Showing posts with label china. Show all posts
Showing posts with label china. Show all posts

Friday, December 17, 2010

Privy Porsche China Event

"Privy recently teamed up with Porsche Centre Shanghai Pudong and Muse Entertainment to throw our first private party in Shanghai. The evening was put together by superstar attorney and Muse Partner Paul Lin, who co-hosted the evening along with Muse Managing Partner Michael Sun and Privy CEO Stephen Liu. Prior to the Privy shindig, Lin, recently inducted into the Committee of 100, attended meetings in Taipei and Shanghai with his fellow C-100 members. It was an eventful few days for the group, which met with Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou, among others, before joining us in Shanghai. David Xiao, GM of the newly minted Porsche Centre Shanghai Pudong, took a break from heading up the Chinese flagship facility to represent our gracious sponsors.

Guests came in from Seoul, San Francisco, Taipei, Hong Kong, Beijing, and LA to reconnect with old friends and mingle with new ones in the Chinese hub city. Some flew in just for the event, while others took a detour from their travels to join us for the evening.

The setting proved to be the perfect backdrop for an intimate night with some great people. C-100 members Judge Elwood Lui and Peter Liu, Chairman of WI Harper; James Chen, EVP of Diebold International; Joel Tzo, GM of Bose China; Eric Han, President of KFC-Yum China; Eddie Lui, CEO of Excelstor Technologies; Leon Soo, President of Shanghai Heling Lexus (Hotai Motors Ltd.); Tina Cheng, Country Manager of Jigocity Taiwan; Olivier Burlot, Managing Director of Blu Inc. Media HK; Sam Lee, Chairman of Interserv Inc.; Rita Huang, Managing Director of Bayern Capital; Bob Lu, GM of Lamborghini Shanghai; Shew Chen, Partner at HydePark Capital Partners; Andrew Bigbee, the Commanderie de Bordeaux Shanghai; Stream Lee, Privy Seoul Ambassador; and Eric Zho, CEO of Ato Ato Integrated Media, Inc. were among the notable guests.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, May 24, 2010

Traveling in Beijing This Week. Limited Blogging and Social Media Output

I'm in Beijing this week, so there will be limited blogging from me. The Chinese government has blocked access to Blogger, Facebook, and Twitter from regular Internet access which is annoying. I can only access these sites through my iPhone, which can be tedious especially for blogging. So my overall social media output will be limited this week.

Friday, May 7, 2010

PRIVY Harnesses Exclusive Social Network Expertise to Launch Privy 5 "Best of" City Guides


Privy.net, a company where I serve as an advisor, just launched their "Privy 5 Shanghai Guide". Privy functions as a private travel platform for jetset types to discreetly sync travel itineraries to see who's in town as well as exchange tried-and-true lifestyle information about what's best in a given city. This "inside information" is typically shared among friends and business associates formed the basis of the Privy 5 Shanghai Guide. More from their official press release...

Inaugural Guide To Introduce “Best of Shanghai” to help over 70 million World Expo Visitors Navigate the City

Privy, a private travel network focused on Asia, is harnessing the power and expertise of their exclusive social network to launch "Privy 5" Transpacific City Guides. And just in time for World Expo 2010, Privy introduces their inaugural guide: "Privy 5 Shanghai Guide," an online guide that includes over 30 "top five" lists highlighting the best the city has to offer. The complete guide can be accessed at: http://www.privy.net/shanghai/

The comprehensive guide highlights150 “must visit” places to eat, drink, stay, play, shop & relax during the World Expo in Shanghai. Shanghai is the first city in a series of Privy 5 Guides which will eventually include Beijing, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, New York, Seoul and Tokyo. Shanghai, China's largest and most cosmopolitan city in China, boasts a myriad of restaurants, high-end stores, and extravagant clubs and lounges which can be daunting to navigate for first-time visitors.

Privy Founder/CEO Stephen Liu adds: "While there are many online city guides targeted at backpacker types, we felt there was a need for a savvier, true insider's guide to the city. In preparing the guide, we were also able to take advantage of the fact that many of our members are bi-cultural executives or Asia travel enthusiasts whom are either based in Shanghai or travel there frequently."

