UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mister (second left) holds a meeting with Syria's opposition delegation at Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, before the official beginning of the Intra-Syrian talks on February 1 (XINHUA)

EDITOR'S NOTE: On February 12, after attending the fourth foreign ministers' meeting of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) in Munich, Germany, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi gave an exclusive interview to Reuters, answering questions on the situation in Syria, the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, China-U.S. relations and others. An edited transcript of the interview is as follows:

Reuters: The fourth foreign ministers' meeting of the ISSG held yesterday [February 11] had achieved some breakthroughs. However, in the situation that Russia is still carrying out military strikes against Syria, do you think the outcomes of this foreign ministers' meeting will bring about changes in the situation on the ground in Syria? 

Wang Yi: After long discussions, the foreign ministers' meeting has made positive and meaningful progress, which is the result of a delicate balance of the interests of all parties. All parties agreed to create access to humanitarian relief within this week to deliver the relief supplies to Syrian refugees. This is a task of top priority as well as the most concerned issue in the international community at the moment. All parties also agreed to achieve a complete cessation of hostilities across Syria within the week and establish a task force led by the United States and Russia instructed by the ISSG to discuss concrete steps and execution details on the cessation of fire and violence. If these two agreements progress smoothly, they will obviously create a positive environment for the Syria peace talk that will be revived in Geneva.

The above agreement on cessation of fire and violence does not include any military strike against terrorist activities. Yesterday all parties conducted an in-depth discussion on this issue, and it was difficult for all parties to reach a unanimous decision, which was because the screening of terrorist organizations led by Jordan has not finished yet. However, all countries reached a consensus in the end that any terrorist organization confirmed by the UN and included onto the UN list will be the target of joint combat efforts. We hope the hard-won consensus can really get specific implementation. The international community will pay close attention to it, and China, as a member of the ISSG, will also follow the course. The suffering of the Syrian people cannot be allowed to continue, therefore the international community should form a union and the ISSG should make joint efforts to actually implement the UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

Regarding the definition of a terrorist force, while some people may consider a group as terrorists, others may hold that they are freedom fighters. Russia claimed that it is striking against terrorist groups, but sometimes that is not the case. Russia combats forces that advocate political reform in Syria in a legal way, and in line with international law. Do you think this situation can change in a week? Will Russia change its way of acting? Yesterday all other parties noted that the main problem in the future is Russia. Do you agree? 

We cannot say that the problem mainly depends on Russia. Russia is indeed playing a key role in the evolution of the situation in Syria at the moment. Russia has repeatedly stated that Russia sends troops to attack terrorist forces in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian Government. China understands and supports all efforts devoting to combating international terrorist forces. Russia's terrorist-combating operation in Syria in fact increases the understanding of the importance and sense of urgency of solving the Syrian issue by political settlement of all parties and to some extent contributed to the achievement of the important consensus at the foreign ministers' meeting. Yesterday I had the vivid impression that although different parties still have different positions, all parties have come to realize that we should stop blaming each other, reduce unnecessary suspicion and define a common goal, which is to promote humanitarian relief as well as ceasefire and an end to violence until a comprehensive ceasefire is achieved.

All parties have agreed that the Syrian issue should be settled politically. Syria is a sovereign state. It is understandable that China insists on non-interference in others' internal affairs. But given that Bashar al-Assad has lost two thirds of the territory, 250,000 Syrians have been killed, and tens of thousands people have become destitute and homeless, do you think that in the political transition process of Syria, Bashar al-Assad should ultimately participate in the election? Or should he step down for national interests? 

The UN Security Council Resolution 2254 clearly stipulates that the future of Syria should be decided by Syrian people independently. The composition of state institutions of Syria, including the election of Syrian leaders, should be decided by the Syrian people.

Now there is a noteworthy phenomenon. At the beginning, all parties wanted to solve the most difficult problems first, resulting in two fruitless Geneva talks. Now all parties increasingly recognize that we should adhere to the principle of starting with easy things, set about from the issues that all parties have reached a consensus on and are willing to settle, and leave problems with big differences for later. As the mutual understanding and basic mutual trust among the parties increases, it is believed that the Syrian people have the wisdom and capability to solve all their problems on their own.

