CC BY
14POLITICAL SCIENCES
PRC'S ROLE IN ADDRESSING NORTH KOREAN ISSUE
Kashkinbayeva M.
Student of Regional Studies major, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University
Abstract
Despite two summits and historic meeting at the Korean border, the future of North Korean development in international relations is still uncertain. This article will examine the role of the People's Republic of China in addressing the DPRK's crisis as well as state that China is the only option to solve potential threats coming from the northern part of Korean peninsula.
Keywords: North Korean crisis, denuclearization, double track policy, cooperation spiral, triple alliance
Contemporary situation in Northeast Asia (NEA) is rather ambiguous. While some countries are experiencing rapid economic growth, regional integration, and globalization, other parts of NEA stand for trade-wars, territorial disputes, and an arms race undergirded by resurgent nationalism. After Second World War, unlike in Europe, Northeast Asia failed in settlement friendly relationships between countries, generating a sense of community, or creating multilateral security architecture. There were no liberal traditions in the region.
Despite its non-democratic way, some Northeast Asian countries are referred to have stable rise of economy and enjoy unprecedented integration. Pragmatic leaders of Japan (Yoshida Shigeru), South Korea (Park Ching-hee), Taiwan (Chiang Ching-kuo), and China (Deng Xiaoping) normalized relations with historic foes, ideological enemies, and strategic nemeses. Via those leaders' single-minded pursuit of economic development, territorial disputes were completely swept away, and good basis for economic cooperation was established. Moreover, the US-led alliance system provided each US ally in the region, and even China, with security that enabled the leaders to strike out on a path of economic development that they otherwise would not have been able to pursue. [1]
The only exception of those Asian "miracles" tends to be North Korea, or DPRK. For now, it has refused to join the region-wide march towards economic development and regional integration, clinging to its juche ideology, an ultra-nationalist ideology of racial purity and autarky. As DPRK shifts its focus on geopolitics and history, North Korea finds itself centerstage. By delivering near completion of its nuclear weapons, the one-time outlier is evoking global concern and shaping regional dynamics.
One of the reasons that the North Korean nuclear issue has actually provoked the most heated controversy in the international arena is a different view of the countries, directly involved in the conflict: South Korea, the USA, and People's Republic of China.
The aspirations of South Korea are very clear: the unification of the Korean peninsula is exactly under the auspices of South Korea. The problem is that North Korea, striving for the same result, takes the lead in the process. This was the reason for the hostility and bloodshed during the last 70 years.
In the short term, ROK's aspirations depend entirely on whom to ask. A group of elderly people in military uniform burning a scarecrow of a North Korean dictator in the streets of Seoul [2] has other goals than a North Korean supporter who attacked the US ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2015.
The liberal government of Moon Jae-in, who came to power after the end of a decade of conservatism, hopes to suspend the North Korean nuclear and missile tests and to establish contacts. However, at the moment it seems difficult. South Koreans feel tense over North Korean provocations, but they are considered to be less concerned about residents of other countries, but more about economic development.
In addition to allied relations with the Republic of Korea, the main interest of the United States in Northeast Asia region is the transformation of the Korean peninsula into a nuclear-free zone, which means the elimination of North Korean nuclear weapons in the near future.
The George Bush Senior's administration launched a program for the liberation of the Korean peninsula from nuclear weapons, announcing in September 1991 the withdrawal of all its tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea. A "freeze for freeze" agreement (in which Pyongyang stops missile and nuclear tests and Washington stops military exercises with South Korea) could help get both sides to the negotiating table. But even that would mark just the beginning of a thorny diplomatic process - one that would inevitably demand wrenching choices and considerable political sacrifice. [3]
The election of Donald Trump as a new US president just added fuel to the fire. With his own brand of nationalism, which envisions the US sharply taking the role of a great power trying to maximize its "national interest," Trump aggravates the growing trend in the region towards nationalist rivalry, a policy of "balance of power", and anti-Americanism. As the USA continues to get rid of its traditional role as a "rules-based" and "liberal" international order guardian, as well as the alliance system, led by the United States on which it is based, national rivalry and great power competition are increasingly becoming the order of the day.
