As of this writing, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is scheduled to make a visit to Japan May 21-22, during which he is expected to inspect Japan’s northeast devastated by the deadly earthquake and tsunami of March 11.

　　　The purpose of Wen’s visit is to “show China’s support for reconstruction efforts,” while attending a Japan-South Korea-China summit and bilateral talks with his Japanese counterpart Naoto Kan, according to a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman.

　　　In late January 2008, when unusually severe snowstorms paralyzed air, rail and surface transporation, stranding hundreds of thousands of city-dwelling Chinese home-bound for the Chinese New Year celebrations at bus terminals, airports, and train stations, Wen quickly flew south and visited train stations in Changsha, the state capital of Hunan, and Guangzhou, the state capital of Guandong, to address the crowd with a loudspeaker, expressing sympathy and calming their mood, like a benevolent father. And, four months later, when a devastating earthquake hit Sichuan, killing nearly 70,000 citizens and injuring over 350,000 others, Wen once again played the benevolent father, promptly flying to Sichuan to express condolences and offer encouragement to the residents. In both cases, Wen tactfully avoided chaos and confusion by showing deep compassion to those affected by major natural disasters.

　　　Undoubtedly, Wen will visit the devastated regions in Japan, where recovery and reconstruction work is in progress, with the same compassionate look in his eyes as in Changsha, Guangzhou, and Sichuan in 2008. But Japanese should remember he is that same Chinese politician who intimidated the Kan administration in New York last September 22 over the Senkaku Islands incident, in which the captain of a Chinese trawler violated Japanese territorial waters and rammed into two Japanese Coast Guard (JGC) patrol boats.

　　　At the time, Wen highhandedly demanded that Japan “immediately and unconditionally” release the captain, who was detained in Japan on charges of territorial violation and obstruction of JCG duties.

　　　“If Japan clings to its mistake (and fails to release the captain),” Wen declared, “China will take further action and the Japanese side shall bear all the consequences that arise.” Undoubtedly, the Chinese premier will make sure to wear a kindly-looking facial expression completely different from when he assumed his imperious approach towards Japan last September.

　　　China has clearly shifted to “smile diplomacy” -€ against the backdrop of drastic changes in the international situation developing in the Eurasian Continent.

　　　The May 1 incident involving the killing of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by a CIA-led Navy SEALs squadron in a hideout in Abbottabad, about 120 kilometers from central Islamabad, Pakisan’s capital, has left a deep scar in the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, which had supposedly been hunting for bin Ladin frantically.

　　　Prominent Pakistani commentator Cyril Almeida said: “If we didn’t know (where bin Laden had been hiding), we are a failed state; if we did know, we are a rogue state…Does anybody really believe they didn’t know?”

　　　Pointing out that Pakistan “has nothing in common with Al Qaeda,” Almeida wrote everything is unclear at this juncture, including whether the Pakistani government in fact knew about bin Ladin’s whereabouts, and if they did, why they would not share that information, and what they hoped to gain.

　　　However, one thing has become quite clear: U.S.-Pakistani relations have deteriorated to virtually their lowest level in history.

China’s Vigorous Support of Pakistan

　　　In 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the U.S. countered with military aid to Pakistan. The U.S. also aided the Mujahideen and the Taliban at the same time. But the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in ten years, and U.S. aid to Pakistan was subsequently cut back. Then in 1990, when Pakistan’s nuclear development program became evident, the U.S. completely reversed its previous policy, taking steps to impose economic sanctions on the Islamic nation.

　　　But then China stepped up its assistance to Pakistan, playing a key role in its nuclear development program. In May 1998, China conducted a nuclear test on Pakistan’s behalf, helping open the way to its possession of nuclear weapons.

　　　The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. once again influenced U.S.-Pakistan relations significantly. Pakistan decided to take steps to cooperate with the U.S. in the fight against terrorists, winning hefty U.S. military and economic aid.

　　　And now the U.S. has killed bin Ladin singlehandedly, without consulting the Pakistani government. The view entertained by some on the Pakistani side that the incident constituted the second cruel treatment of their nation by the U.S. since 1990 is not too difficult to understand in some ways. The two nations will likely have a difficult time mending fences.

