标签： Asia

Diplomatic friction over Japan’s remembrance of its wartime past has flared again, following the arrest of a South Korean national at Tokyo’s controversial Yasukuni Shrine during the site’s annual spring festival this Wednesday. Japanese law enforcement officials confirmed the suspect was taken into custody on accusations of disrupting public event proceedings at the shrine.

Yasukuni Shrine holds a deeply divisive place in modern East Asian politics. The Shinto site honors 2.5 million Japanese individuals who died in conflicts over the past centuries, including 14 Class-A convicted World War II war criminals. For countries that suffered brutal Japanese imperial aggression before and during WWII — most notably China and the two Korean states — official and high-profile political visits to the shrine are widely interpreted as a deliberate refusal to acknowledge and apologize for Japan’s wartime atrocities.

According to details released by Japan’s Kyodo News agency, the 64-year-old South Korean suspect positioned himself at the shrine’s main entrance gate, directly in the path of vehicles transporting imperial messengers. The shrine confirmed on its official website that the messengers were tasked with bringing ritual offerings from Japan’s emperor to the shrine for the annual spring festival. The suspect unfurled a banner bearing two provocative political messages: one calling for the removal of convicted war criminals from the shrine’s roll of honor and an end to commemorative prayers for them at the site, and another asserting South Korea’s territorial claim to the island contested by Seoul and Tokyo, known as Dokdo in South Korea and Takeshima in Japan.

The arrest comes one day after a separate development that reignited regional criticism. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who has a long history of regular personal visits to Yasukuni Shrine, opted to send a ritual ornament to the shrine for the second consecutive term as prime minister, rather than visiting in person. The move still drew sharp condemnation from both China and South Korea.

Hours after the arrest, a group of more than 100 Japanese right-wing lawmakers — including one sitting cabinet minister — carried out a planned group visit to pray at the shrine, a move that will likely escalate regional discontent over Japan’s approach to its wartime history further.

A fragile ceasefire currently holds between the United States, Israel and Iran, but diplomatic efforts to resolve the deep-rooted disputes fueling the conflict have stalled, leaving the international community grappling with a critical question: where will this confrontation go from here? According to analysis from two international relations scholars, the most probable trajectory is not a comprehensive, lasting peace deal, but a frozen conflict — a state of unresolved, low-scale hostility that falls far short of full-scale open war but never reaches a formal political resolution.

Frozen conflicts are far from static; they linger for years or even decades with persistent underlying tensions that can erupt into renewed violence at any time. This pattern typically emerges when no overarching political agreement can be reached between warring parties. One well-documented example is the conflict in eastern Ukraine that persisted from 2014 until Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Despite an estimated 14,000 deaths among military personnel and civilians, and constant covert cyber and information operations between the two sides, the conflict was widely categorized as frozen for eight years.

Even if new negotiations, scheduled to resume in Pakistan, eventually produce a tentative agreement, three core factors point strongly toward a frozen conflict rather than durable peace, the analysts argue.

First, U.S. President Donald Trump’s foreign policy approach frames ceasefires as an end to conflict in themselves, rather than a temporary pause to negotiate substantive political solutions. Trump has publicly claimed credit for ending ten separate conflicts, including the current US-Iran confrontation and Israel’s war in Lebanon. Closer examination of his track record reveals that most of these claimed successes amount to nothing more than fragile ceasefires, with core disputes still completely unresolved. This pattern has already left multiple frozen conflict hotspots around the globe with persistent high tensions: for example, a 2025 brief armed clash between India and Pakistan remains unresolved, with repeated risk of renewed fighting, while a lasting peace agreement to resolve 2025 border disputes between Thailand and Cambodia remains out of reach. In every case, Trump has declared victory and shifted focus to other global priorities as soon as major open fighting stops, leaving core issues unaddressed.

Second, the inherent dynamics of asymmetric conflicts make lasting political settlements far less likely than frozen outcomes. This current confrontation is distinctly asymmetric: the US and Israel hold overwhelming military superiority over Iran, pushing Iran to rely on unconventional tactics to counterbalance US power. These tactics have included targeting critical infrastructure in non-belligerent Persian Gulf states and closing the Strait of Hormuz to global commercial shipping, a move that disrupts international energy markets and the broader global economy. Academic research consistently shows asymmetric conflicts are inherently protracted and often open-ended, making frozen conflict far more likely than a lasting negotiated resolution. The dynamic is simple: the weaker side cannot win a conventional military victory against a much stronger opponent, so it instead relies on political, economic and psychological pressure to wear down the stronger power, forcing a withdrawal and ceasefire rather than surrender. This is exactly the dynamic playing out in the current conflict: Trump is facing mounting domestic and international pressure to end open hostilities, pushing him to pursue a ceasefire that he can frame as a US victory, while Iran has accepted the ceasefire as a survival tactic as the weaker party, not as a commitment to long-term conflict resolution. This echoes the decades-long frozen conflict between the US and the Taliban in Afghanistan, where the militant group survived 20 years of low-intensity conflict before retaking full control of the country after US withdrawal.

