Lively Debate on Korean Peninsula Issues

This year’s forum brought together 21 delegates from Korea, headed by Korea Foundation President Kim Byung-kook, and 15 delegates from China, led by Zhu Lilan, a senior advisor to the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs (CPIFA). The Korean delegation was comprised of specialists from various fields who have significant experience in Chinese affairs and a good command of Chinese. In contrast, about 60 percent of the Chinese delegates were women and relatively younger than their Korean counterparts. Closely observing the Chinese delegates, I noticed they were eagerly writint down all remarks made throughout the sessions.

The forum consisted of four sessions held on July 28 and 29. The first session focused on diplomacy and security; there was a lively debate about the political situation surrounding the Korean Peninsula. Kim Heung-kyu, a professor at the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy of Sungshin Women’s University, expressed a negative view on the possibility of North Korea abandoning its nuclear program, and called for South Korea to shift its diplomatic approach toward China from “alliance with the U.S. and communication with China” to “alliance with both the U.S. and China.” Yu Shaohua, a senior researcher at the China Institute of International Studies, discussed major pending issues, such as the six-party nuclear talks and Sino-North Korean relations, but without providing specific opinions.

With regard to diplomatic and security issues, both sides seemed to have much to say. Rep. Shin Nak-kyun and I asked: “China is in the position to exercise influence on North Korea in many ways, but it is not pressing the North to give up its nuclear weapons for the sake of peace on the Korean Peninsula. Why?” Korean media groups have also called on China to play a more aggressive role in the six-party negotiations to promote peace on the peninsula. However, quite disappointingly, Chinese delegates responded in unison: “China values peaceful relations with its neighbors, but it has no influence over North Korea.”
Further, Prof. Cho Soo-sung of Keimyung University said: “In the initial stages of Korea-China diplomatic relations, Chinese people were generally eager to approach Koreans but now that China has advanced to the ranks of the so-called G2, they tend to look down on Korea. However, if they think it is in their national interests, the Chinese people will take actions on their own to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue without any prodding from South Korea.”

Prerequisites for Mutual Growth

The second session discussed matters related to non-traditional security threats. First, the session heard a presentation on “Korea-China Cooperation for National Disasters and Atomic Energy Development.” Then, Lee Jin-ho, director of the International Cooperation and Coordination Department at the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, gave an overview of the Fukushima nuclear power plant crisis, along with outlining a possible cooperative system between Korea and China in the event of a similar incident. As a matter of fact, China has a number of nuclear power plants in its east coast region, which faces the Yellow Sea. An accident at one of these power plants would have a direct impact on Korea. Therefore, a closely coordinated system should be maintained between the two countries to prepare for such a possibility.

The third session dealt with social and cultural areas. In his presentation on “The Future of Asian-style Education,” Prof. Moon Woo-sik of Seoul National University suggested that Korea, China and Japan operate a joint academic program, “Campus Asia,” which would be similar to the European region’s student exchange program, known as “Erasmus Programme.” Thereafter, Bi Shumin, vice-chairman of the Beijing Writers Association, explained similar programs through cases of different universities around the world. I know about the Erasmus Programme, and I believe that the three East Asian nations should strategically try to boost the exchange of graduate students among themselves. While European nations smoothly move toward unity in spite of their experiences in the two world wars, it is regrettable that Korea, China and Japan remain in conflict with one another over historical and territorial issues. The three nations should earnestly try to improve their relations.

At the last session on economic issues, Dr. Han Woo-duck, deputy director of the China Institute of the JoongAng Ilbo, made a presentation on the economic and financial cooperation between Korea and China. Dr. Han assessed that while Korea and China are important trading partners for each other, their investment in each other’s capital market remains inactive. In particular, when Dr. Han compared the capital exchange between the two countries to “dances with wolves,” many Chinese delegates asked him questions in a gesture to protest his viewpoint. However, Dr. Han smoothly concluded his presentation by saying, “Well, it seems I have succeeded in attracting your attention to this issue at the least.” Meanwhile, Xu Changwen, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation affiliated with China’s Commerce Ministry, emphasized the need to conclude a Korea-China free trade agreement (FTA) to invigorate economic exchange between the two countries.

New Perspective

Basically, I share the view of other delegates from both sides that the Korea-China Forum for the Future does not necessarily have to forge an agreement on any particular issue. I believe the forum’s value lies mostly in bringing the two sides together so both can better understand each other’s thoughts and positions, as suggested by the old axiom, “gu-dong-jon-i,” meaning “putting aside minor differences for the greater cause,” or “agreeing to disagree.” During the forum, I could see clear differences between Korea and China in three aspects: their views on China’s role in building lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula, bilateral cooperation in the capital market compared to “dances with wolves,” and the composition of the delegations to the gathering. But both sides appeared to be close enough to a consensus regarding most other issues.

Lastly, I would like to mention what I noticed personally. When I met Gao Haorong, head of the Seoul bureau of the Xinhua News Agency, I said to him, “China seems to have a policy of fostering journalists who specialize in Korean issues.” Then he said, “Few at Xinhua speak Korean. So, one correspondent covers both Pyongyang and Seoul.” This was a surprise to me, but from his statement, I could feel I found something new about the Chinese people. One thing regrettable was that, due to language barriers, we could not fully communicate with one another outside of the working sessions. I wished we were more fluent in each other’s language so we could talk to one another without the help of interpreters.

Seol Won-tae Senior Reporter, The Kyunghyang Daily News