Because the ascension of Xi Jinping because the paramount chief of China, the Belt and Street Initiative (BRI) has been the cornerstone of China’s international coverage. Introduced in 2013, the BRI is an bold funding and infrastructure program which seeks to spice up international commerce by enhancing China’s connectivity with the remainder of Eurasia via infrastructure improvement. As such a large-scale program, the BRI has garnered huge consideration from the worldwide group together with Japan which has been a significant participant within the infrastructure funding sector for many years.
Contemplating the rivalrous relationship between China and Japan, it has change into mainstream for observers to view Japan’s response to the BRI from a neomercantilist perspective, which views the BRI as a menace to Japan’s place as certainly one of Asia’s largest exporters of infrastructure (Bajpaee, 2016; Murashkin, 2018). Accordingly, the BRI has additionally been thought to be one of many primary catalysts behind the intensified rivalry between China and Japan lately. That is very true in Southeast Asia as a result of Japan has historically been the area’s most dominant infrastructure developer, and since the area can be thought of to be essentially the most very important for the belief of China’s BRI (Li, 2017; Zhao, 2019). Moreover, because the realm of geopolitics and economics change into more and more extra intertwined as a result of rising safety tensions within the South China Sea, the infrastructure funding sector has additionally been thought to be a significant space for China and Japan to compete for affect in Southeast Asia via financial statecraft (Bajpaee, 2016; O’Neill, 2018; Yoshimatsu, 2017).
But, from a liberal perspective, the BRI also can change into a possibility for cooperation between China and Japan. Accordingly, many students and analysts have additionally questioned the extent to which the BRI could possibly be thought to be a catalyst for the rivalry between China and Japan (Suzuki, 2021; Wijaya & Osaki, 2018). In truth, whereas Japan’s announcement of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific imaginative and prescient in 2016 is commonly seen as a way to counter China’s BRI (Brown, 2019; Grissler & Vargö, 2021), Japan has additionally demonstrated a extra accommodating response to the BRI since 2017 (Nikkei, 2017). Therefore, what’s the nature of Sino-Japanese relations in Southeast Asia’s infrastructure improvement sector, and to what extent might the connection be described as a rivalry?
Based mostly on this background, this paper seeks to judge the extent to which the BRI has intensified the rivalry between China and Japan within the infrastructure sector in Southeast Asia. Within the extant literature, students have convincingly argued that the character of up to date Sino-Japanese rivalry is asymmetrical as a result of whereas Japan considers China as a rival, China solely views Japan as a rival throughout the context of Sino-American rivalry and Japan’s alliance with america (Hirono, 2019; Schulze, 2019; Sinkkonen, 2019; Wallace, 2019). Therefore, this paper evaluates the rivalry between China and Japan in Southeast Asia’s infrastructure improvement sector based mostly on Japan’s response to the BRI within the area. As will probably be elaborated additional, this paper contends that whereas the BRI has certainly intensified Japan’s sense of rivalry with China, the extent of the rivalry shouldn’t be overestimated as a result of Japan doesn’t view the BRI in a monolithic approach and since the primary supply of the rivalry comes not from the infrastructure improvement sector itself however the rising geopolitical tensions within the South China Sea. To elaborate on this argument, the following part of this paper supplies a theoretical basis for the dialogue by reviewing the neomercantilist and liberal faculties of thought. Afterwards, the next part illustrates why Japan’s response to the BRI shouldn’t be monolithic and the paper continues by demonstrating how the Sino-Japanese infrastructure rivalry in Southeast Asia is extra geostrategic than it’s financial.
