington's efforts have largely been centred on persuading Beijing to use its influence to 'reign in' Pyongyang, and to bring it to the negotiating table. However, in line with Washington's recent moves, under the Bush administration, towards a far more combative foreign policy, US Lawmakers, Lobbyists and think tanks have increasingly been taking the view that China is an obstacle on the path to regime change; a euphemism for the forced removal of a foreign Government that is at odds with Washington, in North Korea, and that China must be made to ‘face the consequences’ in terms of its diplomatic and economic relationship with America if it continues to support for the North in its stand-off against Washington.
As such, Wang’s announcement, that China was looking to expand its relationship with the North to include sustainable economic ties, is not likely to be well received by US conservatives, who see China’s assistance as allowing Pyongyang it to defy Washington to the detriment of America's image and North Korea’s population, and who have increasingly been voicing that China should be actively punished for its actions.
A recent example of such efforts is the proposed "Scoop Jackson National Security and Freedom Act 2005", a bill that would allow Washington punish China with economic sanctions if it continued to support Pyongyang by forcefully repatriating North Korean refugees on the grounds that doing so assists in the committal of human rights violations by Pyongyang.
Some critics of the bill have however voiced that ‘scoop Jackson’ and other similar measures may be as much about keeping China; a substantial diplomatic, economic, and ideological competitor to the US, 'down', as they are about reforming North Korea.
Consistency
Wang's statement in support for North Korea comes soon after Beijing’s lawmakers angered Washington by striking down efforts to persuade China to put stamp to the 'Proliferation Security Initiative; A controversial, US backed, non-proliferation agreement under which a signatories agree to aid Washington in the interdiction of international cargoes that are believed to contain so called 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' or other related materials and substances.
Publicly, China stated that its decision, not to join PSI, was due to concerns over the legality of the treaty stemming from the low burden of proof and disclosure that it required, and concerns that the treaty ran in contradiction to international charters that were designed to protect vessels at sea from unlawful search and seizure.
Privately however, it is believed that China's decision was heavily influenced by fears that the treaty would be used as a tool to crack down on nations that are not on friendly terms with Washington who try to obtain materials and technology that would lessen the gap between themselves and the US, or to aid others in obtaining such materials. Both of which North Korea comes at the top Washigton's list for.
Were China to have joined PSI, it could have been compelled to seize any or all North Korean cargo vessels in the vicinity of China based on Washington's 'say so' alone, or risk being labelled as a friend to international terrorism if it refused to comply.
Despite US assurances that it is not specifically targeted at any one nation, PSI was, incidentally, created shortly after a incident in which the US was forced to release a Cambodian registered ship carrying North Korean chemicals and missile components to Yemen.
Since the end of the Korean War, China has acted to support its ideological partner in terms of military assistance, civilian aid, and political recognition, in what has largely been an ‘aid provider-aid receiver’ relationship that has seen China assisting North Korea for reasons of unity and political face. However, recent moves by Beijing now show clearly that China intends to expand this relationship to a new level, much to the chagrin America, which would see North Korea isolated from the world and resigned to the status of pariah state.
During a high level press briefing, welcoming Chinese president 胡錦濤 (Hu Jintao) return from a three day ‘good will’ visit to North Korea, Wang Jiarui, the head of the International affairs department of China’s ruling central committee that China announced that China was now moving steadily to expand its dealings with North Korea to cover a broad range of area, and indicating that that Beijing soon hoped to develop the uneven Sino-North Korean relationship into a full two way economic relationship that would bring the two countries closer together than ever.
“China and the DPRK [are exchanging] views on developing domestic economy, science and technology and education.”
Wang Jiarui, Head, International Department of the Central Committee, China
Though Wang’s pledge of support comes as no surprise to even the greenest of China watchers, and mirrors numerous past statements of support for North Korea, it is also indicative of an increasing trend in Beijing’s foreign policy. Trends under which China is now increasingly seeking to transform its unproductive Cold War era relationships into economically viable relationships that see China gaining more than just face in return for its support.
In line with this change, from face to more tangible benefits, China recently moved to ‘restructure’ its relationship with Zimbabwe. Offering it assistance in the developing its economy in areas that China can either export to or import from, while investing in its mining and agriculture sectors in return for favoured access to Zimbabwe’s markets and produce.