Other permanent members of the UN Security Council have taken military actions against the so-called Islamic State group, but China hasn't yet. Will China participate in the counter-terrorism coalition led by Russia or other broader-scope international counter-terrorism coalitions in the future? Since the Islamic State group is a threat to China as well. 

China opposes all forms of terrorism and supports international counter-terrorism efforts, hoping to promote international cooperation against terrorism under the auspices of the UN. There is a tradition in China's foreign policy. We do not join in state groups with a military nature, but that doesn't mean that China will not play its role in fighting terrorism internationally. Actually, China is participating in international counter-terrorism cooperation in its own way. For example, we have been helping Iraq and other frontline states with counter-terrorism capacity building, and working with some countries to exchange intelligence on counter-terrorism and cut channels of financial resources and movements of terrorists. China also holds that we should adopt an approach to address both the symptoms and root causes of terrorism. In some countries experiencing unrest, we should focus on resolving income margins, inadequate development and education deficiencies and therefore eradicate the soil and conditions that breed terrorism. China will continue participating in international counter-terrorism efforts in its own way and make its due contributions.

The DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] has conducted another nuclear missile test despite the opposition of the international community. China expressed concerns over it but China's response has been cautious so far. How do you think the international community should respond to the current situation? 

The DPRK, in defiance of opposition by the international community, conducted another nuclear test and then launched a satellite with its ballistic missile technology. Both acts violate the UN Security Council resolutions. China's position on these is clear. China publicly stated its opposition from the very beginning. China proposes that the UN Security Council adopt a new resolution and take further steps to make the DPRK pay the necessary price and show there are consequences for its behavior.

The UN Security Council's new strong actions should have a definite direction with the objective of effectively curbing the DPRK's efforts to advance its nuclear missile program. On the other hand, imposing sanctions is not the end of the matter. Our purpose should be to make sure that the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula should be brought back to the channel of a negotiation-based resolution. It's the only correct approach. We have conducted close communication with all sides including the United States, Russia and the ROK [Republic of Korea] and all have approved that sanctions are not the end and the issue should be returned to the channel of negotiation-based resolution. On the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, the Chinese side follows an objective and just position and sticks to an attitude of being practical and realistic. The "cautious" attitude interpretation is not true. Our goal is to promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula to achieve long-lasting stability on the Peninsula, which serves the common and long-term interests of all countries including the United States and the ROK.

You said that the objective of the UN Security Council Resolution is to deter the DPRK from further developing its nuclear missile program. However, we noticed that so far, sanctions don't work. Iran was forced to return to the negotiation table because of forceful sanctions. To be specific, China has agreed to let the UN Security Council adopt a new sanction resolution. Does it mean that the DPRK will get more strict financial sanctions? 

It's just a way of solving the problem regardless of sanctions or pressure. Up to now, all problems including the Iranian nuclear issue could not be resolved only by sanctions. All parties had conducted negotiations with Iran for 10 years, especially in recent years negotiations have been very intensive. The issue was finally settled through negotiations. The Korean Peninsula nuclear issue should also be solved through negotiations. We not only need a new UN Security Council resolution to restrain the DPRK from further developing its nuclear missile capability to the greatest extent but also should be devoted to resuming negotiations. The six-party talks have been broken off for eight years. It can be imagined that if the six-party talks were not suspended, the situation would not be as bad as it is today. Any issue, if we can sit down and negotiate, can find a resolution. The conclusion of the comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue precisely suggests the necessity of negotiation. Therefore, on the one hand, we support the UN Security Council to adopt a new sanction resolution, while on the other hand we should endeavor to resume the six-party talks as soon as possible. That is exactly a just and objective stance.

It is difficult for all parties to be completely just since they will consider their own interests. If the UN Security Council adopts a new resolution to impose stricter sanctions on the DPRK, what do you think the new resolution should include? 

The UN Security Council's sanction resolution should have a definite direction, that is, to curb the DPRK's efforts to advance its nuclear missile program. To achieve this, there are various approaches and ways. At present, all parties are consulting on the draft resolution in the UN Security Council which is wide-ranging and involves many aspects.

The current situation in the region seems to be evolving in the direction of an arms race or increased tensions. The ROK and the United States are negotiating to deploy a missile defense system, which triggers China's concern. If the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue cannot be settled, the regional situation will become more intense in the future. 