Theoretical Framework: Neomercantilism and Liberalism
Neomercantilism and liberalism are two contrasting theories within the research of Worldwide Political Financial system (IPE). Between the 2, neomercantilism is thought to be the older faculty of thought and is the IPE counterpart to the Worldwide Relations principle of Realism. On this regard, neomercantilism shares a number of essential traits with the realist faculty of thought. Firstly, neomercantilism additionally begins with the essential assumption that the worldwide system is an anarchic self-help setting the place no central authority exists above the state (Cohn & Hira, 2021). Accordingly, neomercantilism considers the state as the first actor in worldwide financial relations and emphasizes the centrality of energy in interstate relations. Nonetheless, whereas realism is historically extra involved with navy energy, neomercantilism emphasizes energy by way of “financial devices and techniques of competitors” (Ziegler, 2010, p. 76). Nonetheless, each theories’ emphasis on energy is rooted within the assumption that states would all the time search to maximise their nationwide safety and pursuits. Within the neomercantilist context, the maximization of nationwide safety and pursuits will not be measured in absolute phrases however in relative phrases vis-à-vis different states. It is because, for neomercantilists, worldwide financial relations are a zero-sum sport during which the good points of 1 state equal one other state’s loss (Cohn & Hira, 2021). Accordingly, neomercantilism endorses the idea of relative good points, whereby states ought to pursue insurance policies that preserve or enhance their place within the international financial standing even after they have various choices that might generate extra general wealth (Gilpin, 1975). Nonetheless, regardless of its emphasis on self-help, neomercantilists don’t essentially oppose the thought of cooperation and integration with different states. For neomercantilists, financial cooperation and integration are fascinating when they’re crucial for countering the affect of one other extra highly effective state (Cohn & Hira, 2021). Therefore, from a neomercantilist perspective, cooperation is a strategic endeavor that’s extra prone to happen amongst states with related political opinions or throughout the identical navy alliance (Gowa, 1989).
Though neomercantilism is the oldest principle in IPE, liberalism is taken into account to be the extra dominant faculty of thought within the modern world. In distinction to neomercantilists’ emphasis on the primacy of states, liberalism considers politics and economics as two separate domains of exercise. On this regard, liberalism endows home actors, resembling non-public companies and firms, with a better diploma of company and believes that the position of the state is to create “an open setting during which people and personal companies can freely specific their financial preferences”, resembling by facilitating wholesome competitors and offering infrastructures and safety (Cohn & Hira, 2021, p. 76). Moreover, not like neomercantilism, which views worldwide financial relations as a zero-sum sport, liberalism believes within the idea of a positive-sum sport, the place states might mutually profit from open financial interactions even when their good points will not be equal (Cohn & Hira, 2021). In different phrases, liberals favor insurance policies that maximize absolute good points over relative good points. From a liberal perspective, people naturally need helpful cooperation and are, due to this fact, agreeable to the thought of regional integration. Accordingly, non-public companies usually request their governments to take part in commerce agreements and different worldwide cooperation mechanisms with a view to improve competitiveness and entry to markets (Cohn & Hira, 2021). Moreover, as financial actions change into more and more extra built-in, it might ultimately result in a better diploma of interdependence, which is outlined because the mutual dependence and reciprocal relations amongst states (Keohane & Nye, 2012). On this regard, liberalism additionally holds that interdependence is mostly fascinating as a result of it might stop states from coming into into battle by making the financial impacts of the battle extra pricey in comparison with situations with out interdependence (Copeland, 2015).
Japan’s Response to the Belt and Street Initiative and the Fantasy of Monolithic Japan
Because the announcement of the BRI in 2013, Japan’s angle towards the initiative has steadily shifted from indifference to opposition and later to conditional engagement. As a number of students level out, there have been little to no discussions pertaining to the BRI throughout the Japanese policymaking circles from 2013 to 2014, and it was not till 2017 that the initiative obtained vital consideration from the Japanese authorities (Hu, 2019; Ito A. , 2019; Tüter, 2021). Previous to 2017, Japanese policymakers solely addressed the BRI throughout the context of whether or not Japan ought to change into a member of China’s Asian Infrastructure Funding Financial institution (AIIB). Based on Ito (2019), discussions on the AIIB began to emerge sometimes in 2014 and intensified in 2015 as a result of AIIB’s founding membership deadline in March 2015. Nonetheless, as Hu (2019) factors out, Japan’s angle towards the BRI and the AIIB throughout this time had been largely cautious and destructive. Throughout a Home of Representatives Overseas Affairs Committee assembly in 2015, for example, Japanese policymakers expressed wariness towards the chance that the AIIB could spend money on North Korea (Home of Representatives, 2015). Therefore, Japan ultimately abstained from membership as a consequence of points pertaining to the AIIB’s overlapping capabilities with the Asian Growth Financial institution (ADB), inner governance, and transparency (Ito A. , 2019; Ito T. , 2015). Nonetheless, whereas Japan has not joined the AIIB as of the writing of this paper, Japan started to rethink its potential membership following the participation of a number of Western international locations in 2015, main observers to level out the uncertainty in Japan’s response (Sakamoto, 2015; Suwa, 2015). Accordingly, Japanese policymakers continued to debate the AIIB and the BRI since then, they usually started to pay considerably extra consideration to the BRI in 2017 (Ito A. , 2019). Finally, Japan started to undertake a conditional engagement strategy towards the BRI as signified by the attendance of Toshihiro Nikai because the Secretary-Normal of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Get together (LDP) on the 2017 Belt and Street Discussion board for Worldwide Cooperation (Hu, 2019; Ito A. , 2019; Tüter, 2021).