Third, neither party has shown any meaningful commitment to addressing the complex, core disputes that triggered the conflict in the first place, most notably the long-standing standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. The first round of peace talks held in Pakistan on April 11–12 collapsed entirely after Iran refused to make concessions on its nuclear activities, which Iran has repeatedly described as an inalienable right for civilian energy and medical purposes. It is worth noting that the 2015 multilateral Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, took 20 months of intensive negotiation to finalize. Just three years after the agreement was reached, Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA, calling it a “horrible one-sided deal” that favored Iran. Given this troubled history, a quick resolution to this deeply complex dispute is effectively impossible. Some analysts have floated the possibility of a partial, surface-level agreement that delays negotiations on the most technical and contentious details to a later date, but Iran has shown no willingness to back down from its long-stated claims to sovereign nuclear rights, and has already demonstrated its geostrategic resolve by following through on threats to close the Strait of Hormuz and disrupt global commerce.

What would a frozen conflict mean for the Middle East? Even if the current ceasefire holds and a partial agreement is reached, unresolved underlying tensions will leave the region in a permanent state of instability, with regular threats exchanged over Iran’s nuclear program and periodic violent flare-ups between Iran and Israel, Iran and the US, or both. This mirrors the current frozen conflict in Gaza: in October 2025, Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire under Trump’s 20-point peace plan, and the first phase was largely implemented, leading to a hostage and prisoner exchange, a reduction in heavy Israeli bombardment, and a resumption of humanitarian aid into the strip. But no progress has been made on the core complex questions of post-war Gaza governance, large-scale reconstruction of the enclave, and the critical issue of Hamas disarmament. As a result, Israeli troops have refused to fully withdraw from Gaza, and low-level violence continues to this day.

Historical precedent further underscores the risks of this outcome. The 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War was never followed by a formal peace treaty, leaving North and South Korea technically at war for more than 70 years. This decades-long frozen conflict directly pushed North Korea to pursue an underground nuclear weapons program that remains a major global threat decades later. Similarly, the 75-year frozen conflict between India and Pakistan has spurred a regional nuclear arms race, constant instability across South Asia, and repeated outbreaks of deadly violence.

Following this historical pattern, a frozen conflict between the US, Israel and Iran will almost certainly generate similar long-term instability across the Middle East. It would likely fuel a new regional arms race, increase the risk of irregular and cyber conflict, and create repeated disruptions to global energy supplies through periodic flare-ups over control of the critical Strait of Hormuz.

This analysis comes from Jessica Genauer, Academic Director at the Public Policy Institute of UNSW Sydney, and Benedict Moleta, a PhD candidate in the Department of International Relations at the Australian National University, originally published in *The Conversation* under a Creative Commons license.

In a landmark step forward for bilateral cooperation, Cambodia and China launched their inaugural “2+2” Strategic Dialogue Mechanism on Wednesday, bringing the top foreign policy and defense leaders of both nations together in Phnom Penh to advance mutual political and security alignment.

The high-level gathering drew Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Defense Minister Dong Jun to the Cambodian capital, where they met with their respective Cambodian counterparts: Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn and Defense Minister Tea Seiha. The dialogue initiative was first proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping during his state visit to Cambodia in April 2023, designed to strengthen the two countries’ existing comprehensive strategic partnership. This new ministerial-level dialogue format marks China’s second such framework in Southeast Asia, following a similar arrangement launched with Indonesia last year, as Beijing continues expanding its diplomatic and security influence across the region.

Beyond the joint dialogue session, the two visiting Chinese ministers are scheduled to hold separate bilateral meetings with Cambodia’s Senate President Hun Sen and Prime Minister Hun Manet during their trip. After the conclusion of the inaugural “2+2” talks, Wang Yi will hold in-depth one-on-one discussions with Prak Sokhonn on Thursday to review progress on implementing existing bilateral cooperation agreements and explore shared efforts to advance peace, security and stability across Southeast Asia.

