By Xiong Xing
When responding to her erroneous remarks that a Taiwan emergency could constitute a "survival-threatening situation" for Japan, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi claimed on December 3 that Japan's position on the Taiwan question remains consistent with the wording of the China-Japan Joint Declaration.
When measured against the specific provisions and fundamental spirit of the China-Japan Joint Statement, Takaichi's statement of Japan's "unchanged position" on the Taiwan question is completely untenable.
The leaders of China and Japan signed the China-Japan Joint Statement on September 29, 1972, which forms the political and legal foundation of China-Japan relations. It is clarified in the Statement that "The Government of Japan recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China" and "The Government of the People's Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation." These provisions conclusively resolved the question of Taiwan's status.
However, the public assertion of Sanae Takaichi that "a Taiwan contingency is a Japan contingency," implying the possible exercise of the right of collective self-defense and military intervention, stands in stark contradiction to the peaceful commitments embodied in the China-Japan Joint Statement. Previously, Takaichi even cited the invalid San Francisco Peace Treaty to argue that Japan "is not in a position to determine or recognize the legal status of Taiwan," while deliberately avoiding any reference to internationally binding documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation.
What is particularly alarming is that in recent years, some voices in Japan have claimed that the China-Japan Joint Statement does not possess legally binding force. This is, in essence, a blatant disregard for international law. It is clarified in the China-Japan Treaty of Peace and Friendship that "the principles set out in the China-Japan Joint Statement should be strictly observed. "The Treaty approved respectively by the National People's Congress of China and the National Diet of Japan, is a formal treaty between states and carries full legal effect. The Treaty, thus codified in 1978, incorporated all the principles in the China-Japan Joint Statement in legally binding form. Any rhetoric attempting to fabricate so-called differences in position is a distortion and betrayal of historical fact.
The remarks of Takaichi reflect the absence of historical introspection among Japan's right-wing political forces. In the China-Japan Joint Statement, the Japanese side explicitly stated that "it is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself." This historical reflection constituted an essential prerequisite for the normalization of China-Japan relations. Japan should continue to uphold the Three Non-Nuclear Principles and abide by the spirit of its pacifist constitution. However, it has reneged on its past commitments and accelerated its militarization process. Such actions deviate from the course of peaceful development and pose latent risks to regional peace and stability. In recent years, the Japanese government has significantly expanded defense spending and has even planned to raise defense expenditure to 2% of its GDP. These moves have triggered grave concerns among neighboring countries that once suffered from Japanese militarism.
History is the best textbook. In 1972, the historic handshake between Premier Zhou Enlai and Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka ushered in a new chapter in China-Japan relations. Nearly half a century later, however, the Japanese leadership has openly violated fundamental legal documents between the two countries, advocating military involvement in the Taiwan Strait. Such actions constitute not only a blatant interference in China's internal affairs but also a breach of Japan's own international commitments. There is a broad consensus within the international community that the Japanese government must reflect upon its historical responsibilities, abide by the norms of international law, and refrain from once again placing regional peace at risk.
(The author is a contract research fellow at the Center for Cross-Strait Relations Studies and an assistant to the president of the Institute of Regional and International Studies, Hubei University.)
Editor's note: Originally published on china.com.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.