Therefore, how ought to Japan’s altering angle and oftentimes unsure responses towards the BRI be understood? As briefly mentioned within the theoretical framework, the neomercantilist perspective posits the BRI as a menace to Japan’s dominant place in Southeast Asia’s infrastructure improvement sector, whereas the liberal perspective emphasizes the chance for cooperation offered by the initiative. Nonetheless, these contrasting views and the tendency of observers to view states because the smallest unit of study have usually led to the misunderstanding that Japan’s response to the BRI might solely be one or the opposite. But, as this part contends, the character of Japan’s response to the BRI has been multifaceted as a result of Japan shouldn’t be a monolithic actor. Which means throughout the home realm, there exist numerous actors with completely different and oftentimes contradictory views as to how Japan ought to react to the BRI. Accordingly, as Tüter (2021) contends, Japan’s shifting coverage towards the BRI was characterised by an uncommon decision-making course of as a result of differing viewpoints of policymakers.
Firstly, a number of essential home brokers that undertake a liberal viewpoint on the BRI embody the Ministry of Finance (MOF), the Ministry of Financial system, Commerce and Trade (METI), and Japanese enterprise executives (Black, 2017; Ito A. , 2019; Suzuki, 2021; Tüter, 2021). That is unsurprising contemplating that these actors function throughout the financial sphere. From an financial perspective, the preliminary outcomes of the BRI have been promising for Japan to satisfy its rising demand for abroad markets in gentle of Japan’s protracted financial stagnation (Hu, 2019). For example, as Khan (2015) and Suzuki (2021) level out, a rise in demand for China’s BRI tasks might present Japanese companies with potential business advantages, particularly in consideration of the shrinking home demand for infrastructures as a consequence of Japan’s growing older inhabitants. Moreover, as Suzuki (2021) contends, the modern relationship between China and Japan can be characterised by a really excessive diploma of financial interdependence, which makes conflictual approaches even much less fascinating for these financial actors. Accordingly, the MOF has additionally been in shut contact with China since 2015 to barter the factors for Japan’s AIIB membership regardless of america’ opposition towards Japan’s participation within the China-led establishment (Black, 2017). As well as, Finance Minister Taro Aso and ADB President Takehiko Nakao have additionally endorsed the thought of AIIB-ADB cooperation in co-financing Asia’s infrastructure tasks (Katada & Liao, 2020; Reuters, 2015). Because the finance minister himself argued, the infrastructure improvement sector shouldn’t be essentially a zero-sum sport between the 2 establishments (Reuters, 2015). Moreover, different outstanding figures that advocated for Japan’s BRI engagement embody LDP Secretary-Normal Toshihiro Nikai and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Govt Secretary Takaya Imai, the latter of whom proposed a METI-oriented strategy towards the BRI (Tüter, 2021).
Alternatively, the home actors that undertake a neomercantilist stance towards the BRI embody the Ministry of Overseas Affairs (MOFA), the Ministry of Protection (MOD), and the Nationwide Safety Council Secretary-Normal Shotaro Yachi (Black, 2017; Tüter, 2021). Certainly, in distinction to how the actors on the liberal facet of the spectrum are principally financial actors, the home brokers which have a extra neomercantilist orientation are principally actors whose work pertains to safety points. In response to the BRI, each MOFA and MOD have emphasised their desire for “closed regionalism via strategic partnerships with key regional gamers in a bid to include China”, with MOFA being particularly liable to American pressures on the AIIB membership concern (Black, 2017, p. 165). It is because, for these actors, the BRI represents an instrument of energy projection that might broaden China’s sphere of affect on the expense of Japan’s worldwide place (Insisa & Pugliese, 2020). In different phrases, not like the liberal actors that search to maximise Japan’s absolute good points, these neomercantilist actors view the BRI from the angle of Japan’s relative good points. Nonetheless, though the neomercantilist views have undoubtedly been obvious in Japan’s general response to the BRI, this paper concurs with Suzuki’s (2021) argument that the existence of home actors who view the BRI “as potential alternatives for cooperation or business acquire” signifies that Japan shouldn’t be essentially “locked in a dynamic of rivalry with China” (p. 11). Accordingly, Japan’s response to the BRI must be understood not as a coverage that’s made by a monolithic nation-state however as one that’s resulted from the interactions amongst numerous home actors with differing viewpoints. Transferring ahead, the following part of this paper discusses how Japan’s response to the BRI is manifested in Southeast Asia’s infrastructure improvement sector.