Following his engagement in Cambodia, China’s foreign ministry confirmed Tuesday that Wang Yi will continue his Southeast Asian tour with official visits to Thailand and Myanmar.

As of Wednesday, Cambodian officials have not released immediate details on the content or outcomes of the closed-door talks.

Longstanding close ties bind the two nations: China is Cambodia’s largest source of foreign direct investment and top international aid donor, and Cambodia is widely recognized as Beijing’s closest political ally in Southeast Asia. Bilateral trade between the two countries hit $19.73 billion in 2023, with a significant trade imbalance tilted heavily in China’s favor.

This deep strategic partnership has sparked persistent scrutiny from Western governments and independent analysts, particularly centered on a Chinese-funded upgrade of Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base, located on the Gulf of Thailand. Skeptics have raised repeated suspicions that the renovated facility will ultimately function as a forward strategic military outpost for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy. Construction on the base completed major upgrades last year, including a new longer pier capable of accommodating larger naval vessels, a fully functional dry dock for ship repairs, and additional supporting infrastructure.

The U.S. government has publicly stated its concern that Cambodia has secretly granted China exclusive access to portions of the base, claims Cambodian officials have repeatedly and forcefully denied. During a public opening event for the base expansion in April 2023, Prime Minister Hun Manet explicitly rejected the allegations, emphasizing that all construction and expansion work was carried out transparently and no secret agreements had been struck with Beijing.

In a notable development three months ago, the USS Cincinnati, a U.S. Navy warship carrying a crew of roughly 100 service members, became the first American naval vessel to dock at Ream Naval Base following the completion of the Chinese-funded renovation, marking a small but symbolic step in U.S. engagement with the facility.

A recent diplomatic development has underscored the broad global consensus on the one-China principle, after three African countries withdrew overflight clearances for Taiwan regional leader Lai Ching-te’s canceled trip to Eswatini, a Chinese mainland spokesperson confirmed Wednesday. Zhang Han, spokeswoman for the State Council Taiwan Affairs Office, emphasized at a regular press briefing that the Chinese government greatly values the commitment of the involved nations to upholding the one-China principle. This incident, Zhang noted, offers clear, renewed proof that the one-China principle stands as a fundamental norm governing modern international relations, and a consensus embraced overwhelmingly across the global community. It aligns with the broader trend of the times, the greater good of the international order, and the shared will of most countries, she added. Lai had scheduled a five-day visit to Eswatini, which remains the only African nation that maintains unofficial so-called diplomatic ties with Taiwan, running from Wednesday to Sunday. However, Lai’s own office announced Tuesday that Seychelles, Mauritius, and Madagascar had all revoked prior approvals for Lai’s aircraft to traverse their airspace. Without the required overflight permissions, the planned trip was called off entirely. In responding to unsubstantiated claims from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities in Taiwan that the Chinese mainland had coerced the three African nations into reversing their permits, Zhang dismissed the accusations as baseless rumor-mongering designed to distract from the reality of widespread international recognition of the one-China principle. The DPP’s narrative, analysts note, fails to account for the consistent position of most United Nations member states, which have repeatedly reaffirmed their commitment to the one-China principle as the foundation for diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China.

A new set of targeted cross-Strait policies released by the Chinese mainland has injected fresh confidence and certainty among young Taiwanese residents building lives and pursuing opportunities across the Taiwan Strait, according to a young Taiwanese participant in a recent cross-Strait exchange forum.

Speaking to China Daily on the sidelines of the seventh annual forum for social groups led by Taiwan compatriots, Hsu Tao, a young Taiwanese currently based on the mainland, noted that the 10-measure policy package unveiled on April 12, 2026 addresses long-standing priorities for youth exchange and connectivity across the Strait. He emphasized that the new framework will strengthen the sense of security for Taiwan youth developing their careers and lives on the mainland, while deepening the personal bonds that connect communities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Key provisions of the policy package include the establishment of a formal, institutionalized platform to support sustained two-way exchanges between young people from both sides of the Strait. The new measures also prioritize the full resumption of regular direct cross-Strait passenger flights, a move that will remove long-standing travel barriers that have separated family, friends and professional connections across the Strait in recent years.

The policy rollout comes as the mainland continues to advance people-centered initiatives to support cross-Strait exchange, address the practical needs of Taiwan residents, and foster closer economic, cultural and social integration across the Taiwan Strait. For young Taiwanese seeking educational, employment and entrepreneurial opportunities on the mainland, the new framework offers clear structural support that reduces uncertainty and opens new pathways for cross-Strait engagement.