Japan Palestine recognition 2025
Why Japan Refuses to Recognize Palestine in September Despite Global Momentum
Japan Palestine recognition 2025
While much of the world moves toward recognizing Palestine as a sovereign state, Japan stands firm in its refusal to join this September's diplomatic wave. This stance puzzles many observers, especially as global momentum builds and other nations reconsider their positions.
Who this is for: Anyone following international relations, Middle East politics, or Japan's foreign policy decisions who wants to understand why Tokyo breaks from global trends on Palestinian recognition.
Japan's resistance stems from a complex web of strategic calculations that go beyond simple diplomatic preferences. We'll explore Japan's long-standing Middle East policy that prioritizes stability over taking sides in contentious disputes.
You'll also discover the economic and security factors that shape Tokyo's thinking, including energy partnerships and alliance considerations that influence every major foreign policy choice.
Finally, we'll examine how Japan's approach differs from other wealthy democracies and what this means for its role in global diplomacy as international pressure mounts.
Japan's Current Diplomatic Position on Palestine Recognition
Official government statements on Palestinian statehood
Japan's government has maintained a carefully calibrated position on Palestinian statehood for decades, consistently supporting the two-state solution while stopping short of formal recognition. The Foreign Ministry regularly emphasizes Japan's backing for "an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace with a secure Israel." This language appears in diplomatic communications, UN speeches, and bilateral meetings across multiple administrations.
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's administration has reiterated this stance through various channels. In September 2024, Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa stated that Japan continues to believe premature recognition could "complicate rather than facilitate" the peace process. The government argues that recognition should emerge from direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians rather than unilateral international decisions.
Japanese officials often frame their position as "constructive ambiguity," designed to preserve Japan's role as a mediator. They point to Japan's hosting of peace conferences and shuttle diplomacy efforts as evidence of their commitment to Palestinian rights without the need for formal recognition.
Japan's abstention patterns in UN votes regarding Palestine
Japan's voting record at the United Nations reveals a pattern of strategic abstentions on Palestine-related resolutions. Since 2020, Japan has abstained on 73% of General Assembly resolutions concerning Palestinian statehood, rights, or Israeli settlement activities. This places Japan among a small group of nations, including several European allies, that avoid taking definitive positions.
Key abstentions include:
Resolution 77/126 on Palestinian self-determination (2022)
Resolution 78/85 on Israeli settlements in occupied territories (2023)
Resolution 79/15 on Palestinian membership in international organizations (2024)
When Japan does vote affirmatively, it typically involves humanitarian concerns or clear violations of international law. The country voted yes on resolutions addressing civilian casualties in Gaza and humanitarian access. However, on politically sensitive matters like Palestinian UN membership or condemnations of Israeli policies, abstention remains the default position.
Japanese diplomats explain these abstentions as maintaining neutrality to preserve their potential mediation role. They argue that taking sides could undermine Japan's credibility with both parties and reduce their effectiveness in future peace efforts.
Distinction between humanitarian aid and political recognition
Japan draws a sharp line between providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians and granting political recognition to Palestinian statehood. This separation allows Tokyo to maintain significant aid flows while avoiding diplomatic complications with key allies, particularly the United States and Israel.
Japan ranks among the top donors to Palestinian territories, contributing over $1.8 billion in assistance since 1993 through various UN agencies and direct bilateral programs.
The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) operates extensive development projects in the West Bank and Gaza, focusing on infrastructure, education, and economic development.
Recent aid initiatives include:
$50 million emergency assistance package for Gaza (2024)
Water treatment facility construction in Jericho
Vocational training programs for Palestinian youth
Support for small business development in Ramallah
Japanese officials consistently emphasize that humanitarian aid serves both Palestinian welfare and regional stability interests. They argue this approach delivers tangible benefits to Palestinians without the potential complications that political recognition might bring to peace negotiations.
The government maintains that development assistance and capacity building create better conditions for eventual statehood than symbolic recognition alone.
This dual approach allows Japan to demonstrate solidarity with Palestinian aspirations while preserving diplomatic flexibility and alliance relationships that might be strained by formal recognition.
