North Korea tested a ballistic missile this morning, just one day before President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping meet for the first time.  The U.S. and China each blames the other for failing to curb North Korea’s missile and nuclear threat, and Pyongyang is testing their will to compromise. This summit is an opportunity for both leaders to commit to a serious discussion about meaningful action.

In a photo released by the North Korean government on June 23, 2016, an apparently successful launch of North Korea’s Musudan missile
Korean Central News Agency, via The New York Times

There are no easy options on North Korea.  Both the U.S. and China oppose North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs, but they disagree as to which country has the ability to stop them.  

Washington points to China’s overwhelming economic leverage over North Korea, but China insists it cannot convert that economic power into policy change without risking regime collapse.  Instead, Beijing has pressed Washington to solve the problem diplomatically.  This approach could include formal recognition of North Korea, security assurances, or an end to military exercises with South Korea. But the U.S. is unlikely to negotiate without first receiving meaningful concessions from Pyongyang.

By refusing to act, China is trying to goad the U.S. into taking the first step.  Conversely, by threatening more aggressive efforts, Washington is trying to intimidate Beijing into adopting stronger policies.

Pyongyang is unlikely to surrender its nuclear program under any conditions. But a well-designed combination of carrots and sticks offered in concert by China and the U.S. might lead to a freeze.  To implement that approach, Washington and Beijing should begin talking about the terms under which each country would be willing to enter into direct negotiations with Pyongyang, as well as discussing the possibility of more coercive diplomatic or economic measures and ideas for preventing the North Korean people from suffering further at the hands of their government.

Consider Negative Outcomes

The two countries also need to consider negative outcomes.  In the past, China has refused to hold discussions with the U.S. on contingency plans for a potential war or political crisis on the peninsula.  But both sides should start talking about what a post-war or post-collapse settlement might look like, as well as strategies to secure North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. 

All three countries are attempting to call one another’s bluff.  China halted coal imports from North Korea earlier this year and likely pressed Pyongyang not to test a missile or nuclear weapon around this week’s summit. This morning’s missile launch sends a powerful signal to Beijing about the limits of its influence. 

Trump has indicated clearly that he intends to take a tougher approach.  His recently completed North Korea policy review includes options for secondary sanctions against Chinese entities that support North Korean activities, as well as increased deterrence through enhanced missile defense in South Korea and Japan. At the same time, it de-emphasizes direct military action.

North Korea’s repeated tests—including a possible nuclear test in the coming days or weeks—dare both Washington and Beijing to take action.  Instead of waiting for the other side to make the first move or for better choices to emerge, both need to do more and increase their cooperation if they hope to halt or slow Pyongyang’s steady march toward more advanced nuclear and missile capabilities.

Related Publications

How Interactive Conflict Resolution Empowers Youth in China and Taiwan

How Interactive Conflict Resolution Empowers Youth in China and Taiwan

Friday, January 24, 2020

By: Paul Kyumin Lee

While the international community has been closely watching the violent showdown between police and protesters in Hong Kong, many are concerned that the next crisis involving China could happen with Taiwan, a longstanding partner of the United States and a beacon of democratic values in East Asia. Beijing's increasingly aggressive policy toward Taiwan, a hardening of identities on both sides of the Strait, and President Tsai Ing-wen’s recent reelection in Taipei reflect two seemingly irreconcilable core interests...

Type: Blog

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue; Youth

Xi Jinping’s Visit to Myanmar: What Are the Implications?

Xi Jinping’s Visit to Myanmar: What Are the Implications?

Thursday, January 23, 2020

By: Jason Tower; Jennifer Staats

From January 17-18, the chairman of China’s Communist Party, Xi Jinping, travelled to Myanmar to promote bilateral ties and advance construction of the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC). The visit saw the two sides commit to an ambitious economic agenda and building what China terms a “community of shared destiny.” The declarations of cooperation, however, failed to provide any clarity on how CMEC will address the countless questions and concerns that Myanmar has struggled with since its independence in 1948—issues likely to profoundly affect the two countries’ joint endeavors.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy

Amid the Central African Republic’s search for peace, Russia steps in. Is China next?

Amid the Central African Republic’s search for peace, Russia steps in. Is China next?

Thursday, December 19, 2019

By: Leslie Minney; Rachel Sullivan; Rachel Vandenbrink

The 2017 National Security Strategy refocused U.S. foreign and defense policy to address resurgent major power competition with Russia and China. In U.S. foreign policy, Africa has emerged as a frontline for this competition, as in recent years both Moscow and Beijing have sought to expand their influence and promote their interests on the continent. Nowhere is the role of major powers more apparent than in the Central African Republic (CAR), where Russia has emerged as a key power broker amid a civil war that has simmered since 2012. Despite concerns about the need to counter other major powers, the best course for U.S. policy in CAR is to not allow competition with Russia and China to distract from the fundamental priority of supporting a democratic, inclusive path to peace.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Global Policy

Strategic Implications of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

Strategic Implications of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

Monday, December 16, 2019

By: James Schwemlein

Great power politics is resurgent in South Asia today. China’s growing military ambition in the region is matched in financial terms by its Belt and Road Initiative, the largest and most advanced component of which is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. What remains unclear is how the United States should navigate the new dynamic. This report, which is based on research and consultations with experts worldwide, addresses the question of how the India-Pakistan rivalry will play into the emerging great power competition.

Type: Special Report

Economics & Environment

View All Publications