Sino-Japanese Relations in Southeast Asia’s Infrastructure Growth Sector
For international locations in Southeast Asia, the instructions of Sino-Japanese relations might carry vital implications for the area. Consistent with the neomercantilist perspective, it’s troublesome to disclaim that the rivalry between the 2 international locations within the area has certainly intensified following China’s BRI growth. As Ng (2017) factors out, Chinese language investments in Southeast Asia have elevated considerably for the reason that announcement of the BRI, thus making China a brand new main participant within the area’s infrastructure improvement sector. Alternatively, with China’s fast financial development, it has change into tougher for Japan to compete by way of uncooked materials capabilities. Therefore, in response to the BRI, Japan has adopted what Wallace (2019) cash as a technique of ‘strategic distinction’ by emphasizing its infrastructure program as a extra sustainable and high-quality various to China’s BRI infrastructures. This technique is manifested in Japan’s Partnership for High quality Infrastructure program which was introduced on the 21st Worldwide Convention on the Way forward for Asia in Could 2015 (METI, 2015). Though many observers have identified that Japan continues to be the main nation within the competitors for Southeast Asia’s infrastructure improvement (Fernandez, 2019; Jamrisko, 2019; The Economist, 2021), Japan’s sense of rivalry with China intensified additional following Indonesia’s controversial determination to award the $5 billion Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway challenge to China over Japan in September 2015. Unsurprisingly, this case gained vital consideration in Japan, with outstanding officers, resembling Suga Yoshihide, calling Indonesia’s determination “fully incomprehensible and very regrettable” (Kantei, 2015, para. 2). Accordingly, Japan responded to the incident by making revisions to its infrastructure funding insurance policies, resembling adjustments in mortgage ensures and insurance coverage (Katada & Liao, 2020; Zhao, 2019).
But, regardless of the intensified rivalry, there have additionally been numerous types of cooperation that happen in Southeast Asia between China and Japan. In truth, as Ito (2019) factors out, Japanese corporations have already been concerned in China’s BRI tasks in Southeast Asia even earlier than Japan formally introduced its intention to cooperate within the BRI. For instance, that is evident within the China-Indonesia Financial and Commerce Cooperation Zone during which Japanese enterprises are among the many primary tenants of the BRI-backed Indonesian industrial park (Han, 2019; Tune, et al., 2021). Following the softening of Japan’s angle in the direction of the BRI, Japan started to formally encourage Japanese companies to cooperate with Chinese language corporations in Southeast Asia by getting ready a BRI cooperation guideline (The Mainichi, 2017). By METI and MOFA, Japan additionally prolonged and formalized its BRI cooperation in Southeast Asia additional by signing the China-Japan Memorandum on Enterprise Cooperation in Third Nations (METI, 2018).
Therefore, to what extent might Japan’s relationship with China in Southeast Asia’s infrastructure improvement be described as a rivalry? Persevering with from the discussions within the aforementioned part, this one additional contends that though the BRI has intensified Japan’s sense of rivalry with China in Southeast Asia, the character of this rivalry is extra geostrategic than it’s financial. Particularly, the first catalyst behind the intensified rivalry lies within the potential political implications of the BRI on the continued South China Sea dispute between China and several other members of the Affiliation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Evidently, China has already been utilizing its investments to realize the political help of non-claimant ASEAN international locations like Cambodia with a view to stop ASEAN from forming a united response vis-à-vis China on the dispute (O’Neill, 2018; Storey, 2013). Though Japan shouldn’t be a claimant within the South China Sea dispute, the path of the dispute is of great significance to the Japanese authorities as a result of they view it as a difficulty that’s carefully related to Japan’s territorial dispute with China within the East China Sea. Particularly, as Storey (2013) and Yoshimatsu (2017) contend, it is because, if the dispute progresses in China’s favor, it might result in the strengthening of China’s political leverage vis-à-vis Japan within the East China Sea dispute. Accordingly, the issues of the Japanese authorities have been exacerbated additional following China’s rejection of the South China Sea Arbitration ruling in 2016 because it demonstrates the ineffectiveness of worldwide authorized establishments in regulating China’s conduct (Koga, 2019).