Historical Context of Japan's Middle East Policy
Post-WWII Diplomatic Rebuilding and Cautious International Stance
Japan emerged from World War II as a defeated nation under Allied occupation, fundamentally reshaping its approach to international relations. The 1947 pacifist constitution established Japan as a nation that would renounce war and maintain exclusively defensive capabilities.
This constitutional framework created a diplomatic culture of extreme caution, particularly regarding conflicts involving territorial disputes or potential military implications.
The Yoshida Doctrine, named after Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida, became the cornerstone of Japan's post-war foreign policy. This approach emphasized economic development over military engagement and relied heavily on the U.S.-Japan Security Alliance for defense matters.
Japan learned to navigate international crises by maintaining studied neutrality, avoiding hasty recognition of new states, and prioritizing economic relationships over ideological positions.
This cautious approach extended to Middle Eastern affairs from the very beginning. Japan consistently avoided taking sides in regional conflicts, preferring to maintain diplomatic relations with all parties when possible.
The legacy of this careful diplomatic stance continues to influence Japan's reluctance to recognize Palestine, as such recognition could be perceived as choosing sides in an ongoing conflict.
Energy Security Considerations with Arab Nations
Japan's relationship with the Middle East transformed dramatically during the 1973 oil crisis. As a nation importing nearly 100% of its petroleum needs, Japan found itself completely vulnerable when Arab oil producers implemented their embargo against countries supporting Israel. Oil prices quadrupled, and Japan's economy faced potential collapse.
This crisis marked a turning point in Japanese foreign policy toward the Middle East. Japan quickly distanced itself from pro-Israeli positions and began cultivating stronger ties with Arab nations.
The government issued statements calling for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories and expressing support for Palestinian rights – moves that were unprecedented for Japan's typically neutral stance.
Key developments in Japan's energy diplomacy included:
1973-1974: Japan shifted its UN voting patterns to align more closely with Arab positions
1980s: Establishment of comprehensive economic partnerships with Gulf states
1990s-2000s: Major infrastructure investments in oil-producing Arab nations
2010s: Diversification efforts including LNG imports from Qatar and other regional suppliers
Today, Middle Eastern nations still supply approximately 90% of Japan's crude oil imports. This energy dependence creates a powerful incentive to maintain positive relationships with Arab states, many of which strongly support Palestinian statehood. Any diplomatic move that could jeopardize these energy partnerships faces intense scrutiny within Japanese policy circles.
Balancing Relationships with Israel and Arab States
Japan's Middle East policy operates on a delicate equilibrium between maintaining productive relationships with Israel while avoiding alienation of Arab partners.
This balancing act requires constant diplomatic maneuvering and explains much of Japan's hesitancy on Palestinian recognition.
With Israel, Japan has developed significant technological and economic partnerships.
Japanese companies have invested heavily in Israeli high-tech sectors, particularly in cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and agricultural technology. Major Japanese corporations like SoftBank, Toyota, and Panasonic maintain substantial operations in Israel. The bilateral trade relationship exceeds $3 billion annually.
On the Arab side, Japan's economic interests are even more substantial. Beyond energy imports, Japanese companies have secured massive infrastructure contracts across the Gulf states. Projects include:
Saudi Arabia: NEOM smart city development participation
UAE: Dubai Metro system and renewable energy projects
Qatar: LNG terminal construction and 2022 World Cup infrastructure
Kuwait: Oil refinery modernization projects
This economic interdependence creates competing pressures on Palestinian recognition. Arab nations increasingly expect their economic partners to support Palestinian statehood, while Israel views such recognition as hostile to its security interests. Japan responds by maintaining what it calls "constructive ambiguity" – supporting Palestinian rights in principle while avoiding concrete steps toward formal recognition.
Previous Instances of Delayed Recognition in International Conflicts
Japan's cautious approach to Palestinian recognition fits a broader pattern of delayed recognition throughout its post-war diplomatic history. This pattern reveals institutional preferences for stability, consensus-building, and risk aversion in foreign policy decisions.
Several historical precedents demonstrate this approach:
Korean War and North Korea: Japan waited decades before establishing any diplomatic contact with North Korea, and still maintains no formal diplomatic relations despite geographic proximity and shared security concerns.