As for North Korea, it not only does not abandon its nuclear program, but proceeds to strengthen and develop it. Therefore, it is in the interest of the US to halt
the development of the North Korean nuclear program as soon as possible, while for South Korea and Japan the issue of their own security is predominant.
Hence, the US refuses to comply with the demands of Russia and PRC on the suspension of joint US-Korean military exercises and on the withdrawal of the contingent of US troops from the ROK. The US insists that the North Korean nuclear issue is the most acute, and compared to it, inter-Korean negotiations on concluding an armistice are not so important.
According to the Observatory of Economic Complexity data, the share of China in North-Korean export destinations and import origins account for 83% and 85% respectively. Moreover, defeat of North Korea would lead to U.S. troops on China's Yalu River border.
Beijing has consistently urged world powers not to push Pyongyang too much, fearing to precipitate a leadership collapse and triggering dangerous military actions. "Once a war really happens, the result will be nothing but multiple losses. No one can become a winner," said Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in April 2017, urging the United States and North Korea to show restraint. [6]
Chinese diplomats are actively offering diplomatic solutions to resolve the crisis on the Korean peninsula. In March 2017, Wang Yi put forward a proposal for a "double down," according to which Pyongyang would freeze rocket and nuclear tests in exchange for the suspension of the annual joint military exercises of the United States and South Korea. Unfortunately, this proposal has not received adequate discussion in the US media. [7]
Chinese "Double Track" policy A more comprehensive proposal, consonant with the initiative of the Foreign Minister of PRC, was published in 2016 in an academic article of the Northeast Asia Forum magazine. [8] There was a proposal for a "double track", which stands for combination of denuclearization goal with the second track based on "the
When it comes to PRC, China regards stability on the Korean peninsula as its primary interest. [4] Its support for North Korea provides a buffer between China and democratic ROK, which is home to roughly twenty-nine thousand US troops and marines. The greatest fear for Chinese is not about nuclear weapons, but regime collapse. In other words, if there were another order in DPRK, contemporary Sino-North Korean economic relations (Figure 1) would threaten a lot.
cessation of hostilities and a peaceful treaty mechanism." The peace process can be achieved by going through four stages, described at follows:
1)at the first stage, Pyongyang's agreement to freeze its program might require some "compensation";
2)the second stage, which can take from three to five years, stipulates that the United States and South Korea should reduce or suspend military exercises, while North Korea might agree to provide international inspectors with access to its nuclear facilities and start denuclearization;
3)the third stage can take between five and eight years. This phase emphasizes denuclearization becoming irreversible, that might create conditions under which North Korea "can become a normal member of the world community";
4)the final stage can last from eight to thirteen years. During this time, Pyongyang can rethink its economic and military objectives and conclude a peace treaty.
"Cooperation Spiral" policy
Another alternative way called "Cooperation Spiral" to solve North-Korean can be applied. This decision does not focus on the internal reforms of the DPRK, but the achievement of specific strategic advantages for all parties. The spiral evolves from smaller, symbolic steps to larger compromises.
1)One of the symbolic initiatives might include the participation of the PRC, the USA, South Korea,
Figure 1. China-North Korea Trade Volume
a
c/l p
S
©
== 4
CO
s
« 3
■a
H
s- _ H 2
II
■ III
.11
China-North Korea Trade Volume
OOOOOOOOOO^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO <N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N<N
8
7
6
5
1
0
and the DPRK in joint patrols in the Yellow Sea to curb illegal fishing or search and rescue operations.
2)At the next stage, it is possible to ensure an insignificant withdrawal of US troops from the territory of the Korean peninsula and the deployment of Chinese military personnel in North Korea.
3)Once this balance sheet is established, the next step might mean the beginning of direct negotiations between the US and the DPRK, while the PRC would monitor the suspension of North Korea's nuclear tests. The freezing of nuclear tests is more likely to ensure the establishment of diplomatic relations between Washington and Pyongyang.
Together with this, the establishment of military ties between PRC and ROK might help prepare the foundation for the final deal, within which Washington can offer a substantial forces withdrawal (but not entirely) from the Korean peninsula in exchange for complete denuclearization of the DPRK under the control of PRC.
