"I didn't want this job. I didn't seek this job. My wife told me I'm supposed to do this.”These are the words of Rex Tillerson, the U.S. Secretary of State, the nation's highest ranking diplomat. During a time when the Trump Administration has received criticism for appointing senior level positions to individuals with no political or foreign policy experience, and with the State Department still lacking key appointed officials, Tillerson's words are not particularly encouraging.
Tillerson's candid comments come in light of his first trip to Asia where he met with leaders in Japan, South Korea and China. While topics such as mutual interests and cooperation were undoubtedly talked about, these themes were overshadowedby the swiftly growing anxieties in the region over North Korea's continued nuclear tests.
Though Tillerson has his work cut out for him, dealing with North Korea and assuring regional allies of the United States' commitment to ensuring their safety, he may have already created barriers that could potentially hinder from following through on these assurances.
China, who plays an essential role in any potential plans aimed at reigning in North Korea, found itself butting heads with the new Secretary of State before he was even confirmed to the position. During his confirmation hearingon Capitol Hill, Tillerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that China's island-building activities in the South China Sea were "akin to Russia's taking of Crimea."
While the legitimacy of China's activities in the region has come under question numerous times before, even receiving a ruling against Beijing's favor from the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Tillerson's comparison of construction on uninhabited, strategically located rocks in the sea to that of annexing a portion of another sovereign nation that is home to some 45 million people only highlights his lack of knowledge and experience in foreign policy.
Tillerson's thoughts on the topic didn't end there, he continued with “We're going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops...and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”
Naturally, Beijing did not take kindly to Tillerson's comments, with state media outlets publishing a flurry of pieces criticizing Tillerson. Some called attention to Tillerson's "undisguised animosity toward China”while another stated, “unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish.”The official response from Beijing was to downplay the comments stating “China-U.S. relations are based on 'non-confrontation, non-conflict, mutual benefit and win-win cooperation.”
To further complicate matters, Tillerson made some concerning comments during his tour. While in Seoul, South Korea, he made it clear that all options were on the table for dealing with North Korea, including military strikes. This led China to urge the United States to remain “coolheaded” over North Korea and to not abandon a path towards a peaceful, diplomatic solution. When pressed on where the United States may draw a line in the sand regarding what could constitute a military strike against the North Korean regime, Tillerson dodged the question.
Due to China's shared boarder with North Korea it is right to remain both concerned over how the United States handles North Korea, and to encourage Washington to remain open to all possible diplomatic solutions for several reasons. Firstly, should there be some sort of malfunction during any future tests the regime plans, it will almost certainly have an effect on China. Secondly, China's call for the United States to remain “coolheaded”is not just a product of China slowly but surely embracing a neoliberal outlook on global affairs, but rather out of protection of its self-interest. Should the United States use any sort of military force against North Korea, China could potentially find itself in two very difficult positions; On the receiving end of a refugee crisis as well as facing political and possible military backlash from North Korea.
In terms of a possible refugee crisis, China has a long standingpolicy of sending North Korean that flee across its boarders back to the regime. Logistically, doing so would be much harder if the Chinese government found a flood of refugees fleeing military strikes coming across its boarder. Furthermore, China would receive increased criticism from the international community on its record over human rights issues. As tensions between North Korea and the world continue to rise it would be in its best interest to take a more humanitarian approach when handling North Korean refugees so as to further ensure to the world its commitment towards not only a peaceful rise but also integrating itself deeper into global affairs.
Secondly, a military strike by the United States would force China to choose a side; Join the United States, step in as North Korea's only ally and defend the regime, or stand idly by. Anything short of stepping and defending the regime would more than likely cause China to become a future target of any military action the regime decides to take, providing the regime still had military capabilities in a post-United States military strike scenario.
However, at the end of the his trip, Tillerson and his counterparts in Beijing seemed to be on the same page, agreeing that activities in North Korea have "reached a rather dangerous level." Tillerson and Chinese President Xi Jing Ping both renewed Washington and Beijing's commitments to working together to dissuade Kim Jong Un from pursuing nuclear weapons and to change course for the betterment of his nation's people.
That said, Tillerson's combination of being the nation's highest ranking diplomat coupled with Trump's preferred use of Twitter over traditional diplomacy to address issues is still troubling nonetheless. It leaves not only the United States, but the global community with many uncertainties as to what actions the United States will take towards an increasingly defiant and dangerous North Korea.
While sanctions continue to prove ineffectiveagainst North Korea, and continuing a policy of “strategic patience” seems to have come to an end, Tillerson will undoubtedly find himself ill-equipped and further embroiled in one of the most difficult and dangerous foreign policy conundrums that has plagued many presidential administration for decades.
