Last month, China’s Global Times published a pretty curious article titled “Can Beijing shape a new Northeast Asia order?”.
According to the author, the “political turbulence” observed recently in Northeast Asia can be attributed to such factors as the absence of clarity in the Asian policy of the US, the aggravation of Japan-China relations (due to territorial disputes and a number of historic topics that were brought back to light), the deterioration of bilateral relations between China and South Korea that occurred when the latter allowed Washington to deploy the THAAD missile defense system in its territory, and finally, the nuclear tests carried out by the DPRK.
The main issue discussed in the article can be formulated roughly like this: Does China have to wait until the world’s leading player (the United States) has a clear vision of its approach to Asia, or should Beijing start acting on its own with the assistance of Japan and the Republic of Korea?
The author seems to be convinced that the second option seems advantageous, and it should be noted that Beijing has been sending signals to Washington that China doesn’t object to the US joining its efforts with local players in order to seek solutions to a great many problems in the Asia-Pacific region in general and in Northeast Asia in particular.
It is curious that the article is illustrated with a picture where two gentlemen and a lady, symbolically representing China, Japan and South Korea are holding letters that form the acronym, FTA (Free Trade Agreement). The picture is clearly showing to what the author attributes his hopes on the formation of a “new order” in Northeast Asia.
We are talking about the transition from mere discussions to actual steps in the formation of a tripartite agreement on free trade between China, Japan and South Korea. Generally speaking, the idea is correct and it has been discussed in NEO: joint activities and attempts to do something useful should overshadow the recent political problems, including those historic issues that have recently been brought to life. Yet, we cannot hope for their complete disappearance from the regional game table. Moreover, the political problems are now an obstacle to the conclusion of the Japan-China-South Korea agreement. So we have to start with at least lowering the degree of tensions in Northeast Asia, which is impossible without the participation of the United States, Russia and North Korea.
At the same time, Pyongyang continues to play the role of a regional “enfant terrible”, which, however, should not be a reason for counterproductive attempts to exclude the DPRK from the process of regional problem solving.
Thus, we once again witness the emergence of the Big Six states, which in the past decade have been trying to solve the so-called “North Korean missile and nuclear issue.”
It would appear that the inadequate task that the Big Six has set in front of it has predetermined its failure. The key to the “Korean problem” lies in addressing the fundamental problem of the division of Korea in 1945 along the 38th parallel, which was then fixed in place at the outcome of the 1950-1953 Korean War. To solve the problem it is imperative to develop a road map that would allow the gradual reunification of Korea, even though this process can take some time. How this future united Korean state is going to look it’s up for Koreans themselves to decide. As for the neutral, non-nuclear status of a future Korea (providing for the absence of any foreign troops in its territory), it must be agreed upon by the members of the Big Six and approved of by the United Nations.
Today, such an approach to the “Korean problem” seems almost utopian due to antagonizing positions occupied by major regional players. For them, the Korean peninsula is just another point of contention. No less urgent is the situation in the South China Sea. After a prolonged relatively calm period, we are witnessing a political volcano once again emerging from beneath the surface of the Taiwan Strait.
Therefore, the prospect of implementing new joint economic projects in the region looks utopian as well. Japan-China relations look especially alarming, and are gradually moving to the center of all processes in Northeast Asia and in the Asia-Pacific region as a whole.
The most recent evidence of the troubled state of these relation was a scandal that erupted when the the National Institute for Defense Studies of the Japanese Ministry of Defense released a study on the dynamics of China-Taiwan relations.
The evolution of these relations is studied in retrospect, since 1949, when mainland China was turned into the People’s Republic of China, and the remnants of the defeated Kuomintangs were evacuated to Taiwan. Up until the early 70s the Kuomintang insisted that this island is “the only legitimate Republic of China.”
The study carried out by a number Japanese authors ( who do not express the views of the government and the Ministry of Defense of Japan, as well as the Institute, which was explicitly stated in the introduction that prefaces the study) does deserve some careful analysis and criticism for its flaws. Yet, it became the reason for a public statement made by China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson.
As you can understand, the Chinese Foreign Ministry did not accept the fact that Japan is researching a very sensitive problem to Beijing, which, as it argues is “purely domestic in its nature”, just like the presentation of Beijing and Taipei as “parallel sides.”
However, there’s some positive indicators to be observed amid Japan-China relations. They have been brought around by a fundamentally new situation, which is now forming in the Asia-Pacific region after the decision of the new US administration to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The media of both China and Japan are making cautious assumptions about the possibility of an integration project “without the United States” to be brought to light, but with the participation of some other economies. However, we can not exclude the possibility that the US, after trying to pursue cooperation in bilateral formats will once again turn to more “globalist” ideas.
In any case, it should be noted that any large-scale and long-term joint economic projects are impossible without the sincere desire of all regional players to stop competing within a zero sum context.
An attempt to solve the “Korean problem” could become the starting point for the formation of a climate of confidence and security in Northeast Asia (as well as in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea). But, unfortunately, all we witness for now on the Korean Peninsula is more saber-rattling.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”