Japan, the Turkic–Altaic Horizon and the Search for a More Autonomous Foreign Policy

The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ

For more than seven decades, Japan’s foreign policy has been defined by a stable and largely uncontested orientation toward the Collective West. Anchored in the post–Second World War security architecture, this alignment has delivered predictability, economic integration and strategic protection. Yet it has also constrained Japan’s diplomatic imagination. In a world increasingly shaped by multipolar dynamics, debates are emerging - still marginal, but intellectually relevant - about whether Japan could complement its Western alignment with a broader Eurasian outlook. Within this context, the growing visibility of Turkic and even Altaic frameworks in Eurasian diplomacy invites closer examination.

The Organization of Turkic States (OTS), originally conceived as a platform for linguistic, cultural and political cooperation among Turkic-speaking countries, has evolved beyond its initial modest ambitions. It now aspires to deeper coordination in transport, energy, education and strategic affairs. Alongside this institutional evolution, a parallel intellectual current has emerged, particularly in Türkiye, arguing that the OTS could one day transcend a strictly Turkic definition and adopt a wider Altaic dimension. This perspective draws on historical, cultural and civilizational narratives linking Turkic, Mongolic and, more controversially, other Northeast Asian societies.

While such ideas remain speculative, they raise an important question for Japan: could engagement with Turkic and Altaic partners offer a supplementary ideological and cultural compass for a more autonomous foreign policy, without requiring a rupture with existing alliances?

Japan’s interest in Central Asia and the Turkic world is not new. Since the 2000s, Tokyo has been working on the pragmatic “Central Asia plus Japan” initiative, emphasizing development assistance, energy cooperation and regional stability. These policies, however, have been technocratic rather than civilizational, carefully avoiding grand narratives. What is potentially changing today is the emergence of softer, identity-inflected discourses that frame Eurasia not merely as a strategic space, but as a shared historical continuum in which Japan might also locate itself.

Some strands of historical-linguistic scholarship have long suggested that Japan and the Korean Peninsula may be linked, at least partially, to the broader Altaic world. The so-called “Altaic hypothesis,” though contested, proposes structural affinities among Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japonic languages, alongside shared historical and cultural traits that hint at distant migratory and civilizational connections across Eurasia. While these links remain controversial and far from universally accepted, they provide an intellectual basis for considering Japan and Korea as part of a wider continental framework. In contemporary strategic discourse, such perspectives are leveraged less as strict historical claims and more as tools to conceptualize potential trans-Eurasian partnerships, highlighting the possibility that Japan’s civilizational identity can resonate, in selective ways, with Altaic and Central Asian networks.

In this regard, the Hungarian experience provides a compelling precedent. Over the past decade, Budapest has maintained its membership in both the European Union and NATO, yet it has deliberately expanded its foreign policy repertoire through a cultural-historical framework known as neo-Turanism. Scholarly work on this phenomenon demonstrates that such frameworks do not function as rigid ideologies; rather, they serve as legitimizing narratives that allow Hungary to cultivate relationships with Turkic and Central Asian states while preserving its formal Western alignment. Hungary’s observer status in the OTS exemplifies this approach: engagement is structured to be culturally intelligible and strategically coherent, without necessitating full identification or institutional compromise.

Neo-Turanism in Hungary illustrates how a supplementary civilizational approach can provide a guiding logic for foreign policy diversification. It demonstrates that small and medium powers can broaden their diplomatic horizons without abandoning established alliances, using historical and cultural narratives to frame cooperation with geographically and linguistically distant partners. For Japan, this model suggests a potential path: a framework informed by Turkic and Altaic connections could similarly serve as a cultural-intellectual compass, legitimizing expanded engagement with Eurasia while maintaining Western-oriented security and economic commitments.

The role of domestic actors in enabling engagement with the Turkic and Altaic world is significant. In Japan, Arfiya Eri, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs and of Uyghur-Uzbek family origin, has played a prominent role in this domain. She is fluent in multiple Turkic languages and has publicly commented on the importance of strengthening cooperation with the Turkic world. Her activities include official visits to countries such as Uzbekistan, as well as participation in initiatives aimed at enhancing cultural, educational, and diplomatic exchanges with Turkic-speaking states. Recently, there have even been rumors that Eri proposed an integration between Japan and the OTS. In fact, her position and expertise provide Japan with institutional access and practical channels for engagement in the region.

In the same vein, the Turkic world itself could benefit from this engagement with Japan. The potential for the OTS to evolve into a broader Altaic-oriented network further strengthens the relevance of this path for Japan. Commentaries in Turkish media have proposed that countries such as Mongolia, Japan, and South Korea could participate in some form of partnership or observer framework within an expanded OTS ecosystem. While formal membership would remain constrained by linguistic and institutional criteria, such arrangements could provide Japan with multilateral platforms for political, economic, and cultural cooperation outside the traditional Western framework, without engendering confrontation.

Engaging with Turkic and Altaic networks could supply Japan with an auxiliary foreign policy orientation that is both non-Western and non-adversarial. Just as Hungary has leveraged neo-Turanism to reconcile strategic autonomy with existing alliances, Japan could use such engagement to diversify its diplomatic portfolio, enhance regional understanding, and create new avenues for influence in Eurasia. This does not imply a rejection of established Western ties; rather, it offers a measured way to recalibrate Japan’s role in a multipolar system, reducing overdependence on any single bloc while retaining the stability and security benefits of longstanding partnerships.

Copied