When a territorial dispute becomes a tool of great-power rivalry

Editor's note: Li Qiqian, a special commentator for CGTN, is an assistant research fellow at the National Institute of International Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The territorial dispute over the Southern Kuril Islands, known as the Northern Territories in Japan, has once again drawn international attention. Russia and Japan have traded accusations over sovereignty and military activities, while the United States has openly intervened in support of Japan's claim. Unresolved for over 80 years, the issue is gaining an increasingly pronounced geopolitical dimension amid deteriorating Russia-Japan relations, a strengthened US-Japan alliance and growing security tensions in Northeast Asia.

The dispute stems from fundamental differences between Russia and Japan over historical facts, post-war arrangements and territorial sovereignty. Such a complex dispute can only be addressed through equal political negotiations between the parties, with respect for historical facts and the post-war international order, so as to manage differences and build mutual trust.

In recent years, however, Japan has increasingly sought to use the US-Japan alliance to strengthen its diplomatic leverage. Washington openly supports Japan's claim and links the issue to so-called Indo-Pacific security, further embedding what should be a bilateral historical issue in major-power strategic competition. Japan has likewise attempted to draw on US political support and military presence in Northeast Asia to portray what was a bilateral territorial dispute with a neighboring country as an effort to uphold the rules-based international order.

These actions have in fact narrowed the space for a diplomatic settlement. When an external power takes sides, it can encourage greater reliance on the backing of an ally, raise political demands and weaken incentives for compromise. Russia, meanwhile, is more likely to view the dispute through the lens of military security and strategic confrontation, linking Japan's claim to US military deployments in Northeast Asia. The dispute could therefore evolve from a bilateral disagreement into a strategic front where alliance politics and major-power rivalry converge.

Following the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, Japan joined the United States and other Western countries in imposing sanctions on Russia. Political trust between Moscow and Tokyo deteriorated further, and peace treaty negotiations over the South Kuril Islands stalled. Japan advocates a diplomatic settlement while integrating its Russia policy ever more deeply into the West's geopolitical strategy and increasing confrontation in word and deed. This has created a clear dilemma: When one country treats the other as a major security threat and maintains pressure on it, substantive compromise on sovereignty and post-war arrangements becomes extremely difficult.

More importantly, renewed tensions over the islands have coincided with Japan's accelerated military buildup. Japan has sharply increased defense spending, developed "counterstrike capabilities," eased restrictions on arms exports, reinforced military deployments in its southwestern region, and strengthened joint operations and "extended deterrence" with the United States. Tokyo has also used the alliance to facilitate the deployment of US strategic weapons in the Asia-Pacific, further eroding the constraints of its exclusively defense-oriented policy.

Japan has long portrayed itself as a peaceful country, but is now seeking a comprehensive restructuring of its military capabilities. Given the profound suffering inflicted on Asian peoples by Japanese militarism, Japan's military and security moves warrant high vigilance from its Asian neighbors. If Tokyo continues to use territorial disputes to generate security anxiety and invoke external threats as a pretext for military expansion, the dispute could slide from a diplomatic disagreement into a strategic security dilemma. Military deployments would grow, political trust would decline, and room for negotiations would shrink, leaving Northeast Asian countries to bear the resulting security pressure.

Once a bilateral historical dispute is incorporated into an alliance system, it can easily become an instrument of bloc confrontation. Tying territorial issues to major-power rivalry will burden the dispute with additional strategic functions and make compromise more difficult. Northeast Asia does not lack military power; what it lacks is a stable, equal and inclusive security communication mechanism. The parties should avoid actions that could escalate tensions and prevent miscalculation around the islands. For Japan, a responsible choice is to draw lessons from history, honor its exclusively defense-oriented policy and non-nuclear commitments, stop using alleged external threats to justify military expansion, and take concrete actions to earn the trust of its Asian neighbors.

The dispute once again shows that bloc politics cannot untie historical knots, and confrontation cannot deliver lasting security. Only by preventing external forces from holding the issue hostage, returning it to independent consultations between the parties, and gradually building an open and inclusive regional security dialogue mechanism can Northeast Asia create space for resolving historical differences and lay a reliable foundation for lasting peace and stability.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)