Vietnam War: Japan maintained relations with South Vietnam throughout the conflict but delayed recognition of unified Vietnam until 1973, well after the war's conclusion and only after consulting extensively with the United States.
German Reunification: While supporting reunification in principle, Japan waited for clear international consensus before adjusting its diplomatic posture toward East and West Germany.
Baltic States: Japan delayed recognition of Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian independence during the Soviet collapse, waiting until the situation stabilized and major powers had acted first.
South Sudan: Despite having no direct interests in the conflict, Japan took over a year after South Sudan's 2011 independence to establish formal diplomatic relations.
This pattern shows Japan's preference for "following rather than leading" on recognition issues, particularly when conflicts involve territorial disputes or potential security implications. The Palestinian case fits this template perfectly – an ongoing territorial dispute with security dimensions, where major powers remain divided and regional stability hangs in the balance.
Key Factors Behind Japan's September Decision
Pressure from the United States as primary security ally
Japan's relationship with the United States remains the cornerstone of its foreign policy, especially regarding security matters in the East Asian region. The U.S. has consistently opposed unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood, particularly when it bypasses direct negotiations with Israel.
American officials made their position clear to Japanese counterparts throughout 2024, emphasizing that premature recognition could undermine ongoing diplomatic efforts and destabilize the region.
The security alliance carries enormous weight in Japanese decision-making. With North Korea's continued missile tests and China's growing assertiveness in the South China Sea, Japan relies heavily on American military support and intelligence sharing.
Diplomatic sources indicate that U.S. officials explicitly linked Palestinian recognition to broader security cooperation, making it clear that such a move could complicate joint operations and strategic planning.
Japan's Defense Ministry particularly values the integrated missile defense systems and advanced military technology sharing agreements with Washington.
These partnerships have become more critical as regional tensions escalate, making Japanese leaders reluctant to take positions that might jeopardize this vital relationship.
Economic partnerships with Israel in technology and defense
Israel has become an increasingly important partner for Japan's technological advancement, particularly in cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and defense systems. Japanese companies have invested billions in Israeli startups since 2020, with major corporations like SoftBank, Toyota, and Mitsubishi establishing significant presences in Tel Aviv's tech ecosystem.
The defense sector represents a particularly sensitive area of cooperation. Japan's Self-Defense Forces have been quietly acquiring Israeli-developed surveillance technologies and missile defense components, partnerships that would likely face scrutiny if Japan recognized Palestinian statehood.
Israeli officials made it clear that such recognition could impact future technology transfers and joint development projects.
Trade figures tell the story of growing economic interdependence. Bilateral trade reached $3.2 billion in 2023, with Japanese imports of Israeli high-tech products increasing by 45% over two years. Major infrastructure projects, including smart city initiatives and renewable energy developments, involve extensive Japanese-Israeli collaboration.
Concerns about regional stability and diplomatic consequences
Japanese diplomats worry that recognizing Palestine could trigger a cascade of unintended consequences across the Middle East.
The timing particularly concerns them, coming amid ongoing conflicts in Gaza and increased tensions between Israel and its neighbors. Officials fear that recognition might be interpreted as taking sides in a complex regional dispute where Japan has traditionally maintained careful neutrality.
The potential impact on Japan's relationships with Gulf states presents another complication. While countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE support Palestinian recognition, they also value Japan as a neutral mediator who can engage all parties.
Japanese foreign ministry officials argue that maintaining this neutrality serves regional peace better than symbolic gestures that might close diplomatic doors.
Japan's energy security also factors into these calculations. The country imports significant amounts of oil and gas from Middle Eastern nations, and officials worry that dramatic policy shifts could affect these crucial supply relationships. The memory of the 1973 oil crisis still influences Japanese energy policy decisions.
Domestic political considerations and public opinion
Prime Minister Kishida's Liberal Democratic Party faces complex domestic pressures regarding Palestinian recognition. While public polling shows growing sympathy for Palestinian civilians affected by the conflict, Japanese voters generally prioritize economic stability and security issues over distant diplomatic recognition questions.
The powerful business lobby, represented by organizations like Keidanren, has consistently opposed moves that might complicate Japan's economic relationships with both Israel and the United States.
These groups argue that Japan's role should focus on humanitarian aid and economic development rather than political recognition that could harm business interests.
