Alarm over possible implications of US taking unilateral action to eliminate nuclear threat

yesterday by: Song Jung-a in Seoul, Ben Bland in Hong Kong and Tom Mitchell in Beijing

Donald Trump’s warning that he could take unilateral action to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear threat has sparked alarm among some analysts in Asia about the implications for South Korea, Japan and China of a military conflict with Pyongyang.

“China has great influence over North Korea. And China will either decide to help us with North Korea, or they won’t,” Mr Trump told the Financial Times in an interview in the Oval Office. “If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will.”

The comments by the US president came weeks after Rex Tillerson, secretary of state, declared during a visit to Asia that the US policy of “strategic patience has ended”. Mr Tillerson said that Washington would not rule out any option in response to provocations by North Korea.

Mr Trump did not outline what unilateral options he would consider, but analysts say they could range from a pre-emptive strike on North Korea to direct diplomatic talks.

Shi Yinhong, a foreign policy expert at Renmin University in China, said he thought that the US was seriously considering a military strike against North Korea, which he said was something that China would not support.

Such a strike would have serious consequences, said Mr Shi. “One of the questions neither the US nor South Korea can answer is, if they strike North Korea, how are they going to protect the people of Seoul from an artillery barrage?” One of the questions neither the US nor South Korea can answer is, if they strike North Korea, how are they going to protect the people of Seoul from an artillery barrage Shi Yinhong, Renmin University

But other experts, including many in the US, believe that Mr Trump’s warning was aimed at piling pressure on Beijing to take tougher action to curb Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions.

“It is Mr Trump’s bargaining gambit, warning Beijing and Pyongyang that he can be as irrational as North Korea can be. I think all possibilities are on the table and all interpretations of his comments are possible,” said Bong Young-shik, researcher at the Institute for North Korean Studies at Seoul’s Yonsei University.

“The uncertainties facing the US policy toward North Korea policy can work as a great leverage for Washington in dealing with Beijing and Pyongyang,” he said.

On Monday, Hyeonseo Lee, a prominent North Korean defector, welcomed the US stance which she said might prompt China to act: “I feel I have a little bit of hope. I don’t expect too much, but somehow I feel at least if really America will take action that is the best answer.” Transcript Donald Trump in his own words An edited transcript of the FT’s interview with the US president Washington views North Korea as the most imminent threat to the US, following Barack Obama’s warning to Mr Trump before he took office about the progress that Pyongyang had made in developing long-range missiles and nuclear weapons.

Even so, said Paul Haenle, an Asia adviser to both George W Bush and Mr Obama, the Trump strategy for North Korea was “not that different” from those of his two predecessors as US president.

“The idea was you either fix this problem with us or we’re going to have to go it alone — and the repercussions of that you will not like,” he said. “It’s just more urgent now because of Kim Jong Un and how rapidly he’s moving on his missile and nuclear programme.”

There was no immediate official response from China to Mr Trump’s comments. In Seoul, South Korean officials tried to play down the significance of his warning.

“The US, South Korea and our neighbours are all aware of the significance of resolving North Korea’s nuclear problems,” Seoul’s unification ministry said on Monday. “They all agree that China’s influence is very important in resolving the problems so Washington played an active role in this based on the shared understanding.”

Some analysts expect the US to take tougher economic sanctions against North Korea, rather than seriously pursuing military options, possibly by expanding a secondary boycott of Chinese companies doing business with North Korea.

Last month, Chinese telecom company ZTE pleaded guilty to criminal charges of violating US sanctions on North Korea and Iran and agreed to pay up to $1.2bn in fines, the largest sanctions-busting penalty levied against a Chinese company by Washington. Podcast How will Trump tackle the North Korea threat? Emiliya Mychasuk discusses US policy on China and North Korea with Demetri Sevastopulo, FT Washington bureau chief, ahead of Donald Trump’s first meeting with China’s president Xi Jinping this week

Following two nuclear tests and more than 20 missile launches last year, Beijing has become tougher on Pyongyang recently, taking a bold move in February to ban coal imports from North Korea until the end of the year.Still, Beijing prefers a more low-key approach to tackling North Korea, proposing that Washington engage in peace treaty negotiations with Pyongyang and suspend joint South Korea-US military drills in return for a freeze to North Korea’s nuclear and missile activities.

“Beijing will be obliged to take some gestures to heed Washington’s warning. It could be a good deal for Beijing if it can get some concessions from Washington on bilateral trade or economic relations or the South China Sea, by giving up relations with North Korea,” Mr Bong said.

Others doubt whether Beijing has significant leverage over Pyongyang despite North Korea’s heavy trade dependence on China. “China has done a lot, risking its own relations with NK. There is only one tool left for China — to completely cut off NK’s oil supply. But no one can guarantee even that would force Kim Jong Un to give up his nuclear programme,” Mr Shi said. The Donald Trump interview The US president on Merkel, Twitter and Republican infighting Governing is harder than he thought but the president says he has no regrets about his style and agenda

Euan Graham, a security analyst at the Lowy Institute, a think-tank in Sydney, agreed that the “assumption that China can turn the lights on and off in North Korea may be too simplistic”.

He argued, like Mr Bong, that China would see Mr Trump’s desire for co-operation on the North Korean problem as an opening to secure other concessions from the US, perhaps over issues such as the South China Sea.

Mr Graham said that Chinese diplomats felt they had the upper hand ahead of this week’s summit meeting between Chinese president Xi Jinping and Mr Trump because of the US president’s lack of foreign policy experience.

“That inexperience raises the question of whether it’s prudent to engage at such a high level with China so early on, when the basic elements of US Asia policy are yet to be sorted and appear incoherent,” he added.