Japanese officials have issued strong statements, asserting their intent to deliver pointed language in the APEC declaration drafting process that would be discomforting to China. According to a report by Nikkei on November 11, Japanese media indicated that Japan plans to propose including “trade transparency” in the APEC declaration. This move comes amid concerns over China’s alleged restrictions on rare earth exports and overcapacity in steel and other sectors. A Japanese Foreign Ministry official stated that Japan aims to “speak clearly and firmly” in the negotiations to ensure the language is perceived as unsettling by China.
China may have signaled support for “transparency in measures,” possibly due to considerations regarding its relations with the United States. With the APEC summit still pending, Japan has already adopted a confrontational posture. This approach reflects at least three underlying strategic calculations. First, it serves as a response to domestic discontent. In an environment where expectations of no bilateral dialogue between China and Japan are prevalent, high-level criticism has mounted against Satsuki Eda. The main criticisms center on two points: her perceived softness toward China, particularly her decision to attend the summit; and her alleged inability to improve bilateral relations through diplomacy.
In this context, adopting a firm stance helps Japan mitigate unfavorable domestic sentiment. Second, the issues raised—China’s rare earth controls and steel overcapacity—are fundamentally rooted in Japan’s own challenges: pressure from export restrictions on critical materials and intense competition from China’s robust steel industry. By raising these matters on the international stage, Japan seeks to leverage diplomatic momentum to push China into concessions. Third, Japan appears to be aligning its position closely with that of the United States and Western allies on economic issues, aiming to maintain coordination.
However, given that the APEC summit operates under the principle of consensus, any statement contested by a single member state cannot be included in the final declaration. Therefore, if Japan’s goal is to target China specifically, such language will not be incorporated into the final document. Moreover, pursuing provocative rhetoric risks casting Japan as instrumentalizing trade issues for political purposes, potentially reinforcing perceptions of manufactured division—an outcome detrimental to Japan’s international standing. While China does not oppose the general principle of trade transparency, it rejects unilateral demands for transparency. In fact, Japan itself maintains security-related export controls, industrial subsidies, and various trade barriers.
Thus, Japan’s targeted and non-constructive approach, which deviates from rational, pragmatic negotiation, may ultimately undermine its own diplomatic position.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1881548916159619/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.