Chinese security umbrella
The "cooperation spiral" written above contains many complex steps. As an alternative to diplomats, it may be necessary to focus on the very essence of the matter. The DPRK may agree to conduct denuclearization in exchange for security guarantees. Rand Paul, the United States Senator, put forward a proposal that the PRC military can return to the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between two Koreas, which they left in the late 1950s. 'For the Korean standoff and North Korean nuclear bellicosity, I offer this potential solution: invite China to be part of an international force to monitor the Demilitarized Zone in exchange for cessation and dismantling of North Korea's nuclear program,9' said a US Senator from Kentucky.
Chinese scholars came to a harmonious solution. Wang Xiobao blames Chinese policies, at least partially, in the North Korea nuclear crisis. Both PRC and Russia did not base forces in North Korea, nor did they extend a nuclear protective umbrella over North Korea. This caused North Korea to more energetically develop an independent nuclear force, and so it is not dependent on alliance relations for its security.10 Taking up a similar thesis as Wang Xiaobo mentioned above, Yan Xue-tong considers the possibility of PRC to extend nuclear security guarantees if DPRK agrees for denuclearization. Along with Yan, Dai Sui agrees that China (together with Russia) should offer a nuclear umbrella to North Korea. However, the problem with this decision is that Pyongyang may not trust PRC in such a way as to agree to the expansion of the Chinese "security umbrella".
"Triple Alliance" and Japanese economic "carrot"
North Korea could receive additional security guarantees if another major military power, namely Russia, joined the PRC. Could Chinese J-10 fighter air-crafts and Russian Bastion coastal missile systems deployed on the territory of the DPRK provide necessary security guarantees so that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un agreed to denuclearize? The proposal for a "triple alliance" could become more attractive to the DPRK if Japan offered certain economic assistance.
What if Tokyo agrees to rebuild North Korea's energy infrastructure, its healthcare system or its transport infrastructure? Undoubtedly, the richest country in the region could do much to help the poorest country in Northeast Asia if Pyongyang agreed to denuclearization. In Tokyo, they should give up the "stick" against North Korea and start actively promoting the economic "carrot". At least, this could convince North Korea to suspend nuclear tests.
Summary
After WWII, as in the rest of the world, the Northeast Asia countries were experiencing a crisis in all areas, from culture and ending with politics. The traditional feature of all Asian countries, inherent in them primordially, was nationalism. However, since the beginning of the Cold War, this feature had become an obstacle to economic growth. The fastest growing region at that time - Europe - threw off the idea of national superiority, choosing the path of liberalization and integration with other countries experiencing war time woes. The same "democratic" way was also chosen by the Asian countries through trial and error. In the case of Northeast Asia, the pragmatic leaders combined the national ideology of their countries and the challenges of that time, creating a solid foundation for the transformation of these failed countries into dynamically developing ones. And as a proof, for today, it is the Asian region, including, mainly, North-East Asia, that attracts more and more interest from the world community.
However, modern leaders - Abe Shinzo in Japan, Xi Jinping in China, Tsai Ing-wen in Taiwan, Moon Jae-in in the Republic of Korea - are renewing their traditional values in the face of nationalism, but more sensibly, using it in foreign policy and national security. All these processes have been leading to successful integration, such as the annual meetings and conferences of APEC, SCO, ECO, etc. In addition, by becoming new president of the United States of, Donald Trump began to impose the idea of American nationalism and to assert that America is the most powerful country in the world. However, in my opinion, D. Trump would not establish ubiquitous domination of the US directly in such strong countries as China, Japan, or South Korea. As the main purpose in the Asian region for him is to suppress the growing power of the PRC, he chose North Korea, an outliner, through which he might have an access to all NEA countries. It is these reasons that can determine the current state of US-North Korean relations.
North Korea's problem is that, compared to other northeastern Asian countries, which had pragmatic leaders and US-led alliance and achieved significant economic growth, the DPRK remained the heir to the communist regime of the USSR. Since the original communism in the Soviet Union was half-hearted, North Korean leaders could not grasp the real essence of communism and, hence, failed in that term.
In turn, North Korea is obsessed with the idea of rallying the Korean peninsula under its auspices, when for the Republic of Korea led by the USA its own domination in the region is more important. In addition, although liberal President Moon Jae-in tried to contact friendly with his neighbor, the most important task for
the RCC is considered to be economic development. The same can be said for Taiwan, which is an "Asian tiger", so the idea of creating good relations with North Korea and pacifying it in the nuclear term is not a priority for the Republic of China.