Though still in its early stages, and currently limited in some part by the poor state of North Korea’s economy and industry, China’s future relationship with the North is likely to be based on similar footings to that which China is building in Zimbabwe, and has already been to cemented at some level with the joint stamping of a number deals to construct factories and conduct exchanges. Some of which have already been completed.
| "China not only provides the DPRK with economic aid, but also helps it build factories.” Wang Jiarui |
|
During his briefing, Wang also advised that China's intention, to take its relationship with North Korea to a new level, shouldn't be viewed 'in a narrow way'. A statement seen by some as a barely cloaked warning to the west, and in particular to the US, that China intended to substantially expand its relationship with North Korea regardless what other countries thought, and that it would brook no interference from the international community in the matter.
| "The policy can't be interpreted in a narrow way" Wang Jiarui |
|
Coexistence but not subservience
While China has made substantial moves to integrate into the wider international community over the last decade and, as such, has moved to align itself closer to the broader international stance on a number of issues, Beijing has fiercely defended its decision to maintain an independent foreign policy. Stating that it has the indelible right to position itself in accordance with its own world view, and that it will choose its allies as it sees fit.
In this light, Beijing has continued to maintain a strong political and national relationship with North Korea in direct defiance of demands from Washington that alter its ties with the North; crafting them into a form that is either more in keeping America's own, or which do not hinder execution of America’s own foreign policy towards the isolated communist state.
And North Korea Makes Three
Although there are many long-standing differences of opinion between Beijing and Washington, China's support for North Korea has long been a particular stumbling block in Sino-American relationships. With Washington, and elements close to it, often voicing that China's continued support for its neighbor serves to artificially prop up a non viable North Korean state, and that diplomatic and economic assistance from Beijing has allowed Pyongyang to flout efforts to force it to reform through sanctions, isolation and international pressure.
As such, Washington has made not secret of its desire to hasten the demise of North Korea by putting pressure on China.
| “The road to reform in Pyongyang goes through Beijing." Michael Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute (Conservative think tank). |
|
Historically, Washington's efforts have largely been centred on persuading Beijing to use its influence to 'reign in' Pyongyang, and to bring it to the negotiating table. However, in line with Washington's recent moves, under the Bush administration, towards a far more combative foreign policy, US Lawmakers, Lobbyists and think tanks have increasingly been taking the view that China is an obstacle on the path to regime change; a euphemism for the forced removal of a foreign Government that is at odds with Washington, in North Korea, and that China must be made to ‘face the consequences’ in terms of its diplomatic and economic relationship with America if it continues to support for the North in its stand-off against Washington.
As such, Wang’s announcement, that China was looking to expand its relationship with the North to include sustainable economic ties, is not likely to be well received by US conservatives, who see China’s assistance as allowing Pyongyang it to defy Washington to the detriment of America's image and North Korea’s population, and who have increasingly been voicing that China should be actively punished for its actions.
| "China could produce regime transformation in 15 minutes
if it wants to but up to now, China has not yet paid a price in terms
of its relations with the U.S for supporting Kim Jong-il's gulags,
torture and gas chambers. It is our intention more and more to force
China to choose between full support for Kim Jong-il or good relations
with the U.S. We are going to work very hard to say that China can't
have both." Michael Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute (Conservative think tank). |
|
A recent example of such efforts is the proposed "Scoop Jackson National Security and Freedom Act 2005", a bill that would allow Washington punish China with economic sanctions if it continued to support Pyongyang by forcefully repatriating North Korean refugees on the grounds that doing so assists in the committal of human rights violations by Pyongyang.
| "One point on which everyone increasingly agrees is that
China must be held accountable for human rights violations of Pyongyang
regime" Michael Horowitz, Hudson Institute, US |
|
Some critics of the bill have however voiced that ‘scoop Jackson’ and other similar measures may be as much about keeping China; a substantial diplomatic, economic, and ideological competitor to the US, 'down', as they are about reforming North Korea.
Consistency
Wang's statement in support for North Korea comes soon after Beijing’s lawmakers angered Washington by striking down efforts to persuade China to put stamp to the 'Proliferation Security Initiative; A controversial, US backed, non-proliferation agreement under which a signatories agree to aid Washington in the interdiction of international cargoes that are believed to contain so called 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' or other related materials and substances.
