How opaque a bilateral relationship can be

YOU SANG-CHUL
The author is the head of the China Institute of the JoongAng Ilbo and CEO of China Lab.

The description that “Korea and the United States are allies, while Korea and China are partners” was popular for a while. But the current situation suggests the term “partner” is no longer used, though the alliance is still strong. The meeting between President Yoon Suk Yeol and Chinese Premier Li Qiang was held during the recent Korea-Japan-China trilateral summit. Li Qiang mentioned “partnership” once, but Yoon refrained from using the word. Has the term “partnership” — a symbol of Korea-China relations — disappeared as a relic of history?

In Chinese, a partner refers to the family that shares a meal. The concept of “partner” has been routinely used in Chinese diplomacy after the end of the Cold War. China adopted a new security perspective in 1996, based on building partnerships with other countries after dismissing the word “alliance” as an outdated concept from the Cold War. According to China, partnership has three meanings.

First, it means ending conflicts between countries and pursuing common interests, as implied by China’s old axiom, “Seeking common ground while putting differences aside.” Second, partnership means “not showing hostility to the other.” Third, it means “not targeting a third country,” which is very different from “alliance” that sets an imaginary enemy. While an alliance is legally binding, a partnership is more of a declaration. After developing its relations with Korea according to the principle, China struck its first cooperative partnership with Korea when President Kim Dae-jung visited Beijing in 1998.

Since then, the relationship has been upgraded by every new president in Korea. Under President Roh Moo-hyun in 2003, it became a comprehensive cooperative partnership, and under President Lee Myung-bak in 2008, it was upgraded to a strategic cooperative partnership. The term “strategic” has three implications. It includes not only bilateral but also regional issues; not only economic issues but also security; and not only short-term issues but also long-term discussions. But that was all.

Korea strongly complained about China’s disappointing attitude toward the Cheonan sinking and the Yeonpyeong shelling in 2010. Korea wondered, “Is this really partnership?” During the Park Geun-hye administration, voices to enhance substance rather than elevating the diplomatic level gained traction. As a result, the two countries stopped at agreeing on a “mature strategic cooperative partnership” in 2014 when Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Korea. In the following Moon Jae-in administration, the term “partnership” was often used nevertheless, but it is rarely used in the conservative Yoon Seok Yeol administration.

The government instead uses phrases like “mutual respect,” “reciprocity” and “common interest.” China finds Korea’s rhetoric questionable. Korea didn’t abandon the partnership, but doesn’t mention it. It is a truly ambiguous relationship. But unfortunately, this is the current state of the Korea-China relations.