Culled from an exclusive network of executives and key influencers, the guide organizes the city into a series of "top five" lists, some of which include:

Privy 5 Romantic Restaurants
Privy 5 Places to get a Foot Massage
Privy 5 French Restaurants
Privy 5 Bars with a View
Privy 5 Shanghainese Cuisine
Privy 5 Places to See
Privy 5 Sichuan Food
Privy 5 Places to Sleep
Privy 5 Cantonese Cuisine
Privy 5 Hotel Bars
Privy 5 Places to Shop
Privy 5 Jazz Clubs


About Privy:
Privy is a private global network and travel resource for a select group of transpacific executives and key influencers. Privy functions as a social compass that enables like-minded people who travel frequently within and to Asia to share lifestyle reviews and coordinate roving itineraries in a discreet, trusted environment. To ensure the site remains intimate, relevant and exclusive -- membership to Privy is “by invitation only” from a trusted member with invitation privileges. Privy also provides a unique opportunity for luxury/hospitality brands to connect at the “point-of-sale” to a small but hyper-targeted affluent set of key influencers who are already sharing travel plans and lifestyle reviews. For more info, please go to: http://www.privy.net/

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Asia's Very Smart Cities: Songdo, Korea and Meixi Lake, China

This month's Forbes magazine has an article entitled "Asia's Smart Metropolis: South Korea's Songdo and China's Meixi Lake are spending billions on intelligent networks with an eco-vibe" where companies such as Cisco and 3M are highlighted.

What's missing in this discussion is smaller technology company I'm an advisor to called Innotive. It's led by my two close friends, Jimmy and Peter, who I did my first two startups with. Innotive is an integrated platform that allows for the convergence of rich media content through an interactive, zooming interface. It powers interactive displays at retail stores, such as BMW and Nike, and provides a control room solution to manage CCTV camera monitoring efficiently through one workstation. The latter product is called InnoWatch which will be integrated into the Songdo City project with over 1,000 touch-screen displays installed.


Songdo is a huge development project that spans over 1,500 acres, 150 buildings and will cost over $35 billion. It is not only a "smart" city but a green city that will be the largest private LEED development in the world since the whole city will be based on LEED building standards.

Below is an example of Innotive's InnoWatch solution:

A longer, detailed version of the Forbes' article was published online, "Very Smart Cities," which you can read here.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

"Tocqueville on China"

Pretty cool project by the American Enterprise Institute:

Today's China-watchers face no shortage of issues or policy areas to study. Experts look at China's economy, foreign and defense policies, human rights record, business practices, corruption levels, environmental policies, even demographics. But for all the important work being done on China today, we believe too little attention has been paid to understanding contemporary Chinese civic culture. Yet it is precisely China's underlying civic culture which will, as much as anything, help inform how particular policy issues are addressed by the Chinese, and more broadly, how China is likely to develop in the future. Perhaps the greatest student of civic culture is Alexis de Tocqueville, whose studies of American democracy and pre-revolutionary France still represent the gold standard in terms of elucidating the fundamental civic spirit--the moeurs--of both regimes. In the tradition of Tocqueville's studies and methodology, AEI's "Tocqueville on China" project convenes a select group of scholars, policy analysts, and government experts to generate innovative studies that elicit the underlying civic culture of post-Mao China, enabling policymakers to better understand the internal forces and pressures that are shaping China's future.


One study from this project, "China's Protestants. A Mustard Seed for Moral Renewal?"

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Duo Guo... Mobile Content Retail Store

HatTip to Jai. This concept in China is pretty cool. From Duo Guo's website:

DUO GUO (多果) owns and operates China's leading network of retail stores exclusively selling mobile content and services.

Based in Shanghai, the Company has developed partnerships with China's largest retailers and leading global media companies to bring the best games, ringtones, software and other mobile services to China's 500 million mobile phone users in an exciting retail setting. The Company is privately held and operates as a wholly-owned subsidiary of D Mobile, Inc.



My friend Jimmy thought about starting this type of retail store a few years back, but obviously he didn't execute on it :)

Anyway, Duo Guo seems like a great concept for countries where there is a high level of mobile activity (e.g. gaming, content viewing, location-based services), such China, Korea, Japan, and a few European markets.

More from Springwise, "Brick-and-Mortar Kiosks Sell Mobile Content"

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Upcoming Asia Web Conference

Chang Kim, CEO of TNC (leading blog software company in Korea) and blogger of Web 2.0 Asia, initiated an effort to have a conference in Asia on the Internet/Web 2.0. He was nice enough to invite me to be part of the organizing committee even though I'm no longer living in Asia.

Anyway, if you have any speaker suggestions or interested in sponsoring, just contact me. More from Chang's post, "Progress update on the Asia Web Conference plan"

Sunday, May 16, 2004

Generalizations of East Asians... Chinese, Japanese, Koreans

Parable of the Dragon and Ten Pigs... Are Japanese The Model?

