by WANG Li
Given the rise of unilateral protectionism and escalating global competition driven by the United States, the 11th China-Japan-ROK Trilateral Foreign Ministers’ Meeting commenced on March 22 in Tokyo, where all sides agreed to seek common ground on East Asian security and economic issues. It is expected to play a constructive role in stabilizing regional security and prosperity, as a consensus was reached to tackle long-standing historical issues and advance broader practical cooperation moving forward.
As the first gathering of the trilateral foreign ministers since 2023, it marks a significant diplomatic moment, with the parties calling for stronger ties and addressing key geopolitical challenges through peaceful means rather than coercion. Notably, a flurry of bilateral sideline talks took place, including one between China and ROK, where they discussed mutual concerns regarding peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and beyond. Meanwhile, China and Japan held their first high-level economic dialogue in nearly six years, signaling renewed engagement on trade and investment.
Amid rising tensions in the region, this trilateral meeting is seen as a crucial test of the three nations’ commitment to dialogue and collaboration for the benefit of East Asia, which remains one of the most economically dynamic regions in the world. Given the looming threat of unilateral tariffs and protectionist measures against global free trade, China, Japan, and ROK agreed to promote regional economic integration by restarting negotiations on a free trade agreement, expanding Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) membership, and ensuring the stability and steady flow of regional production and supply chains. Additionally, the three nations have agreed to facilitate the development of a scientific and technological innovation hub in Asia. In short, they reaffirm their commitment to multilateralism and free trade while advocating for a more open, inclusive, balanced, and beneficial form of economic globalization.
However, some argue that the trilateral meeting provides Beijing with an opportunity to forge closer ties with Japan and ROK, despite their traditional alignment with Washington. This perspective is contested, though U.S. President Trump’s policies may temporarily disrupt long-standing alliances. Reflecting on both history and current realities, it is more urgent than ever for the three sides to overcome divisions and misconceptions through sustained dialogue and cooperation. Accordingly, now is the time to deepen mutual understanding of their national, regional, and global needs.
Firstly, with 2025-2026 designated as the Year of Cultural Exchange, the three nations have agreed to organize relevant activities and increase the number of incoming and outgoing visitors to 40 million by 2030. Secondly, since 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, China has called for a thorough reflection on history to help all sides build a more responsible and just global order. From an economic perspective, the trilateral meeting in Tokyo is also a significant step for Japan, which has long-standing historical and territorial disputes with both China and ROK. The three nations have also committed to strengthening cooperation in social development and green, low-carbon initiatives to deliver greater benefits to their citizens. For instance, since the normalization of China-Japan relations, bilateral trade has increased more than 300 times, maintaining a high level of $300 billion annually for 15 consecutive years, with cumulative two-way investment reaching nearly $140 billion. A similar pattern is observed in China-ROK relations. As leading economic powerhouses in Asia, China, Japan, and ROK have pledged to continue coordination and deepen cooperation under mechanisms such as ASEAN+1 and the East Asia Summit (Trilateral plus X Cooperation) to drive common regional development and promote a more inclusive form of economic globalization.
However, with escalating U.S.-China strategic competition emerging as the dominant geopolitical issue, neither Japan nor ROK can chart their course without considering the ongoing rivalry between these two global powers. Geopolitically, Japan and ROK are influential neighboring states with uncertain trajectories. Both are vibrant societies with impressive economic, military, and technological advancements. Although they each maintain relatively small standing armies and play subordinate roles in their military alliances with the U.S., their geographical positions mean that their actions inevitably impact China’s core interests and security concerns. Additionally, China remains at odds with Japan and ROK on key issues, including its support for North Korea, its growing military activity around Taiwan, and its backing of Russia in the war with Ukraine.
President Trump’s rhetoric and actions have strained U.S. relations with some allies and partners while unsettling others. However, Washington’s political establishment, particularly those aligned with the Military-Industrial Complex, remains influential in shaping U.S. foreign policy. Since China is viewed as the primary challenge to U.S. hegemony, Beijing may find opportunities to strengthen ties with Japan, ROK, and other Asian states. Yet, this does not mean that these nations will become protégés of Communist-governed China.
In sum, while the Trump administration appears poised to undermine the hard-won Western unity that followed the Cold War, it remains premature to assume that his focus on tariffs and economic deals will weaken Washington’s bipartisan commitment to the “Pivot to Asia” strategy. This policy necessitates stronger military alliances with Japan, ROK, Australia, and the Philippines to contain China’s growing influence.
Author: Wang Li is professor of international relations at Jilin International Studies University, China. He studied for his BA in international history, MA in international affairs & diplomacy and PhD in international relations & law respectively in China, the U.S. and UK with a focus on the great powers’ foreign policy.
This article reflects the author’s own opinions and not necessarily the views of Global Connectivities.