Thus, in gentle of China’s BRI growth, Japan has additionally been utilizing its infrastructure program to counter China’s financial statecraft in Southeast Asia. For example, after ASEAN failed to deal with the South China Sea arbitration ruling of their 2016 joint communique as a consequence of Cambodia’s help for China, Prime Minister Abe reacted by holding a gathering with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen in an try to “change Cambodia’s place via infrastructure help commitments” (Zhao, 2019, p. 560). By the way, the truth that the South China Sea concern was unconventionally addressed on the Seventh Mekong-Japan Summit in 2015 additionally reinforces the notion that the Sino-Japanese infrastructure rivalry in Southeast Asia is a spillover of the rising geopolitical tensions within the South China Sea (Insisa & Pugliese, 2020; Parameswaran, 2015). Apparently, this paper additionally finds that Japan’s softening angle towards the BRI was not solely a response to the calls for of its liberal-viewing home brokers but in addition a way to stability China’s increasing affect in Southeast Asia by growing its personal presence within the area’s infrastructure improvement sector (Brînză, 2018; Insisa & Pugliese, 2020). Moreover, the geostrategic nature of the Sino-Japanese infrastructure rivalry may be noticed within the Japan-backed East-West Financial Hall challenge. As Nitta (2019) factors out, the completion of the East-West hall would supply Mekong states – together with Cambodia – with higher entry to the big Indian market, thus making them much less depending on China. Moreover, Japan has additionally strategically contrasted the East-West hall in opposition to the China-Southeast Asia North-South hall plan in consideration that the latter is extra helpful to China from a geostrategic perspective (Insisa & Pugliese, 2020). Therefore, whereas rivalry does exist between China and Japan in Southeast Asia’s infrastructure improvement sector, it may be argued that Japan sees the rivalry in zero-sum phrases principally throughout the context of its geostrategic pursuits within the South China Sea versus throughout the infrastructure improvement sector itself.
Conclusion
This paper has demonstrated how cooperation between China and Japan in Southeast Asia’s infrastructure improvement sector exists regardless of the intensified rivalry. Firstly, on the home degree, one might discover that numerous brokers inside Japan have opposing views as to how Japan ought to reply to the BRI, with one facet being extra neomercantilist and the opposite being extra liberal. Consequently, this led Japan to pursue a coverage that might stability the coverage preferences of either side. Secondly, as the first supply of rivalry comes from geopolitical tensions within the South China Sea somewhat than the infrastructure improvement sector itself, the competitors between the 2 international locations could not all the time be zero-sum. From a neomercantilist perspective, one might emphasize how geopolitical conflicts have prevented China and Japan from participating in deeper cooperation within the area. But, from a extra liberal viewpoint, one might additionally argue that interdependence and financial pursuits have prevented Japan from pursuing a full balancing act in opposition to the BRI. On this regard, this paper has demonstrated that each theories are related for understanding Sino-Japanese relations in Southeast Asia. Accordingly, the paper means that it’s extra productive to deal with neomercantilism and liberalism as theories which are complementary somewhat than contradictory.
References
Bajpaee, C. (2016, March 28). Japan and China: The geo-economic dimension. The Diplomat. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2016/03/japan-and-china-the-geo-economic-dimension/
Black, L. (2017). Japan’s aspirations for regional management – Is the goose lastly cooked? Japanese Research, 37(2), 151-170. doi:10.1080/10371397.2017.1330117
Brînză, A. (2018, November 8). Japan’s Belt and Street Balancing Act. The Diplomat. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2018/11/japans-belt-and-road-balancing-act/
Brown, J. D. (2019, April 25). Selling Japan’s reply to China’s Belt and Street. Nikkei Asia. Retrieved from https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Promoting-Japan-s-answer-to-China-s-Belt-and-Road
Cohn, T. H., & Hira, A. (2021). World Political Financial system: Principle and Observe (eighth ed.). New York: Routledge.
Copeland, D. C. (2015). Financial Interdependence and Battle. Princeton: Princeton College Press.
