While many American policymakers worry about potential alliances forming against U.S. interests abroad, there’s one trio of nations that won’t be joining forces anytime soon: Korea, China, and Japan. Their deep-rooted historical animosities provide a geopolitical reality that American strategists can count on.
Ancient Rivalries, Modern Consequences
The East Asian geopolitical landscape is fundamentally shaped by centuries of conflict, invasion, and competition between these three major powers. These aren’t simply diplomatic disagreements that can be smoothed over with a few treaties—they represent deep cultural wounds that continue to influence national identity and foreign policy decisions to this day.
The Chinese Imperial Shadow
For most of recorded history, China positioned itself as the center of East Asian civilization. Through its tributary system, China expected neighboring kingdoms like Korea and Japan to acknowledge Chinese supremacy and cultural superiority. This historical framework still influences how China approaches regional relations today, expecting deference that its neighbors are increasingly unwilling to provide.
Korea, having spent much of its history either as a tributary state or fighting to maintain independence from Chinese influence, maintains a complex relationship with its powerful neighbor. While modern South Korea has strong economic ties with China, there remains deep suspicion about Chinese intentions, particularly regarding China’s support for North Korea.
Japan’s relationship with China is equally complicated. After centuries of cultural exchange and periodic conflict, Japan’s rapid modernization in the 19th century and subsequent military expansion set the stage for one of the most brutal chapters in their shared history.
Japan’s Colonial Legacy: The Wounds That Haven’t Healed
Perhaps no single factor prevents East Asian cooperation more than the legacy of Japanese imperialism in the first half of the 20th century. Japan’s colonial ambitions led to:
The Annexation of Korea (1910-1945): Japan’s 35-year occupation of the Korean Peninsula remains a raw wound in Korean national memory. Attempts to erase Korean culture, forced labor, and the exploitation of “comfort women” created resentments that continue to flare up in diplomatic relations today.
The Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945): Japan’s brutal invasion and occupation of parts of China resulted in atrocities like the Nanjing Massacre, where hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians were killed. Unit 731’s biological warfare experiments on Chinese subjects add another layer of historical trauma.
While these events occurred generations ago, they remain very much alive in national consciousness through education, media, and political discourse. Japan’s perceived reluctance to fully acknowledge or apologize for these wartime actions keeps tensions simmering.
Territorial Disputes: Concrete Symbols of Ongoing Tension
Historical animosities find tangible expression in several ongoing territorial disputes:
The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands
These uninhabited islands in the East China Sea are claimed by both Japan (which calls them Senkaku) and China (which calls them Diaoyu). The dispute regularly leads to confrontations between Chinese and Japanese vessels and aircraft, with each incident escalating nationalist sentiments on both sides.
Dokdo/Takeshima
Korea controls these islets in the Sea of Japan (which Korea calls the East Sea), but Japan maintains its claim to what it calls Takeshima. This territorial dispute symbolizes to Koreans Japan’s unwillingness to fully renounce its imperial past.
The South China Sea
While not directly involving Korea or Japan, China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea and its willingness to militarize artificial islands have deepened suspicions about Chinese territorial ambitions, making both Korea and Japan wary of China’s growing assertiveness.
Modern Political Realities: Competition, Not Cooperation
Beyond historical animosities, modern political and economic realities further complicate potential cooperation:
Different Political Systems
China’s authoritarian one-party state stands in stark contrast to Japan and South Korea’s democratic systems. These fundamental differences in governance create inherent tensions around human rights, freedom of expression, and the rule of law.
Economic Competition
As three of Asia’s largest economies, China, Japan, and South Korea are as much competitors as they are trading partners. They compete for many of the same export markets, resources, and technological dominance. China’s rapid growth and industrial policies are often viewed as threatening by Japanese and Korean corporations.
Divergent Security Alliances
Perhaps most significantly for American interests, South Korea and Japan remain firmly anchored in security alliances with the United States. Both host substantial American military forces and depend on U.S. security guarantees. China, meanwhile, views these alliances as part of an American strategy to contain Chinese influence.
