Photo/Illutration Red seabream from Ehime Prefecture on display at an international fishery fair held in Shanghai on Aug. 23 (The Asahi Shimbun)

China’s decision to impose a blanket import ban on seafood from Japan is tantamount to economic coercion. We strongly protest its unilateral decision to use its vast market as leverage.

The Chinese government has imposed a full-blown import ban on all kinds of Japanese fisheries products in response to Japan’s decision to start releasing treated radioactive water into the sea from the wrecked Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant.

In justifying the step, China’s foreign ministry said the government is solidly committed to protecting the oceanic environment, food safety and the health of the people.

Yet, China has refused to engage in talks with Japan based on solid scientific evidence. Beijing’s action is also a disservice to Chinese consumers who seek accurate information concerning health and safety.

The North Pacific is among areas where both Japanese and Chinese fishing boats operate. As such, China’s ban should by rights also cover marine products caught by Chinese fishing boats.

This is not the first time for China to adopt aggressive retaliatory response to an action by another country that displeased it. Three years ago, the Australian prime minister’s call for an inquiry into the origins of the COVID-19 virus triggered reprisals by Beijing that included higher tariffs on Australian wine, which caused Australia’s wine exports to China to plummet.

China’s economic coercion was raised at the Group of Seven summit in May in the context of the security risk associated to trade with China. The Chinese foreign ministry accused the Japan government of ignoring concerns expressed by the international community. But Chinese leaders should realize that the action will only damage their country’s credibility.

There is no question that discharging treated water from a nuclear plant hit by a severe accident is an unprecedented step. There is good reason for foreign governments to be concerned about the measure. Japan obviously has a duty to monitor the situation closely and disclose all relevant information.

Japan is well aware of this responsibility and has been working closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency in planning and executing the release of treated Fukushima water into the Pacific Ocean. As a result, a growing number of countries embraced Japan’s plan. China stands out as the only country that is still strongly opposed.

China is unlikely to withdraw the ban anytime soon. It will be difficult for Tokyo to reach a compromise agreement with Beijing. It should be assumed that the import ban will remain for a long time.

Japan’s seafood exports to China were worth 87.1 billion yen ($594.5 million) last year, with scallops accounting for more than half of the total. Shipments to China and Hong Kong, which has prohibited imports from 10 Japanese prefectures, constitute 40 percent of overall exports of Japanese seafood.

The government will have to offer sufficient support to Japanese fishing industries that are bound to be affected. Policy efforts should be redoubled to promote domestic consumption of seafood and help develop new overseas markets for Japanese fisheries products, especially in North America and Europe, to reduce dependence on the Chinese market.

In September, several major international conferences are due to be held, including those related to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Group of 20 summit. These gatherings will offer good opportunities for the Japanese and Chinese leaders to hold talks. The Japanese government should continue tenacious efforts to engage in constructive dialogue with China over the matter.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Aug. 26

Related News