Fernandez, E. (2019, July 16). Japan nonetheless reigns in South-East Asian infra. Infrastructure Investor. Retrieved from https://www.infrastructureinvestor.com/japan-infra-player-in-south-east-asia-china-belt-and-road-initiative/
Gilpin, R. (1975). U.S. Energy and the Multinational Company: The Political Financial system of Overseas Direct Funding. New York: Primary Books.
Gowa, J. (1989). Bipolarity, multipolarity, and free commerce. The American Political Science Assessment, 83(4), 1245-1256. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961667
Grissler, J. R., & Vargö, L. (2021). The BRI vs FOIP: Japan’s Countering of China’s World Ambitions. Institute for Safety & Growth Coverage. Retrieved from https://isdp.eu/publication/the-bri-vs-foip-japans-countering-of-chinas-global-ambitions/
Han, Y. (2019, June 10). BRI boosts Indonesia Industrial Park. China Every day. Retrieved from https://www.chinadailyhk.com/articles/193/217/250/1560137447071.html
Hirono, M. (2019). Asymmetrical rivalry between China and Japan in Africa: To what extent has Sino-Japan rivalry change into a world phenomenon? The Pacific Assessment, 32(5), 831-862.
Home of Representatives. (2015, April 24). Dai 189-kai kokkai gaimu iinkai dai 8-gō (Heisei 27-nen 4 tsuki 24-nichi (kin’yōbi) [189th Diet Session, Committee on Foreign Affairs, No. 8 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]. Retrieved from Shugiin: https://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_kaigirokua.nsf/html/kaigirokua/000518920150424008.htm
Hu, Y. (2019). Tangled, hesitated and becoming a member of: Japan’s strategic orientation beneath the “Belt and Street” Initiative. 2019 Worldwide Convention on Rising Researches in Administration, Enterprise, Finance and Economics (ERMBFE 2019) (pp. 38-49). Francis Tutorial Press. doi:10.25236/ermbfe.2019.009
Insisa, A., & Pugliese, G. (2020). The free and open Indo-Pacific versus the Belt and Street: Spheres of affect and Sino-Japanese relations. The Pacific Assessment, 1-29. doi:10.1080/09512748.2020.1862899
Ito, A. (2019). China’s Belt and Street Initiative and Japan’s response: From non-participation to conditional engagement. East Asia, 36, 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-019-09311-z
Ito, T. (2015). The Way forward for the Asian Infrastructure Funding Financial institution: Issues for Transparency and Governance. New York: Heart on Japanese Financial system and Enterprise, Columbia College. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8WS8SFD
Jamrisko, M. (2019, June 23). China no match for Japan in Southeast Asia Infrastructure Race. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-23/china-no-match-for-japan-in-southeast-asia-infrastructure-race
Kantei. (2015, September 29). Press Convention by the Chief Cupboard Secretary (Excerpt). Retrieved from Prime Minister of Japan and His Cupboard: https://japan.kantei.go.jp/tyoukanpress/201509/29_p.html
Katada, S. N., & Liao, J. (2020). China and Japan in pursuit of infrastructure funding management in Asia: Competitors or convergence? World Governance, 26, 449-472. doi:10.1163/19426720-02603003
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2012). Energy and Interdependence. New York: Longman.
Khan, S. A. (2015, June 17). Japan’s Dilemma and AIIB. Retrieved from Indian Council of World Affairs: https://www.icwa.in/show_content.php?lang=1&level=3&ls_id=655&lid=597
Koga, Ok. (2019). Japan’s “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” Technique: Tokyo’s tactical hedging and the implications for ASEAN. Modern Southeast Asia, 41(2), 286-313.
Li, X. (2017). twenty first century maritime Silk Street Development and the conditions of the South China Sea. In J. Zhang, & M. Xu, China’s Belt and Street Initiatives and Its Neighboring Diplomacy (pp. 271-291). London: World Scientific Publishing.
