Is Japan Really Dangerous? Decoding the Continuity Between China's 'Deteriorating Public Safety' Narrative and Past Precedents

The moment I wondered if Japan is really dangerous

The Chinese Embassy suddenly called for travel restraint, citing 'deteriorating public safety in Japan.' Upon hearing this news, wasn't our first reaction one of 'discomfort' rather than 'danger'? I don't recall hearing about any major changes in public safety indicators, and the atmosphere in the streets doesn't seem to have suddenly turned hostile. Nevertheless, diplomatic authorities issued a warning in a strong tone. This 'strength of the narrative' versus the 'divergence from reality' is the entry point for deciphering this case.

What is the state of public safety in Japan?

Before proceeding with the discussion, there are facts that must be confirmed. Public safety in Japan has been on a long-term improving trend, and the rate of increase or decrease in serious crimes has remained stable. Crime statistics are indicators that maintain distance from political impression management and quietly reflect reality.

National Police Agency 'Reiwa 6 Penal Code Offense Statistics Summary'

As far as this data shows, there are no statistics to support the 'rapid increase in danger' or 'expansion of violence targeting Chinese people' as claimed by the Chinese government. Rather, the long-term trend is a 'quiet decline.' Therefore, it is highly likely that the phrase 'deteriorating public safety' is a 'term with an ulterior motive' rather than a reflection of reality.

Why did the Chinese Embassy issue such a strong message now?

The Chinese Embassy stated that 'there have been multiple cases of Chinese tourists being assaulted and injured' and requested a reconsideration of travel to Japan. While several cases have been introduced in reports, their numbers and backgrounds have not been disclosed, making it difficult to call them systematically collected data.

Mainichi Shimbun 'Chinese Government Eager to Promote 'Deteriorating Public Safety' in Japan'

This 'ambiguity' suggests that this announcement is more of a message with a political context than pure safety information. This is because the lack of specificity has a structure more suited to 'forming an impression' than warning of danger.

Linking anti-Chinese sentiment on the internet with 'deteriorating public safety'

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also pointed out that 'anti-Chinese sentiment is increasing on the Japanese internet.' However, there is a major leap in logic here. While crude criticism on the internet certainly exists, it is logically difficult to directly link it to 'deteriorating public safety.' An increase in harmful posts does not mean an increase in violent incidents, and the weight of these as social phenomena is completely different.

Focusing on this point, it appears that this case is not speaking to the 'fact of deteriorating public safety,' but rather that the 'political intention to talk about Japan within the framework of deteriorating public safety' is coming to the fore. The choice of words itself serves as a diplomatic signal.

The target of the warning is directed more at 'its own citizens' than at 'Japan'

While this announcement seems to judge Japan as dangerous, its main focus is actually on public opinion within China. In recent years, the Chinese government has strengthened its policy of emphasizing the protection of Chinese nationals abroad and has begun to frequently issue warnings to various countries. In doing so, the narrative that 'the outside world is dangerous' and 'the state will protect you' is prioritized over the actual public safety situation.

Urging travel restraint with strong words itself has become a device to stage the 'protecting state.' This announcement regarding Japan can be naturally understood if placed on that same extension.

How to interpret this case

From the facts organized so far, the following composition emerges.

• Japan's public safety is statistically stable

• The embassy's warning lacks specificity

• The logic connecting online discourse to public safety is fragile

• The Chinese government has a strong tendency to project itself as a 'protecting state' for its domestic audience

When these four points overlap, it is more consistent to read the term 'deteriorating public safety' not as a signal indicating real danger, but as a 'keyword' used for political purposes. The sense of discomfort this time likely stems from an intuition of that very inconsistency.

Recommended Articles

The composition that becomes visible when looking back at past incidents

The current narrative from the Chinese side that 'Japan is dangerous' did not emerge spontaneously. Tracing several phases over the past twenty years reveals a history of the Chinese government using similar phrases to guide public opinion when specific conditions are met. In other words, this event should be read not as an 'isolated anomaly,' but as the 'latest version of a recurring pattern.'

2005: A period when the heat of anti-Japanese protests caused domestic public opinion to run wild

In the spring of 2005, large-scale anti-Japanese protests occurred across China. At the time, the Japanese Embassy and Japanese restaurants suffered from stone-throwing and destruction, and parts of the streets turned into riots. This was a 'real danger' accompanied by a direct deterioration of public safety, and its nature differs significantly from the current incident.

According to an analysis by the National Diet Library, Chinese media at the time repeatedly emphasized the narrative that 'Japan has not reflected on historical issues,' which bolstered the legitimacy of the protests. It is pointed out that the government could not stop public opinion from swelling autonomously and was forced into a position of having to apply the 'anti-Japanese brake' itself.

National Diet Library: 'Foreign Perspectives on Anti-Japanese Protests in China'

The characteristic of this period was that public opinion ran wild first, and the government acted as a firefighter afterward. This is the exact opposite of the current composition, where the government is the one saying 'Japan is dangerous' first.

2012: The year when rioting occurred again due to the nationalization of the Senkaku Islands

The nationalization of the Senkaku Islands in 2012 severely shook Chinese public opinion toward Japan. In Qingdao and Chengdu, anti-Japanese protests turned into riots, and factories and showrooms of Japanese companies were destroyed. This had more to do with the sudden eruption of dissatisfaction among social classes and regions than with state intent.

An analysis by the Japan Institute of International Affairs summarizes that 'Beijing tried to control the protests, but there were differences in control capability due to the different social structures of each city.' In other words, this was a case where public safety truly deteriorated in the process of social energy erupting, rather than a government-led 'danger appeal.'