A few weeks ago I read a column by an attorney in a Korean newspaper on his recent travels to Shanghai. I tried to find the article online but could not obtain it so the details will not be accurate. He was a Korean working at an international law firm in Hong Kong whose work had taken him often this year to the mainland. His article focused on the parable of the dragon and ten pigs that he learned from his friends in the mainland. The lesson in this Chinese parable was comparing the skills and characteristics of the Chinese with the Japanese. The Chinese are like a dragon, which they described as strong and skillful individually, but within a group they become like ten pigs squealing and running aimlessly in the pen. The Japanese are like ten pigs, who are weaker individually, but come together to become a dragon. The lesson is the work and sweat needed to get things done is in groups not by individuals, and a self-criticism by the Chinese.

I found this interesting because Koreans recognize and sometimes discuss the strength of the Japanese in their teamwork skills and ability to support each other, but it isn't often they are reflective on their weaknesses as much as I hear from the Chinese. I remember listening to various criticisms and comments from Japanese and others about Koreans when the topic of reunification of North and South first came into the forefront about a decade ago. The great potential of reunification would be discussed, but soon dismissed after noting that Koreans would eventually backstab each other and its maximum potential would never be attained.

Though disappointing to hear as a person of Korean descent, I see some of these characteristics. One example is when I first moved to Korea four years ago for work, I learned about a phrase in Korean that people state when good fortune happens for their friend or colleague: "my stomach hurts." This phrase means that you feel a sense of envy for your friend or colleague that receives a promotion at work, windfall of money, etc. It is also disheartening when you see and hear stories of backstabbing and jealousy in Korean corporate environments. I hope this generalized characteristic fades from Korean and Korean American culture.

It's interesting though to hear in the U.S. how Koreans were considered the "Asian Jews." Primarily in a positive spin, this comparison stems from the perception that Koreans are hard-working, intelligent, and very driven to succeed. Also there is a more tangible fact in that many businesses Koreans obtained when they immigrated during the 1960s and 1970s were from Jewish Americans, such as dry cleaners and various retail operations in Chicago and New York.

I grew up in a suburb with a large percentage of Jewish Americans, and some of my friends' parents acknowledged this perceived similarity. A few of them would say that they would allow their daughters "to marry either a Jewish or Korean boy" because they believed Koreans to have "similar values." I would state that one difference I recognize is the formal and informal support system that Jews have which Koreans do not in the U.S. This might originate from all those hurt stomachs in Korea.

It's interesting to hear while living in Asia that the Chinese are considered the "Asian Jews." Not always in these words, but Chinese are considered by most Asians to be the best "money makers" or the smartest with money. Even my native Korean friends and family state or agree on this stereotype of the Chinese. So I assume many of the Chinese in the U.S., being in there several generations longer than Koreans, are diluted too much by American culture. :) Anyway, my mother is one of those Koreans that believes once China has the infrastructure and economic and cultural maturity that they will dominate Asia and much of the world.

Monday, March 15, 2004

WILL CHINESE OR U.S. COMPANIES LOSE OUT IN THE END?
Intel and Broadcom's China Headaches... Fortune Cookie Crumble?


China's growing arrogance and protectionist measures are beginning to bring forth questions for certain companies and industries on how much should they actually invest into China, what will the return on their investment be, and whether it is worth it at this juncture and early stage of China' growth to build a signficant presence their market.

These questions and others might be easy for some companies, such as Dell, HP, and KFC. But Intel and Broadcom are encountering some hurdles towards success in China's market. The following are a couple articles with slighty different spins on the same story. News.com explains:

"The Chinese government has passed a law stating that, starting June 1, all Wi-Fi chips sold must comply with the Wired Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) standard. The encryption algorithm was developed in China and is controlled by local Chinese companies." (full article)

TechWeb's Mobilepipeline headline reads, "China Tells Intel To Calm Down."

A little more sensational article, it quotes a Chinese official saying, "China is such a strategic market. I think Intel should calm down."

Overall, both articles reflect China's growing arrogance and long-term policy position to protect its domestic companies, and to rapidly acquire as much management know-how and technology from foreign companies. These are similar approaches that Japan and Korea have taken in targeted growth industries over the past decades. Japan and Korea in the early stages of their automobile markets completely blocked out foreign car-makers with high tariffs and policies allowing only a very minuscule presence.