Ministry of Financial system, Commerce and Trade. (2015). Announcement of Partnership for High quality Infrastructure. Retrieved from Ministry of Financial system, Commerce and Trade: https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2015/0521_01.html
Ministry of Financial system, Commerce and Trade. (2018). Japan and China Conclude Memorandum on Enterprise Cooperation in Third Nations. Retrieved from Ministry of Financial system, Commerce and Trade: https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2018/0510_003.html
Murashkin, N. (2018). Not-so-new Silk Roads: Japan’s international insurance policies on Asian connectivity infrastructure beneath the radar. Australian Journal of Worldwide Affairs, 72(5), 455-472. doi:10.1080/10357718.2018.1510896
Ng, E. (2017). The Rise of Chinese language FDI into ASEAN. Nikko Asset Administration. Retrieved from https://emea.nikkoam.com/files/pdf/insights/2017/20171005-The-Rise-of-Chinese-FDI-into-ASEAN.pdf
Nikkei. (2017, December 31). Japan floats enterprise support concept for China’s Belt and Street Plan. Nikkei Asia. Retrieved from https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan-floats-business-aid-idea-for-China-s-Belt-and-Road-plan2
Nitta, Y. (2019, December 2). Southeast Asia’s trans-regional hall takes form. Nikkei Asia. Retrieved from https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Transportation/Southeast-Asia-s-trans-regional-corridor-takes-shape
O’Neill, D. C. (2018). Dividing ASEAN and Conquering the South China Sea: China’s Monetary Energy Projection. Hong Kong: Hong Kong College Press.
Parameswaran, P. (2015, July 7). The true significance of Japan’s new technique for the Mekong. The Diplomat. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2015/07/the-real-importance-of-japans-new-strategy-for-the-mekong/
Reuters. (2015, March 24). Japan Finance Minister Says Would Be Fascinating for AIIB to Work With ADB. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-aiib-japan-idUSKBN0MK07T20150324
Sakamoto, E. (2015, April 27). Japan flip-flops on AIIB Coverage. Nikkei Asia. Retrieved from https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan-flip-flops-on-AIIB-policy
Schulze, Ok. (2019). Rivalry within the Center East? Japan’s CEAPAD initiative and China’s rise. The Pacific Assessment, 32(5), 809-830. doi:10.1080/09512748.2019.1569114
Sinkkonen, E. (2019). The extra the merrier? Sino-Japanese safety relations within the context of complicated interstate rivalry within the Asia-Pacific Area. The Pacific Assessment, 32(5), 748-777. doi:10.1080/09512748.2019.1569113
Tune, T., Solar, M., Liang, Y., Ngampramuan, S., Wuzhati, Y., & Zhou, Ok. (2021). Variegated transnational partnerships: Multi-scalar actor networks in China’s abroad industrial parks. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 31(5), 664-680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-021-1864-6
Storey, I. (2013). Japan’s maritime safety pursuits in Southeast Asia and the South China Sea dispute. Political Science, 65(2), 135-156.
Suwa, Ok. (2015). Japan’s AIIB Quandary. The Tokyo Basis for Coverage Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.tkfd.or.jp/en/research/detail.php?id=332
Suzuki, S. (2021). Financial statecraft, interdependence, and Sino-Japanese ‘rivalry’. The Pacific Assessment, 1-24. doi:10.1080/09512748.2021.1941209
The Economist. (2021, August 14). A glimpse into Japan’s understated monetary heft in South-East Asia. The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/08/14/a-glimpse-into-japans-understated-financial-heft-in-south-east-asia
The Mainichi. (2017, December 4). Gov’t urges Japanese companies to participate in ‘One Belt, One Street’ Initiative. The Mainichi. Retrieved from https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20171204/p2a/00m/0na/020000c
Tüter, M. (2021). Japan’s new mannequin of engagement with Belt and Street Initiative: Financial statecraft, developmental pragmatism and institutional shaping. Journal of Civilization Research, 6(1), 123-142. doi:10.52539/mad.791835
Wallace, C. (2019). Japan’s strategic distinction: Persevering with affect regardless of relative energy decline in Southeast Asia. The Pacific Assessment, 32(5), 863-897. doi:10.1080/09512748.2019.1569115
Wijaya, T., & Osaki, Y. (2018, September 7). Japan doesn’t have to compete with China’s Belt and Street. The Diplomat. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2018/09/japan-doesnt-need-to-compete-with-chinas-belt-and-road/
Yoshimatsu, H. (2017). China, Japan and the South China Sea dispute: Pursuing strategic targets via financial and institutional means. Journal of Asian Safety and Worldwide Affairs, 4(3), 294-315. doi:10.1177/2347797017733821
Zhao, H. (2019). China-Japan compete for infrastructure funding in Southeast Asia: Geopolitical rivalry or wholesome competitors? Journal of Modern China, 28(118), 558-574. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2018.1557946
Ziegler, C. E. (2010). Neomercantilism and power interdependence: Russian methods in East Asia. Asian Safety, 6(1), 74-93. doi:10.1080/14799850903472029
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