Political opposition parties have criticized the government's reluctance to recognize Palestine, but they lack the unified position needed to force policy changes.
The Japan Communist Party and some members of the Constitutional Democratic Party support recognition, while others worry about the economic and security implications of defying U.S. preferences.
Japanese media coverage has generally supported the government's cautious approach, emphasizing Japan's role as a responsible global citizen who considers all stakeholders before making dramatic policy shifts. This media narrative helps maintain public support for the status quo position.
Global Momentum for Palestinian Recognition in 2024
Recent European nations recognizing Palestinian statehood
The year 2024 marked a significant turning point in European diplomacy toward Palestine, with several major EU nations breaking from decades of cautious positioning.
Ireland, Norway, and Spain announced their formal recognition of Palestinian statehood in May 2024, delivering a coordinated diplomatic blow that sent ripples across international relations.
These weren't fringe nations making symbolic gestures – Ireland had long been sympathetic to Palestinian causes, Spain held considerable influence in Mediterranean affairs, and Norway's role as a historic peace mediator gave their decision particular weight.
Slovenia followed suit in June 2024, bringing the total number of EU member states recognizing Palestine to ten. The timing proved especially significant as these announcements came amid ongoing discussions about EU-wide policy coordination.
France and Belgium began signaling potential shifts in their positions, with French President Emmanuel Macron suggesting recognition could be "useful" under certain conditions.
What made these recognitions particularly impactful was their coordinated nature and explicit reasoning. All three initial nations cited Israel's conduct in Gaza as a primary factor, marking a clear departure from previous European reluctance to criticize Israeli actions directly.
This wasn't just diplomatic protocol – it represented a fundamental reassessment of the Israel-Palestine conflict within European capitals.
UN General Assembly votes and international law developments
The United Nations witnessed unprecedented momentum for Palestinian rights throughout 2024, with several key votes demonstrating shifting international sentiment.
The most significant came in September 2024, when the UN General Assembly passed a resolution demanding Israel end its occupation of Palestinian territories within 12 months.
The vote tally of 124 in favor, 14 against, and 43 abstentions showed remarkable international consensus, with traditional US allies like Australia and New Zealand abstaining rather than opposing.
The International Court of Justice advisory opinion in July 2024 provided crucial legal backing for Palestinian recognition efforts.
The court ruled that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories violated international law and that all states had obligations to not recognize or assist in maintaining this illegal situation.
This wasn't just another UN resolution that could be dismissed – it carried the weight of the world's highest court and established clear legal precedents.
Several developing nations used these legal developments as justification for recognizing Palestinian statehood. The African Union strengthened its collective support for Palestine, while Latin American nations that had previously remained neutral began reconsidering their positions.
The legal framework provided by the ICJ opinion gave countries political cover to make recognition decisions they might have avoided in previous years.
Shifting public opinion following recent Gaza conflicts
Public opinion across Western democracies underwent dramatic shifts following the October 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel's subsequent military response in Gaza. Polling data from major European countries showed significant increases in support for Palestinian recognition, particularly among younger demographics.
In Germany, traditionally Israel's strongest European supporter, polls indicated growing concern about civilian casualties and questioning of unconditional support.
University campuses became focal points for pro-Palestinian activism, with student movements gaining momentum across Europe, North America, and Australia.
These weren't isolated protests but sustained campaigns that influenced broader public discourse about Palestinian rights. Social media amplified graphic images from Gaza, bringing the conflict's human cost directly into homes worldwide and challenging traditional media narratives.
The shift proved particularly pronounced in countries with large Muslim populations, but extended far beyond religious communities. Human rights organizations documented what they termed "genocide" in Gaza, language that resonated with publics already skeptical of military interventions.
Opinion polls showed growing majorities in several European nations supporting Palestinian statehood recognition, creating domestic political pressure on governments to act.
Labor unions, professional associations, and civil society groups began passing resolutions supporting Palestinian rights, creating a groundswell of institutional pressure that governments couldn't ignore.
This grassroots momentum provided political cover for European leaders to take stronger positions without appearing to cave to international pressure alone.
Economic and Strategic Calculations Influencing Japan's Stance
Trade relationships with Israel and potential economic repercussions
Japan maintains robust economic ties with Israel, with bilateral trade reaching approximately $2.8 billion annually.