Consequently, Russia and China are the only countries in the region that can resolve the North Korean crisis.
For the DPRK, the main principles of its economy and politics are history and geopolitics, so China is the only ally for North Korea. In addition, Russia is more interested in the development of the Far East and is currently working to improve relations with all Asian countries by conducting a multilateral policy in the region. Attempts to intervene in North Korea's affairs by the Russian Federation are more likely to destroy its still precarious position it has been working on for a long time.
So, finally, China is the only option to address North-Korean issue. Chinese diplomats are more interested in preserving the regime than in disarming the country, so they offer a number of diplomatic solutions. Beijing still hopes for the prudence of Pyongyang, as the latter should take into account the historical example of Israel and Iraq, which also focused on nuclear power. However, these countries failed in their intentions, giving a lesson for the entire global society. Therefore, in the long term, the DPRK should seek help from China, the closest neighbor in both political regime and history, not only in economic unilateral assistance, but also on the political issue.
However, many American experts believe that China and the US failed in this attempt. This can be explained by the fact that the US is more likely to resolve the issue by military means, while China pursues an ambiguous policy in the DPRK. Nevertheless, along with Russia and Japan, which have all the possibilities,
there is an opportunity to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula. As Russia is gaining greater credibility in Asia, Japan is the richest country in the region.
To sum up, China's task in addressing North Korean issue is supposed to be unambiguous policy and the rallying of countries over the solution of one common acute problem.
REFERENCES:
1. H. Chaibong Keeping Northeast Asia "Abnormal": Origins of the Liberal International Order in Northeast Asia and the New Cold War // The Asian Institute for Policy Studies, 2017
2. Kim Jong Suk Biography // Foreign Languages Publishing House Pyongyang, Korea, Juche 91 2002
3. M. Fuchs The North Korea Deal: Why Diplomacy Is Still the Best Option // The Foreign Affairs magazine, 2017
4. E. Albert The China-North Korea Relationship // Council on Foreign Relations, 2017
5. North Korea: Exports, Imports, Trade Balance, Destinations, Origins, Product Space, Complexity and Income Inequality // The Observatory of Economic Complexity, 2016
6. C. Bodeen Chinese foreign minister: No winners if Korea war breaks out // The AP News, 2017
7. L. Goldstein Follow Beijing's Lead on Defusing the Volatile North Korea Crisis // The National Interest, 2017
8. Wang Sheng, Ling Sheng-li Discussions on New Ideas of "Double Track" to Solve DPRK Nuclear Issue // The Northeast Asia Forum magazine, 2016
9. R. Paul How to Achieve Peace on the Korean Peninsula // The National Interest, 2017
10. L. Goldstein Follow Here Is What Chinese Scholars Think about the North Korea Crisis // The National Interest, 2017
THE PROBLEM OF MOTIVATION FOR POLITICAL LEADERS.
Movsesyan H.
Candidate of Political Sciences
ПРОБЛЕМА МОТИВАЦИИ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИХ ЛИДЕРОВ
Мовсесян О.
Кандидат политических наук
Abstract
The struggle for power, with all its varieties, is the generator of the development of social society. This universal motivation is inherent not only in the human world - in the animal world we constantly see this struggle for superiority, although we do not attribute motivation to power among animals, here we see a fierce struggle for leadership, for the right to be considered a leader. Power is associated with moral responsibility. It cannot be otherwise. To have power means to have very great opportunities that are not controlled by the society. The moral responsibility of a politician becomes the only criterion for control. To have power means to have the ability, often with impunity, to influence on the lives of others. Therefore, the concept of moral responsibility should be included in the concept of power.
Аннотация
Борьба за власть, со всеми ее разновидностями, является генератором развития социального общества. Эта универсальная мотивация присуща не только человеческому миру, - в животном мире мы постоянно видим эту борьбу за превосходство, хотя животным мы не приписываем мотивацию к власти, здесь мы видим ожесточенную борьбу за лидерство, за право считаться вожаком. Власть связывается с моральной
