The six nation talks to negotiate the North Korean nuclear crisis have concluded in Beijing. The negotiating parties, the US, North Korea, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia agreed to work towards a Korean peninsula free of nuclear arms and decided to meet again within two months. Both the US and North Korea stood to gain from this multilateral format and the involvement of international interlocutors. The US displeasure with North Korea’s nuclear program was supported by the concern of the international community about nuclear proliferation; on the other hand, North Korea has gained an advantage by demanding a non-aggressive US policy and this was supported the other nations involved in the talks. The multilateral format has, however, been criticized as being “too unwieldy” by Jack Pritchard, a Korean affairs expert and Washington’s main link with North Korean U.N. mission. He resigned last month from the State Department citing policy differences with the Bush administration. The US and North Korea have also had bilateral talks on the sidelines of the six nation talks.

Further progress has been affected by aggressive statements by both sides after the talks concluded. North Korea has accused the US of not changing its hostile policy towards the DPRK. The official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, People’s Daily, reported that the North Korean Ambassador to Russia, Perk Ui Chun said last week that the DPRK does not see any sense in further multilateral talks on the nuclear problem as it is only interested in disarming North Korea and not ensuring its security.  

On the other hand, the Bush administration claims that the North Korean representative at the talks, Deputy Foreign Minister, Kim Yong Il, had told diplomats in Beijing that North Korea planned to declare itself as a nuclear power, and could test an atomic bomb in the near future to prove itself.  A week after the talks, a South Korean newspaper, Chosun Ilbo, quoted an unidentified government official as saying that North Korea has developed a long range ballistic missile capable of attacking Japan and US territories in Guam. However, the dominant feeling in the six nation group is that despite misgivings on both sides, the US and DPRK would continue the negotiating process.

China’s constructive role in the negotiations has been appreciated by the US and other countries in the Asia-Pacific, including Australia.  China has come across as a responsible nuclear weapons state genuinely interested in preserving peace in the region. China’s sustained involvement in these negotiations since the crisis broke out in October last year is worth noting.  Before hosting the six-nation talks, China held tripartite talks with North Korea and the US in April this year, and urged both parties to come to the negotiating table. What are China’s interests in playing peace broker during this crisis?

Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is a major goal for Beijing in this crisis. The Chinese believe this dispute is a remnant of the Cold War with the two Koreas pitted against each other by bigger powers.  China has no interest in pursuing a confrontationist policy against the US and would rather concentrate on building a mutually beneficial economic relationship. At the same time, China is interested in altering the strategic equation on the Korean peninsula to its advantage by creating a peaceful environment in Northeast Asia. A politically isolated and economically dependant North Korea  pursuing a program for making weapons of mass destruction would be a drain China’s political and economic capital. On the other hand, a nuclear free Korean peninsula and a politically engaged and economically open North Korea would provide Beijing a political ally and a sustained market for Chinese goods and capital and, in time, lead to the withdrawal of the US nuclear umbrella. 

However, China’s sustained involvement in this crisis does not mean that it is becoming a major player in global affairs and will participate more actively in the resolution of international disputes. Chinese interests were directly involved in this crisis as North Korea is a buffer state which Beijing would like to convert into a zone of economic opportunity for itself. Any destabilization on the Korean peninsula would lead to greater US presence in the region, intensifying Chinese apprehensions about US unilateralism and military power. Therefore, it would be simplistic to assume there would be greater Chinese involvement in global affairs as China does not possess the military wherewithal to play that role. Besides, the Chinese leadership does not want to deflect attention from its program of economic development, which is China’s key priority for the coming decade.

While China continues to play a constructive role in resolving this crisis, the uncompromising policies of the US and North Korea will ensure that China has its job cut out for taking these negotiations forward towards a resolution of the crisis to the satisfaction of both sides.