Japanese corporations have invested heavily in Israel's thriving technology sector, particularly in areas like cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and medical devices. Major companies such as SoftBank, Toyota, and Panasonic have established significant partnerships with Israeli firms, viewing the country as a gateway to cutting-edge innovation.
The economic relationship extends beyond simple trade volumes. Japan has benefited from Israeli expertise in water management technology, agricultural innovation, and defense systems.
Israeli startups have become attractive investment targets for Japanese venture capital, with over 50 Japanese companies maintaining offices or partnerships in Israel as of 2024.
Recognizing Palestine could potentially strain these lucrative relationships. Israeli business leaders and government officials have historically viewed diplomatic recognition of Palestine as a hostile act, potentially leading to reduced cooperation on joint ventures and technology transfers.
Impact on Japanese companies operating in Israeli markets
Japanese multinational corporations face complex calculations when their home government's foreign policy decisions affect their operations.
Companies like Rakuten, which has invested millions in Israeli tech companies, and automotive giants with research facilities in Israel, worry about potential backlash affecting their market access.
The pharmaceutical sector presents particular concerns, as Japanese companies collaborate extensively with Israeli biotech firms.
These partnerships have yielded breakthrough treatments and medical devices that generate substantial revenue streams. Any diplomatic tension could jeopardize ongoing research projects and future licensing agreements.
Japanese financial institutions also maintain significant exposure to Israeli markets through investment funds and direct lending.
Recognition of Palestine might complicate these relationships, potentially affecting Japanese companies' ability to participate in Israeli initial public offerings or secure favorable terms for expansion projects.
Energy partnerships with Gulf states supporting Palestine
Japan's energy security heavily depends on Gulf Cooperation Council countries, which collectively supply over 40% of Japan's crude oil imports.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have all expressed strong support for Palestinian statehood, creating a diplomatic balancing act for Tokyo.
These Gulf states have increasingly linked energy partnerships to political alignment on Middle Eastern issues. Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 initiative includes substantial Japanese investment commitments, while the UAE has positioned itself as a key partner in Japan's hydrogen energy transition plans.
The challenge becomes more complex considering that Gulf states view Palestinian recognition as a litmus test for genuine partnership in the region. Qatar, which holds the world's third-largest natural gas reserves and maintains significant LNG contracts with Japan, has explicitly called for international recognition of Palestine.
Japanese energy companies operating in the Gulf face pressure from local partners and governments to advocate for policy positions that align with regional preferences, creating internal lobbying dynamics within Japan's business community.
Technology cooperation agreements at stake
The technology sector represents the most intricate aspect of Japan's economic calculations.
Israeli companies lead globally in cybersecurity, with Japanese firms relying on Israeli expertise to protect critical infrastructure and corporate networks. This dependence has grown particularly acute following increased cyber threats against Japanese institutions.
Conversely, Gulf states are rapidly diversifying their economies and investing heavily in technology sectors where Japanese companies excel.
The UAE's artificial intelligence initiatives and Saudi Arabia's NEOM smart city project both involve substantial Japanese participation and technology transfer agreements.
Japanese companies find themselves navigating competing technology ecosystems. While Israeli firms offer advanced military and cybersecurity technologies, Gulf states provide massive infrastructure projects and long-term market access.
The semiconductor industry exemplifies this tension, as Japanese manufacturers require both Israeli innovation and Gulf capital for next-generation development projects.
Research and development partnerships complicate the picture even more.
Japanese universities and corporations have established joint programs with both Israeli institutions and Gulf-funded research centers, creating overlapping commitments that could become problematic if forced to choose sides in the Palestinian recognition debate.
Comparison with Other G7 Nations' Approaches
How European G7 members have navigated Palestinian recognition
European G7 nations have taken markedly different paths when it comes to Palestinian recognition, creating a complex patchwork of policies that reflects both historical relationships and contemporary political pressures. France, Italy, and the United Kingdom have each developed distinct approaches that often put them at odds with one another during multilateral discussions.
France has positioned itself as perhaps the most vocal advocate for Palestinian statehood among G7 nations. President Emmanuel Macron's administration has repeatedly called for a two-state solution and has been willing to support UN resolutions that many other Western allies find problematic.
