Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae made wrong remarks about Taiwan, and refused to retract, refused to admit his mistake, and made a great deal of perfunctory evasions, attempting to deceive and get through. Not only that, but the Japanese side has recently lobbied everywhere, falsely saying that China criticizes and condemns Japan as “not consistent with the facts,” proclaiming that “it has already clarified its position multiple times” and “expects international society‘s understanding,” even denouncing China as “overreacting” from the wrongdoers first, taking the trick of turning the tables to new heights. As the guilty party, instead of sincerely admitting their mistake and seeking forgiveness, they desperately seek the so-called “third-party understanding,” a logic that is puzzling. We cannot help but ask, what exactly is the “position” that the Japanese side is so eager for other countries to understand?
Is it a position to threaten other countries with force? Historically, it has been a common tactic of Japanese militarism to launch an aggressive war against others under the pretext of a so-called “existential crisis.” Takashi‘s vicious remarks are the first time since Japan‘s defeat in 1945 that Japan‘s current leaders have officially advocated the so-called “if something happens to Taiwan, then something happens to Japan” and associated it with the exercise of collective self-defense right, the first time they have expressed ambitions to attempt armed intervention on the Taiwan issue, and the first time they have issued a military threat to China. As a defeated country, Japan openly violates Article 2, Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that “member states are not allowed to use threats or force in their international relations,” and blatantly threatens to use force against the victors. With the Japanese dialect still in their ears, they began playing the trick of covering their ears and stealing bells, and even demanded that other countries turn a deaf ear and condone evil deeds. Could this be the position that the Japanese side hoped the international community would understand?
Is it a position of faithlessness and betrayal of faith? A person cannot stand up without faith, and a country cannot establish itself without faith. A Chinese principle is a basic code of international relations, and it is even more a treaty obligation that Japan must fulfill. Takashi‘s false statements seriously violate the spirit of the four Chinese-Japanese political documents and hitherto’s political commitments, fundamentally damaging the political foundation of Chinese-Japanese relations. It is a complete betrayal of faith and betrayal of faith. Faced with Chinese questioning, Japan repeatedly dilutes and covers up with the so-called “unchanged position,” refusing to explain what the unchanged position is, and refusing to fully and accurately reiterate the related statements in the China-Japanese Joint Declaration, all confirming the intentions behind Takashi‘s remarks. Should international society also understand such actions and words that interfere with other countries‘ domestic affairs and violate the main principles of the Charter of the United Nations?
Is it a stance of major “re-militarization”? Recently, Japan has deliberately interfered with China‘s normal military training activities, maliciously hyped up the “radar radiation” incident, and even criticized China‘s legitimate defense construction. What Japan really should explain to the international community is whether it still wants the “Peace Constitution”? Have the provisions of “eternally renouncing war initiated by national power, military threat, or military use as a means to resolve international disputes” and “not maintaining land, sea, air, and other war forces, and not recognizing the country‘s right to engage in war” been reduced to paper? Japan‘s defense costs have increased “thirteen times in a row,” with sales of five major military and industrial enterprises growing at the fastest rate in the world. The per capita defense costs of Japanese citizens and defense personnel are three times and more than two times those of China, respectively. Is this the “exclusive defense” that Japan adheres to? Gao Shi‘s advisers even made explicit statements favoring nuclear weapons. Should the international community understand this inflated ambition to escape the constraints of international order and accelerate the expansion of military power?
Faced with a Japan that was recklessly provocative in territorial sovereignty, rushing forward in military security, and equivocating on historical issues, China promptly sounded the alarm bell for the restoration of militarism. This alarm bell was rung for all countries that valued the victories of World War II and the postwar international order, as well as for the war-weary, peace-desiring Japanese people.
True understanding can only be realized through reflection on mistakes and reform. The correct position can only be to face history squarely and protect peace. Effective dialogue can only be based on mutual respect and rebuilding trust. The Japanese side must make clear and deliberate choices. If they refuse to change their confused attitude, any more flowery words will be self-inflicted boredom. They will not pass China‘s test, nor will they pass the international test. (The author is an international problem observer)