Purely business or security risk? Chinese 'land grabs' spook US allies Japan, S. Korea

Expert urges differentiation between individual investments and state-directed activities

- Walter Sim Japan Correspondent and Wendy Teo South Korea Correspondent

TOKYO/SEOUL - Chinese buyers are snapping up land — from American farms to Japanese islands to prime Seoul real estate — raising questions over whether the trend portends a security risk.

These "land grabs", by individuals and entities from a socialist country that bans private land ownership, are being eyed with suspicion as geopolitical rivalry escalates between the US and China.

Experts said foreign ownership of land deemed "strategically important" or "sensitive" is a potential risk, given that the sites could be used for spying and surveillance, or to seize control of critical resources like food and water. In this context, Chinese activity is being viewed with distrust, as the country is a perceived threat to the US and its allies.

But to what extent are these fears justified? Where does legitimate caution blur into paranoia? And how should business interests be balanced against security considerations?

Earlier in May, a furore erupted in South Korea when it was reported that more than 4,000 sq m of strategically sensitive land in Seoul's Itaewon district, within a 1.5km radius of key government and diplomatic sites including the presidential office and a planned relocation of the US Embassy, had been sold to the Chinese government in December 2018.

South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed the land purchase, with an official saying: "There is no legal requirement for foreign diplomatic missions to seek prior approval or file notifications with the South Korean government when purchasing land."

But this has failed to quell public disquiet, with the media pointing out South Korea's relatively lax rules on land purchases by foreign entities and governments.

In Japan, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party has set up a task force to look into a potential tightening of rules.