China still not confident partner to US

By Heo Mane

The U.S. and China have so far contributed to long lip service rather than concrete actions in pushing both bilateral and global cooperation forward. The former has endeavored to maintain its traditional leadership in world affairs, while the latter has strived to achieve economic, political, and military ranking.

This means that the two super countries have been at odds with each other in trade imbalances, currency manipulation, the human rights record in China, an arms race, nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and the international financial crisis.

President Barack Obama and White House officials outwardly seem happy to have concluded a $19 billion contract for the purchase of 200 Boeing aircraft, with other commercial deals. These deals will not, however, reinvigorate the U.S. economy and reduce unemployment.

They will do little to correct the long accumulated U.S. trade deficit, either. On the other hand, the Sino-American summit served as a good venue for Washington to criticize China's human rights record apparently targeting its refusal to allow jailed dissident Liu Xiaobo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and the repression of the Tibetans and their spiritual leader Dalai Lama.

A Republican, a long critic of the Chinese government called President Hu Jintao an oppressor, and he protested why the U.S. welcomed so heartily the leader of a “monster-like” government. However, the summit was used to demonstrate the fundamental differences in values and systems between Washington and Beijing.

Three lawmakers did not join the state dinner hosted by President Obama to protest Chinese authority and its human rights violations.

What really matters to South Korea is how to achieve a swift denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It is, therefore, fortunate that the U.S. and China have agreed to counter violent extremism, prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, end extreme poverty and effectively respond to climate change.

Of these agreements, what struck me most was the decision to establish a Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security. The move aims, among other things, to build a world without nuclear weapons. The two giant countries have agreed to emphasize the necessity of the nuclear nonproliferation system.

In this context, the setting-up of the center can be comparable to the Helsinki Final Act that has continued to provide for European security with European countries themselves voluntarily creating an environment capable of promoting a European identity amid Cold War tensions.

In addition, they have reconfirmed their support for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Nuclear Cutoff Treaty. It is thus anticipated that these reconfirmations will help deter North Korean nuclear development, with the recently revealed uranium enrichment program at an earlier date and eventually build a nuclear-free peninsula.

Nevertheless, these accords still lack concrete actions to stop the nuclear development process in North Korea, even though Obama and Hu have urged South and North Korea to resume inter-Korean dialogue, as well as expressed concerns about the uranium enrichment program in particular.

Viewed from a Korean standpoint, the Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security in China will most probably mean little if it fails to first dismantle Pyongyang's nuclear facilities and uranium enrichment program.

Lip services on these issues will drag on between South and North Korea on the one hand, and the U.S. and North Korea on the other, or probably in the six-party talks which will eventually be held again.

Following the bilateral summit, China is obliged to make intensive efforts to create lasting peace and security on the peninsula. Such peace and security comes only when Beijing persuades Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear and uranium development programs.

In a nutshell, China will not be a confident strategic partner to the U.S. in the global issues, because it does not share truly with its partner the same basic values such as human rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion to name but a few.

Despite the pompous ceremony welcoming Hu’s state visit, the two leaders were confined to barely reconfirm the principle of mutual respect even amid these differences for future, sustainable cooperation.

Heo Mane is president of the Korea-EU Forum. He can be reached at mane398@naver.com. The views expressed in the above article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial policy of The Korea Times.