The Chinese ambassador to Japan Kong Xuanyou returned to China at the end of February 2023, before the National People’s Congress. It has come to light that, in connection with his departure, the Chinese embassy had asked for a farewell meeting with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, which was then turned down by Prime Minister Kishida’s office, sparking heated debate in Japan.
When former Chinese ambassador to Japan Cheng Yonghua returned to China in April 2019, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe held a luncheon, and when Ambassador Kong arrived later to take up his post, Abe and Kong met at the prime minister’s official residence. Ambassadors to Japan have greeted the Japanese prime minister upon their departure, with only a few exceptions, so this move may be deemed unusual.
Certainly, there are many outstanding issues between Japan and China.
An “application” from the Chinese embassy was allegedly made to the prime minister’s official residence in January 2023. However, the prime minister’s official residence declined this request, citing “scheduling reasons”. In the event, Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi met with Ambassador Kong before his departure.
Bilateral issues trump diplomatic protocol
Why didn’t the Japanese side accept this greeting, especially since we will be celebrating the 45th Anniversary of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China in August 2023? Certainly, there are many outstanding issues between Japan and China. In March, there were reports that an executive of a Japanese pharmaceutical company had been detained in China, and China also criticised Prime Minister Kishida’s visit to Ukraine. However, given that the application was filed in January and Ambassador Kong returned at the end of February, we cannot take those two incidents into account as they took place at the beginning of March.
In January and February, concerns were raised by both sides about various issues, such as China’s increased military activities and unmanned reconnaissance balloons around Japan, and Japan's discharging of treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station of Tokyo Electric Power Company.
However, it feels a bit off when Japanese media reported that the reason for the prime minister’s official residence turning down the application was because of “hardening public opinion within Japan”. This is because I don’t think any phenomenon of “hardening public opinion within Japan” was so pronounced in January and February.
Japanese sentiment toward China was at its lowest in 2013, and since then stayed at about 85% expressing negative sentiments, with little change to date. Even if it can be said that public sentiment towards China has deteriorated, it would not be that significant as public sentiment is already so bad that it can’t really get any worse.
One reason may be the confrontation between the camps that has started since the beginning of the Ukraine war, or the fact that Japan holds the G7 presidency.
Clear sides and reciprocity
So why didn’t the Japanese prime minister’s official residence agree to Ambassador Kong’s farewell meeting? One reason may be the confrontation between the camps that has started since the beginning of the Ukraine war, or the fact that Japan holds the G7 presidency. The intention might have been to "display a clear banner” so as not to convey the wrong message to other advanced countries.
Another possibility is the issue of reciprocity. Simply put, when Japanese ambassadors leave China, which Chinese leader would meet with the Japanese ambassador?
The most recent example is Ambassador Yutaka Yokoi. Before his departure, did either President Xi Jinping or Premier Li Keqiang meet with Ambassador Yokoi? At the very least, there is no public information about such a meeting. So you could say that if neither the Chinese president nor the premier met with Japanese ambassadors when they left, then there is no need for the Japanese prime minister to meet with departing Chinese ambassadors.
...it would have been better to state that we decided to meet because we think such ceremonies are important, which would have conveyed a stronger message than “not meeting”.
Although these reasons are all plausible, I still think that the prime minister should have met with the departing Chinese ambassador. If departing Japanese ambassadors are unable to meet with the Chinese president or premier, then it would have been possible to clearly state this and not meet with the Chinese ambassador in accordance with conventional reciprocity. But I think it would have been better to state that we decided to meet because we think such ceremonies are important, which would have conveyed a stronger message than “not meeting”.
As tensions are rising on various fronts, “diplomacy” becomes rather necessary. Concerns about China, and Japan's perceptions, should be conveyed directly to the Chinese side as much as possible, and the Chinese side should also consider the reciprocity principle and contemplate whether China itself is doing what it wants Japan to do.
Related: In search of better relations with Japan? China’s inscrutable Japan policy | Japan wary of Chinese leadership's shifting policy preferences | How China and Japan see each other
