Sino-Japan Ties: Progress at the APEC Summit?

Proof of The Pudding

 

So were the meetings a success? In the words of Zhou Enlai, it is too soon to say. The test for both countries will be how it changes future rhetoric and future behaviour.

 

The first test will be if Tokyo integrates “differing positions” into its official vernacular regarding the Diaoyus/Senkakus. If it reasserts that there is “no dispute” over the Diaoyus/Senkakus then the third point of the communiqué is essentially null and void and arguably the most important element of the meetings will fall inert. The follow-up test will be how Tokyo uses the “differing positions” verbiage. Beijing has always asserted that for any negotiations over the islands to commence, Tokyo must first acknowledge China’s claim over them. Does this provide such acknowledgement and if so, is China now on notice that it must come to the negotiating table?

 

If Tokyo uses this verbiage and in essence applies this communiqué, Beijing will be confronted with pressure to follow through on the spirit of it and respect Tokyo’s concessions to negotiate. Moreover, it frees Japan to seek international adjudication over the islets’ sovereignty, as acknowledging China’s claim is a prerequisite for doing so.

 

The second test will be the viability of the hotline. The countries have reinvigorated the proposal of a crisis hotline, but the success of such will lie in the details. Where will this hotline connect to? What is the protocol for using it? And most importantly, will someone actually pick up? It must be actually used in order to be considered a success.

 

Lastly, what are the expectations regarding Abe’s visits to the Yasukuni shrine? There was no public commitment from Abe that he would cease visits there, as Beijing demanded, but there is speculation that he has made private assurances to that effect. If he makes any visit, then Beijing has its excuse to completely disregard the communiqué.

 

Short Term Win-Win-Win

There was nothing in the meetings nor in the communiqué itself that changes national interests, so there is no reason to believe that bilateral relations will enter a massive warming period and regional tensions will permanently be reduced. This is a short-term political victory for both leaders, however.

 

Abe wins by concluding a seeming rapprochement with Japan’s largest trading partner. He can claim that he has improved bilateral relations while not conceding any territory. Xi gets face and prestige by granting an audience on his home turf with a security rival but economic partner. He can claim that he got Japan to agree there is a dispute, even if that particular word was not used. Both leaders realise that neither country can afford a dispute. Lastly, the region can win if both countries follow the spirit, if not the letter of the communiqué.

 

Ian C. Forsyth is a Visiting Fellow at the Military Transformations Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. Dr. Forsyth works as an analyst at the United States Pacific Command in Hawaii.