　　　Under such circumstances, it is important for Japan to view this problem not within the context of the bilateral U.S.-Pakistani relations, but within the framework of how the balance of power among the key players in the Eurasian Continent -€ namely China, India, and Russia -€ will evolve from this point. Professor Tadae Takubo, Deputy Director of the privately financed Japan Institute of National Fundamentals (JINF), points out one should bear in mind the obvious possibility of Pakistan’s fresh approach to China first and foremost.

　　　Since about a decade ago, China has been forging ahead with the building and maintenance of port facilities at Guadal in the southwestern Pakistani state of Baltistan, providing more than 80% of the funding. Economic growth is indispensable for China’s domestic rule and security, which has relied heavily on petroleum transported to the Chinese mainland by sea from the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. The port of Guadal is expected to form a key point in the supply line for energy China develops in the Middle East and Africa. The port will also become a pivotal point in China’s “Operation Pearl Necklace” -€ actually a military net encircling India.

　　　On the other hand, the U.S. has been seeking closer ties with India. In March 2006, President Bush paid a state visit to India, describing the country as a strategic partner of the U.S. By recognizing its possession of nuclear weapons, the U.S. promised technical cooperation for the development of nuclear energy. In fact, while tolerating India’s possession of nuclear weapons without becoming a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the U.S. refused to provide nuclear-related technology to Pakistan, which had also come into possession of nuclear weapons without joining the NPT. Behind the U.S. judgment must definitely have been a recognition that, compared with Pakistan which had proliferated nuclear technology to other nations -€ including North Korea -€ India clearly had not had such a record, not even once. In essence, the U.S. has placed its trust in India, not Pakistan.

　　　This tendency was further strengthened with the November 2010 state visit to India by President Obama. At the Indian parliament, Obama declared the U.S. would back his host country for a permanent United Nations Security Council seat. Meanwhile, India announced it would purchase U.S.-made military equipment worth some $10 billion dollars, including C-17 military transport planes and engines for combat aircraft.

Inordinate Sense of Crisis Entertained by the Chinese Communist Party

　　　Military cooperation between the U.S. and India actually dates back to 2005. India has made aggressive overtures to develop closer ties with the U.S. Professor Takubo points out one can logically expect India’s approach to the U.S. to gain further momentum, now that Indians have become seriously concerned about the possibility of the “talibanization” of Pakistan, explaining:

　　　“India’s position in the Eurasian Continent is particularly important, in view of the record of its relationship with Russia over the years. What will become of the Eurasian Continent if India and Russia join hands, and the U.S. then joins them? That will form a basic axis to contain China.”

　　　To this, a new element has now been added — the Jasmine Revolution of the Middle East. The Eurasian and Chinese situations will certainly not be able to steer clear of the effects of the revolution, which will obviously be enormous.

　　　Needless to say, the impact of the Jasmine Revolution, supported by the new media encouraging people’s solidarity, cannot be generalized in view of the varied domestic situations across the Middle East. And yet, it is obvious thatﾂ黴€ peoples’ voices calling for the fall of dictatorships and a shift to democracy have gradually been taking concrete shape. This is exactly the phenomenon China fears most.

　　　Today, there are between 200,000 and 300,000 riots taking place across China a year. The inordinate sense of fear entertained by the Communist Party of China (CPC) is obvious from China’s budgetary measures this year. The total of the country’s budget for internal security -€ i.e., expenses earmarked for armed police, public security forces, and militia, among other things -€ is bigger than its military budget, standing at 624.4 billion yuan (US$95.0 billion). So instable is its domestic situation China has had to mete out a law and order outlay outstripping the defense budget, in order to constantly watch and suppress its own people.

　　　On May 13, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing, charging that the human rights situation in China has “gone from abysmally bad to worse… since the crackdown on Tiananmen Square protestors in 1989.”

　　　The human spirit can never be completely suppressed. And yet, the CPC attempts to oppress all anti-government activities by implementing stringently oppressive measures. Meanwhile, China tries its best to woo members of the international community with “smile diplomacy” -€ as if no net of encirclement was necessary against it. That is all the more reason that Japanese should make sure not to misread the true intentions behind China’s deceptive soft-power diplomacy.

　　　Japanese leaders, including Prime Minister Kan and Foreign Minister Takeaki Matsumoto, must by all means ponder their nation’s grand strategy towards China within such a framework. Each one of them should soberly come to grips with the weight of his political responsibility to safeguard national interests, mindful that they should not readily be taken in by the smiles on the faces of Chinese leaders.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column No. 461 in the May 26, 2011 issue of The Weekly Shincho.)