Park’s abrupt offer for 5-way talks

China has expressed objection as many as twice in a matter of just 10 days to President Park Geun-hye’s plans to address the North Korean nuclear issue. When President Park mentioned Friday "efforts to hold five-way talks excluding North Korea," Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei claimed “early resumption of the six-way talks should be held,” effectively rejecting Park’s suggestion. Earlier on December 13, when Park mentioned the deployment of THAAD (in South Korea) by saying, “We will continuously consider the measure in light of our national security and interest,” Hong also expressed objection, saying, “We hope that the issue is addressed cautiously.” The fact that Chinese foreign ministry spokesman's negative commentaries right after President Park’s remarks urging Beijing to take proactive efforts to sanction Pyongyang is clear testament to the actual current situation of South Korea-China relations.

Park’s five-way talks have been apparently suggested without Seoul’s adequate consultations with the countries concerned. The presidential office Cheong Wa Dae has downplayed the meaning of five-way talks by saying on Friday night, “We plan to step up pressure on the North to the extent possible through five-way consultations within the framework of six-way talks,” apparently because it was wary of Beijing’s objection. Even though the U.S. Embassy in Seoul said on Saturday that the U.S. welcomes the offer for five-way talks, but the U.S. State Department said that the North has the responsibility to take meaningful measures aimed at denuclearization and to refrain from provocations, in announcing views only based on principle. Five-way talks were a plan that Seoul discussed with the George W. Bush administration during the Lee Myung-bak administration as well but failed in the face of Beijing’s opposition. Assistance by the presidential foreign affairs and national security teams, which caused President Park to recognize it as if it were a creative solution, is also a problem.

It is natural that President Park urge Beijing that seeks to safeguard Pyongyang despite the fourth nuclear test by the Stalinist country. However, since China that values honor and dignity could feel a sense of resistance and defiance in the face of open pressure from South Korea, Seoul could consider conveying President Park’s intention to President Xi Jinping through indirect channels, such as dispatch of a special envoy and delivery of Park's handwritten letter. The situation in which South Korea and China are openly in dispute could send a wrong signal to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and would not be beneficial to anyone.

As soon as sanctions against Iran were lifted due to the conclusion of nuclear talks with Tehran, the Chinese president became the first foreign head of state to visit Tehran and agreed to elevate bilateral ties between their countries to those of comprehensive strategic partners. In the course of the international community’s nuclear talks with Iran, China participated in sanctions by cutting import of Iranian oil but proactively played roles as an arbitrator. U.S. President Barack Obama expressed gratitude to China for Beijing’s roles while talking with President Xi over the phone soon after the conclusion of nuclear talks with Iran in July last year. Would the international community be able to understand the same Beijing that is now taking passive, double, incompatible stances?

President Xi should demonstrate through action the seriousness of his stance of "objection to North Korea’s nuclear weapons," something he reiterated several times at South Korea-China summit talks. President Park will also need to give Beijing enough time by taking a longer perspective. Now is the time Seoul and Beijing pool wisdom to help secure peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia, rather than engage in a war of nerves.