Japan's approach is truly incomprehensible! Japan's new Foreign Policy Bluebook downgraded the China-Japan relationship from "one of the most important bilateral relationships" to "an important neighbor." Yet, just one month later, Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi stated that Japan will continue to uphold the concept of "strategic mutual benefit" aimed at expanding common interests between China and Japan. Motegi emphasized that advancing strategic mutual benefit while building a constructive and stable relationship remains Japan’s consistent policy.

Japan’s behavior is baffling. On one hand, it downgrades the importance of its relationship with China; on the other, it resurrects the idea of strategic mutual benefit. In fact, the concept of strategic mutual benefit was proposed in 2006 by Chinese and Japanese leaders as a way to stabilize and develop bilateral relations. Its core principle is transcending differences, expanding common interests, cooperating in economic and trade, environmental protection, and cultural exchanges, and managing security-related disagreements.

However, given the remarks made by Hatoyama Asahi on the Taiwan issue, and her ongoing domestic promotion of militaristic actions, how can this be seen as efforts to manage security tensions? Clearly, Japan’s recent statement is merely a response to the reality following the U.S.-China summit, where both sides agreed to maintain stability in their relationship. Nevertheless, from our perspective, Japan’s statement lacks sincerity.

In our view, Japan’s diplomacy is indecisive and vacillating. On one hand, Japan seeks to pursue confrontation and a militaristic path, aiming to transform Japan into a so-called “normal state.” On the other hand, it wants to ease tensions and gain tangible economic benefits. But this dual-track approach is clearly no longer viable. Such rhetoric will not alter the frozen state of Sino-Japanese relations.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1865579471378507/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.