TOKYO: On Sep 20, Beijing announced it would soon begin removing a blanket ban on the import of Japanese seafood products originally imposed in August 2023.

The news came in a press release stating Japan and China had reached a “shared understanding” about expanding the (already substantive) international regime that monitors the release of treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean.

The announcement generated mixed reactions in Japan. Some players in the seafood sector, many of whom spent the previous 13 months struggling to adjust to the loss of their most valuable export market, appeared cautiously optimistic.

Others were less sanguine. While China’s foreign ministry emphatically stressed the decision followed months of negotiations, its appearance was quite sudden and conspicuous in a week where bilateral ties had reached a new low, prompting some to question the timing.

So why now?

NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION NARRATIVE

When Beijing first introduced the ban, it claimed that the restrictions were necessary to maintain food safety and protect the health of Chinese citizens.

These supposed concerns prompted many in Japan to roll their eyes, not only because the International Atomic Energy Agency had declared the water to pose no risks, but because it was quickly revealed that the catch from Chinese fishing boats operating in the same waters as Japanese fishermen was being considered “safe”, while only that from Japanese boats was “nuclear contaminated”.

Given the ban’s timing - just days after Tokyo had angered Beijing by doubling down on its cooperation with Washington and Seoul at the 2023 Camp David Summit - it was instead interpreted as the latest example of Chinese economic coercion.

Yet with aquatic products comprising less than 1 per cent of the value of Japan’s total exports, the seafood sanction was unlikely to create the necessary leverage to make Tokyo reconsider the release decision.

Given this, many assumed the ban was less about influencing Japan, and more about placating domestic Chinese citizens who - after weeks of apparently state-sanctioned disinformation - had come to believe the false contamination narrative.

Related:Commentary: The whole world risks losing from the US-China rivalry Commentary: US green trade war with China is just getting started THE “CARROT” OF REMOVING TRADE BARRIERS

Regardless of the initial motive, last week’s decision is a reminder that trade restrictions do not simply afford leverage when they are initially used as coercive “sticks” to cause pain. The prospect of removing barriers previously imposed - a “carrot” that might not be dangled until months or years after a dispute begins - may offer another potent source of leverage.

As David Baldwin once succinctly put it: “Tomorrow’s threat may lay the groundwork for a promise on the day after tomorrow”.

Beijing has been on the other side of this lesson. Once the Biden administration took office in 2021, it was widely hoped that many of the Trump-era tariffs on US$360 billion in Chinese imports would be removed, given the cost to American consumers.

But the administration did not make a change, with US Trade Representative Katherine Tai describing the tariffs as “leverage” for future negotiations.

Just like restrictions on Australian lobster (which remain in place long after other barriers were removed), maintaining the seafood ban was a relatively low-cost way for Beijing to hold leverage in reserve given the ease of substituting fish and other aquatic products.

For Tokyopito 777 gaming, however, after facing 13 months of lobbying and industry pressure, the prospect of the ban's removal could be a tempting inducement.

Foreign vessels, some of them bearing Chinese flags, fish near Torishima, Japan, on Oct 31, 2014. (Kyodo News via AP)

• China
• of
• pito 777 gaming
• Removal
• Commentary