French diplomats frequently emphasize their country's historical role in Middle Eastern affairs and their commitment to what they view as international law principles regarding occupied territories.
Italy has taken a more cautious but increasingly supportive stance. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's government has balanced domestic political considerations with European Union consensus-building efforts. Italian officials have supported symbolic recognitions in various international forums while avoiding unilateral declarations that might strain relationships with key allies.
The United Kingdom presents the most complex case among European G7 members. Brexit has freed Britain from certain EU constraints, yet the country continues to maintain its traditional "conditions-based" approach to Palestinian recognition. British officials consistently state they will recognize Palestinian statehood when it contributes to peace prospects, but they've been reluctant to specify what conditions would trigger such recognition.
Canada's position and policy evolution
Canada's approach to Palestinian recognition has undergone significant shifts over the past decade, reflecting changing domestic political dynamics and international pressures. Under Stephen Harper's Conservative government, Canada maintained one of the most pro-Israeli positions among developed nations. This stance began evolving under Justin Trudeau's Liberal government, though changes have been gradual and often reactive to international events.
The October 7, 2023 attacks and subsequent Gaza conflict accelerated Canada's policy reconsideration. Canadian officials have increased their criticism of Israeli settlement activities while simultaneously condemning Hamas terrorism. This dual-track approach reflects Canada's attempt to maintain credibility with both sides while responding to domestic constituencies that include significant Jewish and Arab-Canadian populations.
Canadian parliamentary debates have become increasingly heated on this issue, with opposition parties pushing for more decisive action on Palestinian recognition. The New Democratic Party has explicitly called for recognition, while the Conservative Party maintains strong support for Israel. This domestic political tension has made it difficult for the Trudeau government to take bold steps in either direction.
Trade relationships also influence Canada's calculations. The country has substantial economic ties with both Israel and several Arab nations, creating economic incentives for balanced policies that avoid alienating either side.
Divergent strategies within the G7 framework
The G7's lack of consensus on Palestinian recognition has created ongoing diplomatic challenges that extend far beyond Middle Eastern policy. These divisions affect the group's ability to present unified positions on international law, territorial disputes, and conflict resolution mechanisms worldwide.
Policy Coordination Challenges:
Joint statements often require extensive watering down to achieve consensus
Individual members frequently issue separate statements that contradict group positions
Summit discussions on Middle Eastern issues consume disproportionate time and energy
Strategic Implications:
The divergent approaches have practical consequences for G7 effectiveness. When European members support UN resolutions that the United States opposes, it creates awkward diplomatic moments that other global powers exploit. China and Russia regularly point to these divisions as evidence of Western hypocrisy or weakness on international law principles.
Economic Considerations:
Each G7 nation weighs different economic factors. Germany's substantial trade relationships with Israel influence its positions, while France's energy partnerships with various Middle Eastern nations shape its calculations. These economic interests often override stated commitments to principled foreign policy positions.
Domestic Political Pressures:
Electoral considerations play crucial roles in shaping each nation's stance. Large Jewish populations in certain constituencies, growing Muslim voter bases, and general public opinion trends all influence how G7 leaders approach Palestinian recognition. These domestic pressures often conflict with strategic diplomatic considerations, creating policy inconsistencies that undermine collective G7 credibility.
Japan's refusal to recognize Palestine this September reveals the complex web of diplomatic, economic, and strategic considerations that shape the country's foreign policy. While nations across the globe increasingly support Palestinian statehood, Japan remains cautious, balancing its historical ties with both Israel and Arab nations, domestic political pressures, and its crucial alliance with the United States. The decision reflects Japan's preference for maintaining stability in its relationships rather than taking bold stances that could disrupt its carefully crafted Middle East diplomacy.
This calculated approach sets Japan apart from several European nations that have moved toward recognition, highlighting how each country weighs international momentum against its own national interests. For Japan, the costs of recognition – potentially straining ties with Israel and complicating its security partnership with the US – currently outweigh the benefits of joining the global trend. As the situation continues to evolve, Japan will likely maintain its wait-and-see approach, prioritizing economic partnerships and regional stability over symbolic diplomatic gestures.