Publicly, China stated that its decision, not to join PSI, was due to concerns over the legality of the treaty stemming from the low burden of proof and disclosure that it required, and concerns that the treaty ran in contradiction to international charters that were designed to protect vessels at sea from unlawful search and seizure.
| 'The PSI has so far failed to completely exclude the
possibility of interdiction operations beyond the framework of current
international law; that is where China and other countries concerned
lies, as well as the major reason why those countries have not joined
the PSI. We hope the participating countries to PSI will seriously take
into consideration these concerns and act with caution,' Zhang Yan, director-general of the Department of Arms Control and Disarmament within the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. |
|
Privately however, it is believed that China's decision was heavily influenced by fears that the treaty would be used as a tool to crack down on nations that are not on friendly terms with Washington who try to obtain materials and technology that would lessen the gap between themselves and the US, or to aid others in obtaining such materials. Both of which North Korea comes at the top Washigton's list for.
Were China to have joined PSI, it could have been compelled to seize any or all North Korean cargo vessels in the vicinity of China based on Washington's 'say so' alone, or risk being labelled as a friend to international terrorism if it refused to comply.
Despite US assurances that it is not specifically targeted at any one nation, PSI was, incidentally, created shortly after a incident in which the US was forced to release a Cambodian registered ship carrying North Korean chemicals and missile components to Yemen.
| "we had no legal basis to seize the cargo" Ari Fleischer, White House spokesperson |
|
View Comments/Add a Comment (12)
1. sun bin left...
Monday, 7 November 2005 3:08 am :: http://sun-bin.blogspot.com
a few things
2. The Angry Chinese Blogger left...
Monday, 7 November 2005 5:04 pm
sun bin
3. sun bin left...
Tuesday, 8 November 2005 6:54 am :: http://sun-bin.blogspot.com
yes, china and US have different objectives on NK, and this will not
change.
4. ACB left...
Tuesday, 8 November 2005 4:21 pm :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
While North Korea might not collapse from famine alone, it is not sufferig
from famine alone.
5. sun bin left...
Thursday, 10 November 2005 3:25 pm :: http://sun-bin.blogspot.com
The problem of stopping Chinese aids is that it will NOT affect the
privileged class/KIm JI clique.
It would only be the poor who suffer,
and as you said, ecological disaster.
6. ACB left...
Thursday, 10 November 2005 4:39 pm :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
I think that that is exactly what Washington want. If the North Korean
people are issolated and are ground into the dirt it will be far easier for
the US to say that it is saving them and they will (at least in
Washington's mind) be far more accepting to the idea of US intervention.
7. Achilles left...
Sunday, 13 November 2005 10:57 am :: http://achilles.blog-city.com
Of course we want to isolate North Korea so it will collapse. Kim Jong-il
is a cruel tyrant. He is the reason North Koreans suffer. Americans do
like to see people suffer. Many humanitarian groups say North Korea is the
MOST repressed country in the world. Americans do not want to save North
Koreans (although no one else seems to care), so much as we would like them
to save themselves.
8. ACB left...
Sunday, 13 November 2005 6:12 pm :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
While I share your view that Kim is a tyrant and that he has brought great
suffering to the people of North Korea, and so sould be perged, I disagree
strongly with anybody who wants to change things by making North Korea
'collapse'.
9. Brian left...
Monday, 14 November 2005 12:16 am :: http://www.brianmathes.com/blog
Oh come on man, if the world learned anything from Clinton and Albright's
Agreed Framework in the last decade, it was only that the North Korean
government only plays diplomacy when it needs something. Even then, it is
more extortion than diplomacy. The North has its own agenda and reform is
not on it.
10. ACB left...
Monday, 14 November 2005 1:10 am :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
OK, what exactly do you propose is to be done?
11. Achilles left...
Monday, 14 November 2005 12:24 pm :: http://achilles.blog-city.com
ACB,
12. Ming left...
Wednesday, 30 November 2005 3:34 pm
Sanction will not work it only kills more poor Koreans. Invasion would not
work either, look at Iraq.
Maybe kill Kim and his loyal followers might bring about changes in
leadership and hopefully it would change the dire situation on N Korea.