Japan Institute of International Affairs: 'Analysis of Anti-Japanese Protests in China'

This incident is also essentially different from the current one. In 2012, 'actual danger' existed on the streets, but no equivalent phenomenon has been confirmed in Japan in 2025.

What the two past incidents had in common

The two protests discussed so far had several common points.

• Stimulation of public opinion was amplified by external factors

• Anti-Japanese sentiment became visible and spiraled out of control

• A deterioration in public safety involving actual harm occurred

However, these three points do not apply to the current situation regarding Japan. No deterioration in public safety has been confirmed, nor is there any evidence of a series of anti-Chinese violent incidents occurring within Japan. In other words, the structure is completely different from situations where 'danger was becoming a reality,' such as in 2005 or 2012.

What does this difference indicate? In the two past cases, the danger was 'reality,' and the government's messaging was a 'follow-up.' But in the case of Japan this time, the danger is being presented first as a 'narrative rather than reality.'

A Major Turning Point: The Emergence of the 'Protecting Overseas Chinese' Narrative Since the 2020s

Entering the 2020s, China began repeating the narrative that 'Chinese people are being exposed to danger abroad' in various countries. This is a new narrative that links domestic policy with foreign policy, serving to project an image of the state protecting its own citizens.

Looking at the warnings against Japan in this context, we can see that the direction of the messaging is reversed compared to past anti-Japanese protests. Previously, 'public opinion created the danger, and the government acted afterward.' Now, 'the government speaks of danger, creating a framework ahead of public opinion.' This difference is extremely significant.

The 'Abnormality of This Time' Revealed by Comparison with the Past

Summarizing the perspective of comparison highlights the characteristics of the current case.

• Confirmed actual harm is extremely scarce

• Statistics are not used as the basis for the danger

• The narrative of 'deteriorating public safety' carries the intensity of a political message adjusted for domestic consumption

• The causal structure is reversed compared to past anti-Japanese protests

This is why the current case, while appearing 'absurd,' is felt to have an 'unusual weight.' It is a way of speaking that simultaneously holds both continuity and rupture with the past.

Recommended Articles

How Should We Perceive the Current 'Deteriorating Public Safety' Uproar?

So far, we have looked at the current case alongside the two major past anti-Japanese protests. Through the process of comparison, it becomes clear that the current 'appeal of deteriorating public safety' bears a nature that, while seemingly similar to past cases, is completely different. Therefore, the perspective of 'how, then, do we accept this' becomes important. We are being asked how to handle the distortion created between the narrative that exaggerates danger and the quiet reality of public safety.

Narratives that Incite Danger Need to Look at 'Structure' Rather Than 'Reality'

If one simply reads the Chinese government's warnings as 'fact-finding,' the discussion immediately enters a maze. Were there actual assault incidents, how many were there, what were the motives—lacking concrete data, any attempt becomes like searching in the fog. However, what is more important than the facts themselves is the structure of 'why this way of speaking now?'

In political messaging, the 'timing' and 'direction' are more fundamental than the content itself. This recent announcement was not made because public safety in Japan suddenly worsened, but rather because it comes at a time when the narrative of 'state protection' is being reinforced within China. Viewed in that context, it becomes clear that the target of this rhetoric is not Japan, but China's own citizens.

Decoding the gap between reality and narrative

The most significant feature of the discourse surrounding this incident is the lack of statistics or systematic examples to support the claims of danger. This is fundamentally different from past anti-Japan protests, which were based on 'real-world dangers.' In the past, a deterioration in public safety existed in a visible form, and the government acted in response to it. This time, however, it is the opposite. The reality remains quiet, while the rhetoric alone has intensified.

To correctly understand this gap, it is necessary to overlay two perspectives.

• Actual public safety has not changed significantly

• The intensity of the narrative is expanding through a different route

If we can separate these two, we can understand this warning not as a 'notification of danger' but as 'political grammar.' The composition is that while the danger itself has not increased, there is an entity that wants to present a framework of danger.

So, what should the Japanese side prepare for?

It is easy to dismiss this incident as merely a matter of rhetorical intensity. However, considering the meaning behind diplomatic messages, there is another point the Japanese side should focus on. What is important is not 'public safety,' but the fact that the 'use of narrative' could affect future relations with Japan.

There are three things to consider.

• The fact that 'public safety' was used as a tool for public opinion manipulation

• The strengthening of its role as diplomatic pressure

• The risk that even minor friction on the Japanese side could be turned into a major narrative

In other words, we need to prepare for the impact that this narrative will have on future relations, rather than the 'deterioration of public safety' itself. If the Chinese narrative is strengthened, even trivial troubles will be easily exploited as 'fuel for criticism of Japan.' This is not a public safety issue, but a problem of friction in the information space.

Where should we stand?

In such a situation, what is important is not to treat 'reality' and 'narrative' on the same plane. In reality, public safety is stable, and there is no tension running through the streets. On the other hand, the narrative fluctuates wildly according to political convenience, inflating the image of danger. If we can understand that the two channels are different, we can avoid being swayed more than necessary.

And if we can calmly evaluate things based on reality, we will arrive at the true meaning of this incident. It is not the message that 'Japan is dangerous,' but the perspective of reading 'what the entity using the word danger is seeking.' While it appears to be a discussion about public safety, its reality is connected to changes in the diplomatic environment and methodologies of domestic governance.

The quiet conclusion shown by this incident

What has become clear through comparison with the past boils down to this one point.

This 'deterioration of public safety' was not a term referring to reality, but was used as a device to shake up relations.

If it is claimed that there is danger, anxiety will spread, but whether that is a real danger is a separate issue. What is needed is to calmly read the background behind how these words are spread and correctly identify the 'intent' behind them. This current case once again demonstrates the importance of that kind of reading.

Recommended Articles

Today's One-Phrase