The problem mentioned is very important. We show grave concerns about the possible deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system by the United States in the ROK. The coverage of the THAAD missile defense system, especially the monitoring range of its X-band radar, goes far beyond the defense need of the Korean Peninsula and will reach deep into the Asian hinterland. It will directly damage China's strategic security interests and also harm the security interests of other countries in the region. There are two old Chinese sayings. The first is "Xiang Zhuang performed the sword dance as a cover for his attempt on Liu Bang's life." What are the United States' actual motives? It doesn't require an expert to make sense of the situation. Ordinary people can see it clearly. It strikes a chord with the other saying by ancient Chinese 2,000 years ago, which is, "Sima Zhao's trick is obvious to every man in the street "the villainous design is apparent." China's stance is clear enough that we firmly oppose any countries' attempt to infringe upon China's legitimate rights and interests with the excuse of the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue.

As a close neighbor of the Korean Peninsula and a country that shoulders significant responsibility for stability on the peninsula, China must stick to several points when dealing with affairs related to the peninsula. Firstly, the Korean Peninsula cannot be nuclearized, regardless of whether or not the nuclear weapons are self-made or imported and deployed. This applies to both the DPRK and the ROK. Secondly, there should be no military solution to this issue. Otherwise, there will be war and turbulence in the peninsula, which would not be acceptable to China. Thirdly, China's legitimate national security interests must be guarded and guaranteed effectively. We will continue our cooperation with the international community and unswervingly promote the process of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Frankly speaking, the focus of the peninsula nuclear issue is on the United States and the DPRK. We are willing to urge both countries to be seated, talk and discuss how to address each other's reasonable concerns so as to finally achieve the goal we all hope.

In recent years, the U.S. foreign policy, especially its policy concerning the Middle East, has offended some allies. What's your comment on the development trend of China-U.S. relations? 

As two permanent members of the UN Security Council and the largest developing country and the largest developed one on Earth respectively, China and the United States should and must keep their relations developing in a healthy and stable manner. We hope that China and the United States will stride toward the direction of constructing a new type of major-country relationship featuring non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation, which is in full conformity with the fundamental and long-term interests of China and the United States and their peoples. A strategic consensus has already been reached by the two sides.

We are now living in a global era totally different from the 19th and 20th centuries. The old mindset of you-lose-and-I-win zero-sum game has been obsolete for a long time. In fact, China and the United States have formed a pattern of interweaving interests. A great number of students from both sides have been studying in each other' s country and almost all of the United States' big companies have business in China. More and more Chinese investment is pouring into the United States, and the annual bilateral trade volume exceeds $500 billion. China-U.S. exchanges have penetrated into the daily life of all American people. There is a Chinese saying which claims that cooperation benefits the two countries while confrontation hurts both, which is winning awareness and recognition amongst more and more American people.

President Barack Obama has expressed publicly many times that the United States welcomes a strong, stable and prosperous China, welcomes China's peaceful rising, and is willing to see China's greater role in international affairs. President Xi Jinping also noted many times that cooperation between China and the United States will promote the success of enormous endeavors that benefit the world, which fully demonstrates the importance of China-U.S. relations. It is normal for the two sides to have some friction in building the new type of major-country relationship. What is important is that they continuously promote strategic mutual trust, reduce strategic misgivings and strengthen strategic coordination, so as to truly assume the responsibilities for the world peace and security as permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The international community should also harbor confidence in China-U.S. relations, for that leaders of the two countries have the exact wisdom and capabilities to well handle various problems existing in bilateral relations to continuously push the construction of the new relationship. For instance, formerly, cyberspace security was a point of contention between China and the United States, but at present the two sides are conducting intensive communication on this issue and have formed a mature mechanism, which in turn has transformed the issue into a new cooperation point for the two countries.

As for the issue of climate change, in the past the two countries experienced disagreement which was shown at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. However, in last year's UN Climate Change Conference in Paris, China and the United States carried out close cooperation, playing important and critical roles in reaching the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

That is also true regarding the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. China and the United States share the same general direction in promoting the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and finally solving the issue through negotiations, without differences on major principles. China stands ready to maintain close communication and cooperation with parties concerned including the United States.

Copyedited by Bryan Michael Galvan

Comments to liuyunyun@bjreview.com