26/08/2026
尊敬するサウジアラビアのガーズィ閣下の記事です！
Beyond energy security: A Saudi–Japanese architecture of resilience
Short Url:
DR. GHAZI FAISAL BINZAGR24 Aug 2026 06:08:38 GMT9
Share
facebook twitter Linkedin Line
In Japan, resilience is often most visible in what appears ordinary: evacuation maps, emergency provisions, infrastructure maintained before failure, and communities accustomed to preparing without surrendering to fear. It is a discipline cultivated before a shock arrives.
This offers a useful way to consider Saudi–Japan relations. For seven decades, energy has anchored the partnership. Yet the deeper achievement has been reliability: Saudi Arabia helped sustain Japan’s energy security, while Japan contributed technology, industrial capability and patient partnership to the Kingdom’s development. Complementarity matured into confidence.
The opportunity now is to convert that confidence into something larger: a model of comprehensive resilience that serves both countries and remains open to others.
The relationship predates its formal diplomacy. Japanese pilgrims reached the Arabian Peninsula in the early twentieth century. In 1938, Hafiz Wahba, representing King Abdulaziz, attended the opening of the Tokyo Mosque. Diplomatic relations followed in 1955.
High-level visits, ties between the Saudi royal and Japanese imperial families, and economic and technical cooperation gave the relationship depth. Energy became its central pillar, while Japanese technology, engineering and manufacturing supported Saudi development. Petro Rabigh and cooperation in desalination show how trade became productive interdependence.
Saudi–Japan Vision 2030, established in 2017, widened the horizon from exchanging commodities and products toward jointly creating capability across investment, industry, healthcare, infrastructure, education and culture.
The Saudi–Japan Strategic Partnership Council, announced in May 2024 and established by a memorandum signed by the foreign ministers in February 2025, created the framework for the next stage. Its promise should be measured not by the number of initiatives it supervises, but by whether it gives the relationship a coherent strategic purpose.
That purpose could be comprehensive resilience.
Energy security traditionally meant continuity of supply. That remains indispensable. Energy resilience asks whether the whole system—sources, routes, technologies, storage and commercial arrangements—can adapt under pressure. It also requires a realistic transition in which conventional and emerging forms of energy are components of an evolving system, not ideological rivals.
Saudi Arabia’s development from a leading oil supplier toward a global energy hub fits this approach. Japan brings a complementary strength: improving technology patiently until it becomes reliable, affordable and deployable at scale.
But disruptions do not remain within one sector. Energy affects industry; industry depends on logistics; technology depends on critical minerals, standards and skilled people. Strategic reserves alone cannot compensate for institutions and productive systems unable to adapt.
Comprehensive resilience is the cultivated capacity of a society and its institutions to anticipate disruption, absorb it, adapt responsibly and continue generating human and economic value without losing essential purpose. It extends from energy and the economy to food, water, logistics, technology, health, human capital, institutions, culture and social cohesion. It is not only the protection of assets, but the preservation—and renewal—of agency.
Nor should resilience be confused with self-sufficiency. Absolute autonomy is neither realistic nor necessarily desirable. Excessive concentration creates fragility, but indiscriminate localization can sacrifice efficiency, innovation and openness. The more useful objective is trusted interdependence: sufficient diversity to withstand shocks, sufficient shared capacity to respond, and sufficient trust for partners to remain dependable when the system is tested.
This requires moving beyond supply chains toward shared value chains. Supply-chain resilience seeks continuity. Value-chain resilience asks where knowledge is created, who owns capability and how widely the benefits are distributed.
A resilient partnership should therefore connect research, investment, production, skills, standards and market access. Its practical unit should not be the isolated memorandum, but a jointly built ecosystem measured by the capability it leaves behind.
The Strategic Partnership Council could begin with a limited number of demonstrable value chains where priorities and complementary strengths converge. Each would include shared governance, co-investment, research, skills development and measurable contributions to adaptability and human wellbeing. Successful models could later invite other compatible partners.
This must not become a confrontation model. It is not Japan versus China, East versus West, or one geopolitical camp seeking insulation from another. An architecture built principally against an adversary would reproduce the instability it claims to solve.
“Like-minded” need not mean identical. It can mean sufficiently aligned around reliability, peaceful cooperation, reciprocal benefit, stewardship and respect for national agency. Saudi Arabia and Japan are particularly well placed to anchor such an approach because neither needs the relationship to be exclusive. Their shared interest is not in narrowing international connection, but in making it more dependable.
Its global value will be judged partly by what it offers developing countries. Africa and the wider Global South should not be treated merely as sources or end-markets for chains designed elsewhere. Saudi–Japanese cooperation with third countries can support local processing, infrastructure, vocational capability, technology adaptation and access to wider markets.
This would not be charity added to strategy. It would be strategy properly understood. A system cannot be described as resilient if prosperity is concentrated while vulnerability is exported to its weakest participants.
Comprehensive resilience also has an ethical foundation. In an earlier reflection on humanistic diplomacy, I drew upon the Arabian concept of muru’ah—dignity, courage, generosity, integrity and the keeping of one’s word. In Japan, I find a resonant, though distinct, sensibility in magokoro, or genuine sincerity of intention.
Their meeting point is trust. Trust is not an ornament around national interest; it is strategic capital, accumulated slowly and depleted quickly. Capability without ethical restraint can become domination. Good intention without capability cannot withstand crisis. A resilient international order requires both.
Saudi Arabia and Japan do not possess a complete answer to global fragmentation. They do possess the basis for a credible beginning: a record of reliability, complementary strengths and an emerging institutional framework.
The world does not need another alliance defined by what it opposes. It needs practical partnerships defined by what they enable: continuity without stagnation, openness without fragility, sovereignty without isolation, and prosperity that expands the agency of others.
Saudi Arabia and Japan can begin building such a partnership together—not as a closed architecture, but as an anchor and an invitation.
Dr. Ghazi Faisal Binzagr is Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to Tokyo
