• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "authors": [
    "Paul Haenle"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S.-China Relations",
    "China’s Foreign Relations"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie China",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "China",
    "North Korea"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Arms Control",
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie China

China Seizes the Initiative in Complicated North Korea Diplomacy

China made clear through Kim’s visit that it will not be sidelined in important conversations and developments on the future of the Korean Peninsula. Now, Xi has had the opportunity to influence the terms of any future agreement.

Link Copied
By Paul Haenle
Published on Apr 3, 2018

Source: CHINA-US Focus

The official report by Xinhua News on talks between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and President Xi Jinping this week said that the surprise visit came at the invitation of the Chinese president, but the jury is still out on which country had more at stake when the two met in Beijing. China appeared increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of South Korea and the United States in the lead and in control of the direction of diplomacy with North Korea. For Xi, there were obvious benefits in becoming the first foreign leader to meet with Kim and in repairing strained relations ahead of the ROK and U.S. summits. China made clear through Kim's visit that it will not be sidelined in important conversations and developments on the future of the Korean Peninsula. Now, Xi has had the opportunity to influence the terms of any future agreement.

The Chinese official narrative on Kim’s visit has emphasized the “friendly cooperative ties” between the two countries. This is striking given the very strained state of relations between China and North Korea over the past six years. Some Chinese analysts are saying that Kim’s amicable visit demonstrated Beijing’s ability to reverse the previously tense situation, which would seem to undercut official claims of China’s waning influence over Pyongyang. It is also notable that Kim Jong Un announced his formal acceptance of President Trump’s invitation for dialogue only after his meeting with Xi. Finally, reported comments by Xi that, “the development of the China-DPRK relationship...should be passed on continuously and developed better. This is a strategic choice,” also seem to discredit any prior predictions that Xi would be the Chinese leader to fundamentally reorient China policy on North Korea.

For North Korea, Kim is better positioned in negotiations with ROK President Moon and U.S. President Trump having repaired relations with Beijing. Past visits by North Korean leaders to Beijing have often been followed by economic aid. Visiting Beijing first also makes the United States the third country (following China and South Korea) to meet with Kim. A failure during the Trump meeting, assuming the Moon summit is successful, could result in the United States being blamed.

Kim has shown his ability to play a weak hand effectively, preventing a united front among the other negotiating parties ahead of his diplomatic engagements. He has undercut the perception of a united U.S.-China approach on North Korea by repairing ties with Beijing and eliminating what was once America’s greatest strategic asset in its negotiations – divisions between Pyongyang and Beijing. Kim has also sought to exploit concerns among America’s traditional allies South Korea and Japan about the commitment of the Trump administration to their long-term security and economic interests. Reports have emerged indicating that a bilateral meeting between Prime Minister Abe and Kim is under discussion and may happen as soon as June.

While regional parties may agree on the objective of denuclearization, each country has its own agenda and national interests to advance. Reaching a long-term and sustainable agreement with Pyongyang on freezing or dismantling its nuclear weapons and missile programs will require close U.S. policy coordination with Seoul, Tokyo, Beijing and Moscow. Yet, President Trump has done himself no favors by repeatedly questioning the value of U.S. alliances in the region and opening trade actions on these partners at the same time he needs their cooperation. Kim, meanwhile, has given up nothing so far – his commitments to denuclearization to this point resemble past statements in both language and lack of specificity – and will use these summit meetings to demonstrate that he and his country are respected as equals by other major powers.

We are now heading into an extremely complicated stage of diplomacy and negotiations. President Trump needs competent advisors who can explain to him the implications of Xi’s meeting with Kim and the major considerations given these developments. Trump would have greatly benefited from the advice of former candidate for Ambassador to South Korea, Victor Cha, and recently retired United States Special Representative for North Korea Policy, Joseph Yun, both who have unmatched expertise on the region and critical relationships in key capitals. Even with their losses, he has capable officials in Acting Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Susan Thornton, and senior director for Asian affairs on the National Security Council, Matthew Pottinger, should he choose to empower them.

This article was originally published in China-US Focus.

About the Author

Paul Haenle

Former Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair, Carnegie China

Paul Haenle held the Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and is a visiting senior research fellow at the East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore. He served as the White House China director on the National Security Council staffs of former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Carnegie China Scholars on the Biden-Xi Meeting
      • +1

      Paul Haenle, Xue Gong, Ngeow Chow Bing, …

  • Q&A
    Biden and Xi Meet at APEC

      Paul Haenle, Chong Ja Ian

Paul Haenle
Former Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair, Carnegie China
Paul Haenle
Arms ControlSecurityForeign PolicyNuclear PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaChinaNorth Korea

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Commentary
    India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?

    On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Commentary
    The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil Imports

    This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    Military Lessons from Operation Sindoor

    The India-Pakistan conflict that played out between May 6 and May 10, 2025, offers several military lessons. This article presents key takeaways from Operation Sindoor and breaks down how India’s preparations shaped the outcome and what more is needed to strengthen future readiness.

      Dinakar Peri

  • Book
    India and the Sovereignty Principle: The Disaggregation Imperative

    This book offers a comprehensive analysis of India's evolving relationship with sovereignty in a complex global order. Moving beyond conventional narratives, it examines how the sovereignty principle shapes India's behavior across four critical domains—from traditional military power to contemporary data governance.

      Rudra Chaudhuri, Nabarun Roy

  • Paper
    India-China Economic Ties: Determinants and Possibilities

    This paper examines the evolution of India-China economic ties from 2005 to 2025. It explores the impact of global events, bilateral political ties, and domestic policies on distinct spheres of the economic relationship.

      Santosh Pai

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.