Chinese perspectives on Korea-US summit

By Lee Seong-hyon

The first question asked at a Chinese Foreign Ministry press conference on May 24, posted on the ministry's website, was about the South Korea-U.S. summit. A foreign correspondent pointed out that the joint statement from the South Korea-U.S. summit contained the contents of strengthening the bilateral alliance and asked about China's position.

In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said that China “has taken notice” (zhuyi) of the contents of the ROK-U.S. joint statement and “expresses concern” (biaoshi guanqie). That's a surprisingly measured reaction.

Regarding the first-ever reference to the Taiwan issue in a ROK-U.S. joint statement, the foreign ministry spokesman said, “The Taiwan issue is completely within China's internal affairs.” That was a standard statement. He didn't use stronger words, such as “interference” (ganshe) in internal affairs.

China's measured reaction was evident when compared to the language used by China in conflicts with other countries. For example, when it was at loggerheads with the U.S. over the Hong Kong issue, the Chinese foreign ministry described Washington as being “crazy” and said it “expresses intense anger,” adding that the U.S. action was a “grave interference in internal affairs” (Dec. 8, 2020).

Regarding the Taiwan issue, China issued the warning, “Don't play with fire,” but did not directly mention South Korea. Instead, China referred to South Korea as a “related country” (youguan guojia).

From an analytical point of view, the question to be asked should focus on why China has shown such a “moderate” response. In particular, this is because of the view that the Moon Jae-in administration has made a dramatic shift to an “anti-China policy” timed with the South Korea-U.S. summit.

The joint statement contained the lifting of South Korea's missile range limit, a sensitive issue for China. But it also contained signature wording, such as the Indo-Pacific, freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, and the Quad ― expressions seen as the U.S. strategy to contain China.

The first-ever reference to the Taiwan issue in a South Korea-U.S. joint statement came as a surprise to many. China regards it as an untouchable “core interest.” In addition, the joint statement also specified that South Korea, together with the U.S., “supports” the transparent investigation into the cause of COVID-19. Australia previously called for it. And it ruined the relationship between Australia and China, after the latter reacted angrily and started economic and social retaliation against Canberra.

As such, if you look at the contents of the joint statement alone, it can be said that the summit contains a message that South Korea has clearly turned toward the U.S. side. If so, that would mark Seoul's dramatic departure from its balancing act between Washington and Beijing.

A former foreign ministry official said, "I was very surprised that the liberal Moon Jae-in administration's joint statement with the United States was filled with contents that were much closer to the United States than to China. More so than any other conservative government in history."

However, just over two months ago, South Korea's Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong said, “The U.S. and China are never a matter of choosing one over the other.” (March 31. “We will harmoniously develop South Korea-China relations based on the Korea-U.S. alliance.” Then, what caused the abrupt change?

Indeed, there are questions about Seoul's sudden change of position, which has decisively turned “pro-American.” Even though Washington also evaluated the South Korea-U.S. summit as a success overall, there seems to be some curiosity as to whether this may be a “tactical adjustment” mindful of South Korea's domestic politics, such as the upcoming presidential election. China's “moderate” reaction should not be irrelevant from this context.

In the end, both China and the United States will pay attention to whether the Moon administration would actually implement the joint statement. For the past four years, Washington widely viewed that the Moon government was inching toward China.

Despite the memorable summit that bolstered the South Korea-U.S. alliance, Washington commentator Gordon Chang called President Moon Jae-in "the most anti-American president in South Korea's history" (May 24, The Hill). This reminds us of the importance of building further trust between the two countries even after the successful summit.

Lee Seong-hyon, Ph.D. (sunnybbsfs@gmail.com), is ICAS fellow in Washington and the author of the book, "The U.S.-China Competition: Who Will Rule the World?" (2019).