In the wireless industry, Japan created their own standard, W-CDMA (Wide Band Code Division Multiple Access), with a similar intent as China, to protect their domestic market. In the end, the result hindered the long-term growth of their wireless companies. Korea went with Qualcomm's international accepted CDMA standard, and this resulted in their handset manufacturers' (e.g. Samsung, LG) effectively penetrating the U.S. and other global markets. The intent of China's economic policy makers are understood, but I don't know if it's the best approach for their nation and their corporations.

On the issue of forcing foreign companies, such as Intel and Broadcom, to create Wi-Fi joint ventures with one of the approved local WAPI standard companies creates a threat and loss potential (i.e. proprietary technology) that can scare off new entrants to the degree of preventing Chinese companies from obtaining what they want: management know-how and the transfer of technology.

Intel has already invest almost $1 billion into China, so they are going to work through this as much as they can. But for smaller companies and new entrants, it is a great concern.

The reality of the China market is that it is still like the Wild, Wild, West. The provinces are like cities dotted throughout the untamed West each with their own sheriffs and laws. Laws sometimes don't apply and even signed contracts don't mean much. I know of some Korean companies (favored technology partners with many Chinese companies) with signed agreements with wireless carriers and electronic manufacturers that have the most difficult time collecting their revenue or getting their domestic partners to execute on their contracts.

Korea is far more developed, but similar qualities can be seen and lessons learned for foreign partners new to Asia. When Costco initially entered the Korean market, it signed a joint venture with Shinsaegae, one of Korea's leading retailers. They created E-Mart, a Korean-style Costco, but then Shinsaegae broke the agreement (backstabbed) with Costco. Taking their know-how, but not paying the royalties. Costco re-entered the market on their own with some bitterness. Korea companies like to do and build things on their own and I have seen a similar quality in China. They will try to take and copy whatever they can get their hands on, and of course with the least amount of expenditure.

When Starbucks entered Korea a few years ago, it also signed with Shinsaegae as their domestic partner, but they came out with a favorable deal and Shinsaegae didn't. So I'm sure various industries and partners in China will also have numerous stories to tell.

So do U.S. and other foreign company take such risks to capture a piece of the China market, especially as more protectionist laws are created? How do they ensure their proprietary technologies will not be stolen and copied? How will China's legal system improve to protect foreign investors and partners? How long will China's corporate feifdoms continue?

The greater questions rest on China's policy-makers. Will this protectionist stance be better for Chinese companies or worse in the long-run? Will creating their own technology standards contain them to a domestic market of 235 million consumers, growing towards 1 billion, or allow them to dictate global standards? I really wonder how much thinking went into some of their policies and how many of them were dictated by the new rich in China.

Monday, September 29, 2003

Immature Venture Capital Industry in Asia

My Experience as an Entrepreneur in Asia

During the time of my first startup with Jimmy and Peter, we envisioned starting an early-stage venture capital fund 7-10 years down the road. Especially because we already enjoyed helping friends and other entrepreneurs in their startup efforts while we were involved with our own. By the time of our second startup, the desire became a little more focused towards helping entrepreneurs in Asia because our experiences on both sides of the Pacific showed us the differences in being an entrepreneur in Asia versus the U.S. We realized we were serial entrepreneurs and enjoyed working on the early stages of company growth. We also knew Asia didn't have the best elements or culture to start a new company, so we eventually wanted to be in a position to help new entrepreneurs in Asia achieve their goals and vision.

We thought about doing another startup and then raising a fund several years down the road, but an opportunity came up last year to try to start a fund so we went forward with it. Everyone didn't need to take the risk, so I volunteered to start the process and if it succeeded the other four would quit and join. If it didn't succeed, which was almost expected, we would just try again five or more years down the road. Failure was expected because we went through the process of fundraising in the U.S. and Asia. 1% of all startups receive venture capital funding in the U.S., and this was during the booms times when money was supposedly being thrown around. I'm guessing this figure is higher in Asia, but still a difficult road. Even though we were successful in raising capital for two companies, the road for raising a fund was more difficult and the odds were worse, so we were confident but realistic in our expectations.