The United States has spent decades cultivating its bilateral alliances with Japan and South Korea, investing heavily in these relationships even when tensions arise. This investment has paid dividends, keeping both nations firmly in the American orbit despite China’s economic gravity.
Failed Attempts at Trilateral Cooperation
It’s not that efforts haven’t been made to overcome these divisions. Various diplomatic initiatives have attempted to build cooperation between the three nations:
The Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat, established in 2011, aimed to institutionalize cooperation between China, Japan, and South Korea. While it has facilitated some dialogue on issues like trade and the environment, it has repeatedly stalled when historical or territorial issues resurface.
Even economic integration efforts like the proposed China-Japan-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, first discussed in 2002, have failed to materialize after decades of negotiations, repeatedly derailed by political tensions.
Public Opinion: The People Remain Divided
Beyond government policies, public sentiment in all three countries reflects deep suspicion and negative perceptions:
According to Pew Research Center surveys, large majorities of South Koreans and Japanese hold unfavorable views of China. Similarly, Chinese citizens’ views of Japan remain heavily influenced by the historical narrative of Japanese aggression. South Korean and Japanese citizens often view each other with suspicion, with periodic boycotts of each other’s products during diplomatic flare-ups.
These public attitudes constrain political leaders who might otherwise pursue more cooperative policies. Any politician seen as too accommodating to a historical rival risks significant domestic backlash.
Why This Matters for American Strategy
For American policymakers and strategists, this persistent three-way division offers several strategic advantages:
No United Front Against American Interests
The impossibility of these three powers forming a cohesive bloc means America doesn’t face a unified Asian challenge to its regional influence. Instead, the United States can continue to play a balancing role, mediating tensions while maintaining its own position.
Continued Relevance of American Security Guarantees
Japan and South Korea’s wariness about China’s intentions ensures continued demand for American security commitments. Despite occasional tensions over cost-sharing or policy differences, neither Tokyo nor Seoul can afford to abandon Washington given their neighborhood dynamics.
Leverage in Economic and Diplomatic Negotiations
Understanding these regional dynamics gives American negotiators leverage in trade, security, and diplomatic discussions. The United States can position itself as an essential partner precisely because regional cooperation remains elusive.
Looking Ahead: Will History’s Grip Ever Loosen?
Could these historical animosities eventually fade? It’s possible but unlikely in the foreseeable future. Several factors suggest these divisions will persist:
Nationalism as a Political Tool
Leaders in all three countries have found that nationalist rhetoric directed at historical rivals can be politically advantageous during times of domestic difficulty. This instrumentalization of historical grievances keeps wounds fresh.
Diverging, Not Converging, Trajectories
China’s increasingly assertive foreign policy under Xi Jinping, Japan’s gradual military normalization, and South Korea’s navigation of complex peninsula politics suggest national interests that continue to diverge rather than align.
The Education Factor
Educational systems in all three countries continue to emphasize narratives that reinforce historical grievances. New generations are still being raised with these perspectives, ensuring the longevity of these divisions.
Conclusion: A Reliable Reality in an Uncertain World
In an international environment where alliances shift and new challenges emerge constantly, the persistent divisions between Korea, China, and Japan provide a rare constant that American strategists can reliably factor into their calculations.
While this doesn’t mean the United States should actively work to deepen these divisions—indeed, reduced regional tensions generally serve American interests—it does mean that fears of a unified East Asian bloc emerging to challenge American influence remain unfounded.
For American policymakers and observers, understanding these dynamics provides essential context for interpreting developments in this critical region. The ghosts of history continue to walk the halls of power in Seoul, Beijing, and Tokyo—and they show no signs of departing anytime soon.
In the complex chess game of international relations, knowing which pieces cannot move together is just as valuable as knowing which can. And in East Asia, history has ensured that Korea, China, and Japan will remain separate players for the foreseeable future.