In response to a controversial statement made by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, more than 500,000 airline tickets purchased by Chinese citizens for travel to Japan have reportedly been forfeited after the Chinese government imposed restrictions on trips to the country. This policy has left travel agencies overwhelmed, airlines facing significant losses, and Japan deprived of one of its largest sources of foreign tourists. Beneath what appears to be a tourism‑related issue, a wider strategic maneuver is unfolding.
Chronology of the Ban: From Visa Restrictions to Mass Cancellations
The travel restrictions did not emerge suddenly. In early 2024, the Chinese government began tightening rules on group travel to Japan, followed by strong advisories from immigration authorities urging citizens to postpone visits on the grounds of “safety concerns.” Several airlines later reported abrupt cancellations on routes such as Beijing–Tokyo and Shanghai–Osaka. Japan’s tourism industry confirmed that more than 500,000 pre‑purchased tickets by Chinese citizens were effectively rendered unusable. On social media platforms like the Chinese social media platform Weibo, many travelers complained that agencies could not process refunds, as the cancellations originated from aviation authorities.
Why Did China Ban Its Citizens from Travelling to Japan?
Officially, China cited “health and safety concerns,” particularly following Japan’s release of treated Fukushima water into the Pacific. However, international relations analysts see the move as part of a deeper political strategy. Three main factors underpin this decision:
- Historical sensitivities: Relations between the two nations have long been fraught due to unresolved historical grievances and wartime memories.
- East China Sea tensions: The Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute has intensified in recent years, fuelled by Beijing’s concerns over Japan’s stance on Taiwan and its evolving security doctrines.
- Japan’s military expansion: Tokyo has approved its largest defense budget since the Second World War and adopted a “counterstrike capability,” which Beijing interprets as a direct threat.
Thus, the mobility restrictions extend far beyond Fukushima, reflecting the complex political dynamics between the two Asian powers.
The Broader Strategy Behind China’s Decision
Although framed as a domestic policy, the travel ban serves as a diplomatic instrument. At least two major strategic calculations can be identified:
1. Economic Pressure through Tourism
China was Japan’s largest source of foreign tourists before the pandemic. In 2019, more than nine million Chinese tourists visited Japan. Mainland China and Hong Kong together accounted for roughly one‑fifth of all inbound travelers. According to the Nomura Research Institute, the travel boycott could cost Japan an estimated ¥2.2 trillion annually (approximately 14.23 billion United States dollars or 221.6 trillion Indonesian rupiah).
Since the issuance of China’s travel advisory on 14 November, tourism‑related stocks in Japan have declined sharply. Several China‑based airlines—including Air China, China Southern, China Eastern, Hainan Airlines, Sichuan Airlines, Xiamen Airlines, and Spring Airlines—have offered refunds for flights to Japan, signalling a significant drop in travel demand.
This situation has had immediate repercussions for Japan’s tourism sector. Shares in major Japanese companies have fallen: Isetan Mitsukoshi dropped by 10.7%, Tokyo Disneyland operator Oriental Land declined by 5.9%, and Japan Airlines (Japan Airlines) by 4.4%. For Japan, losing Chinese tourists means losing billions of yen—a form of geo‑economic pressure that is impactful yet non‑military.
2. Political Signalling Without Direct Confrontation
In diplomacy, this approach is known as political signalling. China seeks to convey a message to Japan: “If you maintain a hardened stance on security issues and the East China Sea, we have ways to exert pressure without resorting to military confrontation.” It is a subtle yet powerful warning that operates within the bounds of international law.
Japan appears to be the side suffering the greatest consequences. Beyond the economic losses, this policy further strains bilateral relations. Japanese Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara lodged a protest against China’s advisory and urged Beijing to take appropriate measures, acknowledging that both countries hold divergent interpretations of the situation. Japan’s response reflects concern, albeit expressed in a restrained diplomatic manner.
Japan’s Response
The Japanese government has not openly criticized China’s policy but has instead expressed “concern” through diplomatic channels. To mitigate the fallout, Japan’s Tourism Agency has accelerated efforts to attract visitors from Southeast Asia, Europe, and Australia. Airlines have also shifted seat capacity to markets outside China to compensate for the decline.
In addition, Japan’s tourism sector anticipates short‑term benefits for travellers from Southeast Asia, Australia, and Europe, who may now enjoy greater ticket availability and improved travel services. However, in the long term, Japan must devise strategies to reduce its dependence on Chinese tourists while managing increasingly fragile bilateral relations.