The economic conditions were horrible in trying to raise capital, especially for a new fund, but we thought the other factors were good... lower company valuations, continuing innovation coming out of Korea and China, and a shortage of early-stage capital. We tried for a year, but it didn't work out so we'll just regroup a few years down the road and try again. The following are excerpts from our PPM, or prospectus, explaining the landscape of the venture capital industry in Asia:


"Members of our team were former entrepreneurs in Asia and much of our company’s vision was cultivated from numerous meetings with almost every venture capital and private equity firm in the Pacific Rim. From our encounters, we noticed that the majority of the professionals in Asia were former bankers versus experienced entrepreneurs or managers from corporations as in the U.S. We noticed the distinction from U.S. firms, especially in our meetings since firms in Asia would focus more on the financial projections, which were crafted from part research and part dreams. Also the outcome, whether good or bad for our fundraising goals, infrequently provided benefits in terms of business insights or advancement of our business model. While our discussions with U.S. firms tended to challenge our thinking and assisted in us improving our business model. In the end, we successfully raised capital from some of the top firms in Asia, but the seeds had been planted to change the processes that we experienced.

One explanation for this difference is the venture capital industry’s brief history in Asia. The cycles of entrepreneurship and high-tech innovation have been relatively short resulting in a lack of infrastructure ideal for entrepreneurs, whether legal, financial, or cultural. Additionally, this has resulted in a smaller pool of experienced entrepreneurs and managers from larger corporations entering the venture capital industry creating a distinction with U.S. firms. Whether from the venture capital industry or entrepreneurs working on their second or third venture, fledging entrepreneurs in Asia do not have easily accessible role models or guidance in creating new businesses due to the small pool they can draw from.

Another resource that is not readily available to all entrepreneurs is a strong personal network. In Asia, family, educational, and other personal relationships are essential for doing business. In the past, some great entrepreneurs did not succeed due to the lack of these types of relationships needed to create partnerships with larger entities, fund-raise, or deal with bureaucratic issues. Additionally, bad ideas received funding due to a founder’s status within the social ladder.

.....

In Asia, there is little distinction between private equity and venture capital firms. While in the U.S., the former traditionally tends to be more conservative, diversified in old and new economy, maintains investments that range in both public and private entities, and commonly evaluates a company on the financial data and potential returns. Generally, venture capital firms are less risk adverse, more focused on private technology companies, and strongly weighs softer issues towards a company’s potential, such as the management team and strength of technology.

The composition of their teams also greatly differs. Private equity professionals generally come from the financial service industry since many funds are related to an investment bank and this prior experience matches the nature of their typical investment. Venture capital firms differ since they are composed of former entrepreneurs, experienced managers from larger corporations, and some professionals from a financial service company. One reason for this difference is that technology has been a cornerstone for the venture capital industry and disregards conventional financial analysis. The short and long-term marketability of a technology can be difficult to predict and derivative ideas and products are challenging to discover at any stage, whether it is an older existing technology like telephony or cutting-edge nanotechnology. For practical purposes, a mixed team is needed for a firm to better assess investment opportunities in technology-related, early growth industries, or really any industry. Additionally, these types of companies undeniably need assistance beyond financial support. Only 25% of startups successfully achieve the second stage of growth and financing. The success rate increases to 80% when the venture capitalists supporting the company has prior experience from running a startup and working at a larger firm.

In Asia, most venture capital firms are primarily composed of individuals from the financial service industry. This has limited the ability for these firms to effectively evaluate an investment opportunity and the scope of impact it can have towards the company’s success. We believe this homongenous grouping of financial professionals is a contributing factor to the overall lack of success in Asia for venture capital firms."

Wednesday, July 9, 2003

A Chinese Roadmap For Korea... Shoutout to John Park

Here's article on China's complex role in the North Korean nuclear crisis written by my friend, John Park. I was psyched to learn that he got his op-ed piece published in the Asian Wall Street Journal. Since I have been writing about the esoteric and soft topic of friendship during the past few days, I might as well talk about John. He's one of the nicest and most solid individuals I have met, which I can't emphasize through words alone. We met briefly when he lived in Seoul for about a year while consulting for BCG, but we really didn't get a chance to further develop our friendship since he was leaving in a few months to start his post-doc program at Harvard. I truly regret it because I had admiration for what I knew of his character and enjoyed his good-natured personality. Also we had common interests in policy and politics, even though he's a little left of me, that helped tie our bond. He's definitely a person I wanted to get to know better, and hopefully I will as our lives move forward.


A Chinese Roadmap For Korea
THE ASIAN WALL STREET JOURNAL
by John S. Park
June 30, 2003


China is one of the few countries that has the political leverage to help resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis, especially when it comes to the crucial issues of brokering a multilateral package deal and verifying the dismantling of Pyongyang's nuclear programs. That solution could best be achieved through a Chinese roadmap, consisting of a two-stage process.

