China hopes the first-ever formal talks with South Korea aimed at resolving a maritime boundary spat would not only remove a rock of contention but also advance geopolitical aims like its territorial claims in the South China Sea, say analysts.
With their ties on an upswing now, the analysts add that both sides may deem it opportune to launch the talks in Seoul next Tuesday to resolve the issue of overlapping Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and ownership of a rock in the Yellow Sea known as Socotra, or Ieodo to South Korea and Suyan to China.
Sino-Korean relations expert Yu Yingli said that though bilateral ties have warmed considerably under President Xi Jinping and President Park Geun Hye since late 2012, with a free trade agreement inked recently, the maritime dispute remains a thorn in bilateral ties.
"Issues of national sovereignty are always sensitive. Both sides may deem that it is better to resolve this than to let it become a potential ticking time bomb," Dr Yu of the Shanghai Institute of International Affairs told The Straits Times.
Preparations, in fact, began after Mr Xi visited South Korea in July last year and agreed with Ms Park to launch the formal talks.
US-based intelligence firm Stratfor said in a paper on Dec 9 that Beijing may be willing to make a concession to Seoul so as to "further solidify its South China Sea position".
"By showing a willingness to compromise with South Korea, China would send a signal to counter-claimants across Asia that it is willing to make deals for mutual benefit," it added.
China faces overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea from the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan.
Its Foreign Ministry said on Monday that the talks, to be led by Vice-Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin and Second Vice-Foreign Minister Cho Tae Yul, would reflect its longstanding stance on resolving disputes bilaterally.
It also expressed the hope that both sides can tackle the issue "in an equitable and reasonable way" and "set a good example for the resolution of similar issues among regional countries".
China insists that the South China Sea spats should be resolved bilaterally, but some claimant-states, fearing they would be disadvantaged in a one-on-one setting, want the disputes resolved collectively.
Stratfor also believes that resolving the rock dispute may reduce Seoul's potential for involvement in the South China Sea, "slightly eroding United States power in the region by creating friction within the US-Japan-Korea security alliance".
But analyst Zhu Feng of Nanjing University does not see this as a factor in China's push to resolve its maritime spat with South Korea, given that both presidents had agreed since last year to launch the talks.
He also said it is presumptuous to say China would make concessions on matters involving national sovereignty, adding that "no country would give in easily on such issues".
He said the sensitive nature of the dispute makes it premature and difficult to gauge the knock-on impact on the South China Sea situation.
Regional security expert Carl Thayer of the University of New South Wales also pointed out that the differences in the two disputes may limit the knock-on impact China is hoping for.
For instance, he noted that Ieodo is a submerged rock, over which a state cannot claim sovereignty under international law.
In contrast, China claims all the islands within its nine-dash line in the South China Sea and waters adjacent to these islands and also maintains that islands occupied by other claimant-states are Chinese and thus illegally occupied, he added.
"This means that the China-South Korea dispute over territorial delimitation is more straightforward than the South China Sea," he said.
On China's hope of using the talks with Seoul as an example that bilateral negotiations can work, Professor Thayer said such calls will continue to be viewed with scepticism by South-east Asian states .
"Given China's construction of artificial islands and its lurking presence in Malaysian waters, China's call for bilateral relations will fall on deaf ears," he added.
Singapore-based South China Sea expert Ian Storey also does not see a direct connection between the two sets of maritime disputes.
"While not straightforward, resolving a dispute between two countries is easier than resolving one that involves six parties, like in the South China Sea," he said.
This article was first published on December 16, 2015.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.