Is the China-Japan relationship ‘at its worst’?

By Ian Bremmer
February 11, 2014

At the Munich Security Conference last month, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying said the China-Japan relationship is “at its worst.” But that’s not the most colorful statement explaining, and contributing to, China-Japan tensions of late.

At Davos, a member of the Chinese delegation referred to Shinzo Abe and Kim Jong Un as “troublemakers,” lumping the Japanese prime minister together with the volatile young leader of a regime shunned by the international community. Abe, in turn, painted China as militaristic and overly aggressive, explaining how — like Germany and Britain on the cusp of World War One — China and Japan are economically integrated, but strategically divorced. Even J.K. Rowling has played her part in recent weeks, with China’s and Japan’s ambassadors to Britain each referring to the other country as a villain from Harry Potter.

Of course, actions speak louder than words — and there’s been no shortage of provocative moves on either side. In November, Beijing declared an East Asian Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) — which requires all aircraft to follow instructions issued by Chinese authorities, even over contested territory, which pushed tensions to new highs. The following month, Abe visited Yasukuni Shrine — a site associated with Japanese World War militarism that makes it an automatic lightning rod for anti-Japanese sentiment among Japan’s neighbors.

But despite the clashes and growing conflict, it remains exceedingly unlikely that China-Japan fallout will escalate into military engagement. China won’t completely undermine economic relations with Japan; at the provincial level, Chinese officials are much more interested in attracting Japanese investment. And Japan still sees the success of its businesses in the vast Chinese market as an essential part of efforts to revive its own domestic economy, even if its companies are actively hedging their bets by shifting investment away from China. The relationship is unlikely to reach a boiling point. Rather, we are more likely to see sustained cycles of tension.

So if both sides intend to limit the potential for conflict, how concerned should we be? Even if military engagement is highly unlikely, China-Japan is still the world’s most geopolitically dangerous bilateral relationship and that will remain the case. There are a number of reasons why.

First and foremost, there’s always the chance, even if it’s remote, for miscalculation with major consequences. When fighter jets are routinely being scrambled to deal with Chinese “incursions” into what the Japanese consider to be their territory, the potential for a mistake looms large. And given the frigid relations between these two countries, if there is a mistake, China and Japan are going to assume the worst of the other side’s intentions.

On top of this, the sheer size and integration of the economies — China and Japan are the world’s second and third-largest economies, respectively — makes the relationship hard to ignore. Japan has 23,000 companies operating in China, with 10 million Chinese workers on their payrolls. But Japanese companies are actively diversifying away from China now, with foreign direct investment waning and Japan shifting to Southeast Asia in particular. China-South Korea trade is fast approaching the levels of China-Japan trade as a result of fallout from tensions between Tokyo and Beijing. If the Chinese and Japanese start thinking their economic relationship is deteriorating, the potential for confrontation grows.

Furthermore, the size and duration of the conflict makes it a crucial global risk: the tensions are rooted in historical animosity with no viable solution. There’s no diplomatic outreach going on between China and Japan — and neither the United States nor any other foreign power is doing enough to help facilitate that relationship. There is no one in China trying to see the world from Japan’s perspective, and vice versa. According to a recent Pew Research poll, just 6 percent of Chinese had a favorable view of Japan, and only 5 percent of Japanese view China favorably. Both sides may be well aware that a full-fledged conflict is not in the other’s best interest — but that only gives them more reason to push the envelope. As a senior Chinese official recently explained to me, the Chinese aren’t worried about pushing Japan (they “don’t want war” and the Japanese “don’t dare”).

And although it’s in both China’s and Japan’s interest to stop short of military conflict, both countries have motives for drawing out the tensions. They can benefit back home from the perception of an unyielding stance to a historical enemy. Beijing continues to use Tokyo as a release valve for nationalistic pressures as it softens foreign policy on other fronts — particularly with U.S. relations, where the charm offensive is motivated, in part, by an effort to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Japan. In Japan, Shinzo Abe views China’s rise as a longer-term threat to Japan’s standing in the region, and he’s intent on pushing back.

So what can we expect this year? Rather than military conflict, the overall result will likely be an aggravation of already inflamed public opinion and a deterioration of the business climate in both countries. Abe will push to reinterpret — and even rewrite — constitutional prohibitions on Japan’s right to use force in international disputes, and he will likely visit Yasukuni again.

But perhaps more worrisome than the near-term risks — there is no solution in sight.

 

PHOTOS: Protesters, carrying a Chinese national flag, shout slogans during an anti-Japan protest in Shenzhen, south China’s Guangdong province August 19, 2012. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu 

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (C) is led by a Shinto priest as he visits Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo December 26, 2013. REUTERS/Toru Hanai 

5 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

There will be no full scale war – as this would cause the US to intervene on Japan’s behalf starting World Nuclear War 1 and ending life on the planet as we know it. Rather there will be endless rhetoric and posturing for years to come.

Posted by BidnisMan | Report as abusive

There is no solution unless Abe resign. It is totally Japan fault starting up the tensions by purchasing the islands, deny history, worhsipped the ghostly Shrine, increase military spending even under US protection. Don’t forget this liar Abe crying in loud voice to the world that China spending double digit on military spending but comparsion in 2013, Japan military spending is 36% of China and China is 24% of US. This liar Abe is acting like his uncles in the imperial Japan army as his grandfather was a key member in imperial army.

Posted by Bobsmith20 | Report as abusive

The key issue here is that China wants to control the energy resources located near some Pacific islands that Japan has controlled for over a century. China’s leaders believe they have enough economic influence on the USA and the world to force Japan to relinquish the islands — much as they persuaded the world to abandon Taiwan.

The added advantage of this dispute for China’s leaders is that they are using it to whip up hatred for Japan so that Chinese citizens will have an outlet for their anger over the inequality and corruption within China, and lack of democracy and free speech in China.

Posted by DifferentOne | Report as abusive

wars have started for much less, than a few islands…especially, with two countries, that just tolerate each other…look at india and Pakistan…look at how they deal over Kashmir…china and japan are headed for the same….

Posted by sabrefencer | Report as abusive

As @BidnisMAn correctly noticed there would never be war between China and Japan (but not because of US and/or Russia intervention and aftermath of nuclear devastation).
Japan: cannot gain any land in any war in Asia (UN would not allow) and needs peace for imports of resource. So any future war presents no gains and a lot to loose. Japan cannot contain China in any way, and it is too close to China and too small to risk any probability of instability in China. (2 islands, 2square miles in total are non-issue)
China: It is in crucial phase of fast economic and social development to become developed country till about 2035. Due to its size China will become world economic hegemon. It has the weakest military power in relation to economic power out of all current 7-9 world Great Powers (US, Russia, UK, France, China, Japan, Brazil, India, Germany). Fast economic development makes a lot of temporary inbalances in economy (f.e. large creation of credit for investment). China can only loose (in economic terms) in any war in the next 20 years.
On the other hand there is one country that badly needs a war between China and ANYBODY.
It is the United States of America. US cannot contain China economically, only war can save the sole superpower status for US.

Posted by Wantunbiasednew | Report as abusive