In the first stage, Beijing would need to address Pyongyang's security concerns by sponsoring a nonaggression assurance from Washington, contingent upon the complete and verifiable rollback of North Korea's nuclear programs. In the second stage, the U.S., North and South Korea, China, Russia and Japan would need to agree to a comprehensive, multilateral aid package comprising economic incentives -- such as energy supplies, investment and development loans -- and diplomatic concessions -- such as normalization of ties between Pyongyang and regional powers in Northeast Asia. Both the first-stage nonaggression pact and the second-stage aid package would be part of a structured timetable -- coordinated by Beijing -- to coincide with an irreversible rollback of North Korea's nuclear programs.

Such a roadmap would not reward bad behavior by North Korea because the incremental, multilateral program would be coupled with stringent verification procedures, backed by a strong multilateral deterrence program. Chinese inspectors working in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency could carry out the critically important function of cataloguing and verifying the dismantlement of North Korea's plutonium-reprocessing and uranium-enrichment programs. Pyongyang would be less likely to object to this, given the alternative of inspection teams composed solely of IAEA or U.S. inspectors.

While the relationship between China and North Korea -- previously described as being as close as "lips and teeth" -- has deteriorated, China remains the only country that has the political ability to play such a sensitive role. That's not because of ideological kinship, but rather because Pyongyang fears China might withdraw the lifeline of oil and food that keeps the Kim Jong Il regime afloat

Although largely unreported, senior Chinese officials warned North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun during an early 2003 visit to Beijing that renewed nuclear brinkmanship could seriously strain Chinese-North Korean relations. To reinforce that point, Beijing temporarily shut off an oil pipeline to North Korea. China officially cited technical problems for the three-day shutdown in March of the oil pipeline which runs from its Daqing oilfields to North Korea. But according to a Western diplomat, the episode was an explicit warning to the Kim Jong Il regime that Beijing would not tolerate a further escalation of tensions in the region.

To North Korea analysts, China's recent warnings and stern actions demonstrate a discernible break with its past hands-off approach to dealing with Pyongyang's nuclear brinkmanship. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, the possible humanitarian disaster that might arise should the nuclear crisis spiral out of control. Beijing is concerned about a flood of North Korean refugees streaming into northern China, creating a humanitarian crisis that would not only be debilitating for China but also make it more difficult for Beijing to resist pressure to allow international aid organizations to run refugee camps on the mainland.

Secondly, China needs to guard against any diminution to its prestige should the nuclear crisis escalate into a military conflict. As the predominant military force and budding economic power in the Asia-Pacific region, a confrontation on the Korean peninsula would represent a major foreign-policy failure for Beijing. With an economy that has been flourishing since the mid-1990s, Beijing has garnered the respect of its economically prosperous neighbors. Commensurate with that economic progress has been a rise in its prestige. But a conflict in North Korea would lead its neighbors in Northeast Asia, along with the U.S., to question why China did not play a more proactive role in trying to prevent it.

Thirdly, Beijing wants to avoid any damage to its relations with the U.S. Since the previous crisis over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions in 1994, the Chinese leadership has been anxious to ensure that differences over how to handle North Korea do not strain Sino-U.S. relations. In the present crisis, it has gone much further than before in trying to broker a solution. That was evident in April, when China hosted trilateral talks on the issue at the Diaoyutai state guesthouse in Beijing. Although the meeting between North Korean, American and Chinese representatives proved unproductive, it demonstrated Beijing's increasingly proactive role in trying to find a solution to the crisis.

Two obstacles remain that could constrain China from playing a larger role. The first is the traditional Chinese aversion to assuming political risk, coupled with its preference for exerting influence from behind the scenes. That means it remains unclear whether China has the political will to expose itself to the degree of international scrutiny that would come with formulating a road map to resolve the nuclear crisis. The second obstacle is how comfortable the Bush administration would feel in allowing Beijing to play what amounts to the lead role in resolving the nuclear crisis. But the more the crisis escalates, the more likely these obstacles are to fade away, as other policy options prove ineffective.

Until now, Beijing's approach to dealing with the nuclear crisis has been best summed up by Sha Zukang, China's former ambassador for arms control and disarmament. In a 2002 speech he said that "dialogue and consultation is the best way to reach consensus on the North Korean issue." Formulating a Chinese roadmap to try to resolve the crisis would be a significant evolution of that approach. The question remains whether Beijing is ready yet to take such a step.


Mr. Park is a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. His research focuses on North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship.