Published on August 20, 2020. Drawing on an essay by Yoshiko Sakurai, this article questions the CSIS assessment that China’s influence in Japan was comparatively limited and examines the risks of underestimating Chinese influence operations involving the Belt and Road Initiative, Okinawan independence discourse, efforts to cultivate pro-China forces, attempts to weaken the U.S.-Japan alliance, economic pressure, Chinese students, universities, and Confucius Institutes.

August 20, 2020
The following is from an article by Yoshiko Sakurai published in yesterday’s issue of Shukan Shincho, entitled “China’s Influence Operations against Japan Must Not Be Underestimated.”
Ms. Sakurai, as a “national treasure” in the sense defined by Saichō, continues to write invaluable articles solely for the sake of Japan.
Many sensible Japanese citizens are sincerely grateful to her and deeply respect her.
Seventy-five years after the war, amid a drastically changing international situation, now is the time for us to think carefully and decide what kind of country Japan should become over the next ten years, twenty years, and beyond, and what values we want to place at the foundation of our families, society, and nation.
The battle of values between the United States and China will probably go as far as it can go.
In July, Secretary of State Pompeo delivered four major speeches concerning China, in which he pressed countries around the world to make clear which side they would take, the United States or China, and which set of values they would choose.
Not only Japan, but Britain and Germany as well, exert no small influence on the international community.
Now that the influence of the United States is relatively declining, the influence of countries such as Japan is, rather, increasing.
Countries possessing power, whether economic or military, bear responsibilities commensurate with that power.
In order to fulfill its responsibilities to the world, Japan must consider, together with the United States, Britain, and others, how it should confront China.
At such a time, I read the research report China’s Influence in Japan, released in late July by the influential U.S. think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Unfortunately, this 47-page report, which reaches the conclusion that “China’s influence in Japan is limited compared with other countries,” is conspicuously weak in both its outlook and its analysis.
The report states that although China has employed a mixture of hard and soft methods to expand its influence over Japan, it has failed to achieve a single one of its strategic objectives toward Japan.
As concrete examples, it says that none of the following has been realized: Japan’s participation in the Belt and Road Initiative, Okinawan independence, the cultivation of pro-China forces within the Japanese government, and the weakening of the Japan-U.S. alliance.
What would Japan be like if the cases cited above had actually been realized?
Take Okinawan independence, for example.
Its realization would be nothing less than the outbreak of a revolution.
For Japan, it would constitute an upheaval that turned heaven and earth upside down.
The weakening of the Japan-U.S. alliance would fundamentally alter both Japan’s postwar course and its security strategy for the near future.
The Purpose of the Report
One challenge Japan has faced since the Trump administration, and indeed since the Obama administration, is the need for a qualitative transformation of the Japan-U.S. alliance.
The United States has continued to demand a higher degree of self-reliance from Japan.
Japan itself is aware that it must do so.
However, whatever form that may take, the objective is stronger unity between Japan and the United States, not a weakening of the alliance.
Both Okinawan independence and the weakening of the Japan-U.S. alliance are strategies China has pursued for many years.
To that end, China has sought to inflame Japanese public opinion and drive Japan and the United States apart.
Until August six years ago, the Asahi Shimbun, Shukan Asahi, and AERA, all of which I subscribed to regularly, would from time to time publish tendentious articles promoting such ideas as “Okinawan independence.”
Japan made an enormously serious mistake by failing to shut down the Asahi Shimbun in August six years ago.
Is it not mistaken to conclude that simply because those objectives have not been realized, China’s information operations and influence toward Japan are weaker or more limited than in other countries?
The report states that its purpose is “to analyze policies arising from circumstances unique to Japan as well as policies that can be shared by other democracies, and to explain the reasons for the failure of Chinese influence operations toward Japan.”
It seems that the conclusion that “China has not been able to exert significant influence over Japan” came first, and that the authors merely gathered material that would lead them to that conclusion.
Seen in that light, does it not also explain why the first Japanese scholar to appear in the report is Koichi Nakano, a professor at Sophia University and a member of the pro-China camp?
As one piece of evidence supporting its conclusion that Chinese influence over Japan is limited, the report notes that while the Japanese government’s initial response to the Wuhan virus was lax, it subsequently prepared funds to encourage companies to move away from China.
The Japanese government provided 243.5 billion yen.
The United States provided 55 trillion yen, and Germany 72 trillion yen.
Japan’s amount is so small that it could raise doubts about the seriousness of its commitment to “decoupling,” or separating from China.
Objectively speaking, it would be inappropriate to cite this as evidence that Chinese influence has not extended very far into Japan.
The report also contains references to “Confucius Institutes,” but frankly speaking, the treatment is extremely superficial and of little use.
When China seeks to suppress other countries or exert influence over them, the most effective weapon is the use of its economic power.
Through both trade and tourism, the Chinese government can inflict severe damage on another country simply by adjusting its policies.
When the Australian government proposed an international scientific investigation into the origin of the Wuhan virus, China imposed an 80.5 percent tariff on Australian barley imports.
When South Korea indicated the possibility of deploying the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD) at the request of the United States, China halted Chinese tourism to South Korea and squeezed the South Korean economy.
We keep such cases firmly in mind, but the field of education may be our blind spot.
Large numbers of Chinese students are being sent to universities in countries around the world.
In most cases, tuition fees are paid in advance in a lump sum, making these students financially extremely attractive to the universities that accept them.
As a result, entire universities can become spaces that are, as it were, subordinate to China and in which criticism of China becomes difficult.
Meanwhile, Chinese students acquire research results and knowledge concerning cutting-edge technologies in university laboratories, steal them, and take them back to China.
Enormous Profits for Universities
Another pillar of China’s expansion of influence in the field of education is the Confucius Institute.
Confucius Institutes were launched by a subordinate organization of China’s Ministry of Education—the equivalent of Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology—commonly abbreviated as Hanban, and their stated purpose is to expand the Chinese cultural sphere throughout the world by promoting Chinese-language education and Chinese culture.
To put it more plainly, their purpose is to increase the influence of the Chinese Communist Party throughout the world.
Clive Hamilton, who described the extraordinary extent of China’s encroachment into Australia in Silent Invasion (Asuka Shinsha), points out that Li Changchun, who headed China’s propaganda apparatus, stated that “Confucius Institutes are an important organization for China to carry out propaganda overseas.”
Since establishing the first Confucius Institute in South Korea in 2004, China has established 550 Confucius Institutes in 162 countries around the world.
The first in Japan was established at Ritsumeikan University.
Perhaps there are considerable advantages to it, because Ritsumeikan has also established Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in Oita Prefecture.
Many of the students at that university are Chinese international students.
A Confucius Institute was also established at Waseda University, which is regarded as one of Japan’s prestigious universities.
Confucius Institutes also exist at twelve other universities.
They are J. F. Oberlin University, Hokuriku University, Aichi University, Sapporo University, Hyogo College of Medicine, Okayama Shoka University, Osaka Sangyo University, Fukuyama University, Kogakuin University, Kansai Gaidai University, Musashino University, and Yamanashi Gakuin University.
The acceptance of large numbers of international students and the establishment of Confucius Institutes create a synergistic effect that brings enormous financial benefits to the universities that host them.
These benefits include the aforementioned lump-sum advance payment of tuition fees by international students, as well as various forms of research funding provided by the Chinese side.
Officially, those funds are said to come from China’s Ministry of Education, but are they truly clean funds?
The renowned China scholar David Shambaugh has pointed out that the money actually comes from the Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee (in the book cited above).
In other words, there is a possibility that the funds accepted by many Japanese universities and researchers are actually funds from the Central Propaganda Department of the Communist Party, and are merely laundered by being disbursed through the Ministry of Education.
Among the advanced countries, Japan is the most insensitive to these matters.
I strongly wish to sound a warning.