Spread the love

By Sharachchandra Bhandary

The latest diplomatic tension between Japan and China has thrust the Taiwan issue back into the spotlight of East Asian geopolitics. The controversy erupted after Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated in parliament that a possible Chinese attack or blockade on Taiwan could constitute a “survival-threatening situation,” a legal threshold that may allow Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense. Her remarks triggered sharp criticism from Beijing and prompted Tokyo to issue clarifications, yet the exchange has revived long-standing historical grievances and deep-seated suspicions between the region’s two largest powers.

Following intense domestic and international scrutiny, the Japanese central government quickly moved to distance itself from any perception of a policy shift. In a cabinet-level reply on Thursday, Tokyo emphasized that Takaichi’s comments “do not change Japan’s consistent position.” Officials clarified that determining a survival-threatening situation requires a comprehensive assessment of all available information and depends entirely on specific circumstances at the time. The government reiterated that Japan maintains an “exclusively defense-oriented strategy,” which rules out offensive action unless Japan itself faces a direct armed attack or a threat directly linked to its survival. This reaffirmation aimed to calm regional anxieties and counter perceptions that Japan might be edging toward military involvement in a potential Taiwan contingency. Tokyo also stressed its continued support for peaceful dialogue across the Taiwan Strait, viewing stability in the region as essential to both national and global security.

Adding further nuance, Takaichi stated on Wednesday during a parliamentary debate with opposition leaders that, “having renounced all rights and claims under the Treaty of San Francisco, we are not in a position to recognize Taiwan’s legal status.” By invoking Japan’s renunciation of claims under the 1951 treaty, she underscored Tokyo’s formal distance from sovereignty over Taiwan while sidestepping discussion of postwar instruments such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation.

Responding to a query regarding Takaichi’s comment on Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun reacted sharply. He reiterated that Beijing considers Taiwan’s status a matter of China’s internal affairs, firmly settled under international law and postwar agreements. Guo stressed that any attempt to question or downplay China’s sovereignty would be seen as interference and a violation of international norms. He urged Japan to acknowledge historical truths, correct erroneous statements, and take practical steps to uphold its commitments under the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement and other treaties. According to Guo, merely “not referring” to Takaichi’s remarks is insufficient; Japan must explicitly retract and correct them to restore trust and avoid further destabilizing the region.

China’s Defence Ministry further warned that Japan would pay a “painful price” if it steps out of line over Taiwan, responding to Japanese plans to deploy missiles on Yonaguni, an island roughly 110 km off Taiwan’s east coast. Defence Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Bin criticized Tokyo for entertaining the idea of military intervention, stating, “Not only has Japan failed to deeply reflect on its grave crimes of aggression and colonial rule in Taiwan, it has instead, in defiance of world opinion, entertained the delusion of military intervention in the Taiwan Strait.”

Takaichi’s selective omission of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation—key instruments reaffirmed in the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement, the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between China and Japan, and other bilateral agreements—while citing the legally disputed “Treaty of San Francisco,” drew strong criticism from Beijing. By doing so, Takaichi has been accused of avoiding acknowledgment of historical and legal realities that underpin the postwar East Asian order, thereby exacerbating tensions in Sino-Japanese relations. This selective approach undermines the framework established under the four political documents governing bilateral relations, disregards UN authority, and challenges basic international law norms. China also asserts that hinting at a so-called “undetermined” status of Taiwan is a dangerous provocation that contradicts settled international agreements and inflames regional sensitivities.

Beijing has called for Japan to adopt a more responsible, transparent, and conciliatory posture. Rather than attempting to minimize or downplay the remarks, China insists that Japan openly acknowledge its missteps, issue a formal apology, and take concrete measures to honor its commitments. Only through such acknowledgment can Japan demonstrate respect for historical truths, rebuild trust, and meet the expectations of the international community as a responsible UN member state.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated that Taiwan’s status was conclusively settled after the Second World War. It pointed to international legal instruments—including the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender—as evidence of China’s sovereignty over Taiwan. Combined with the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, these documents confirm that China’s government and territorial boundaries remained unchanged despite the transition from the Republic of China to the PRC. In this context, the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement, in which Japan recognized the PRC as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged Taiwan as inalienable Chinese territory, remains the definitive guiding document for bilateral relations.

China also rejected Japan’s reference to the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, which was signed without the participation of the PRC or the Soviet Union. Beijing views the treaty as illegitimate, arguing it violates the 1942 Declaration by United Nations, which pledged signatories not to pursue separate peace arrangements with the enemy. In China’s view, using this treaty to infer territorial claims over Taiwan is null and void. By invoking the San Francisco treaty, Takaichi is seen as ignoring binding postwar agreements and challenging the international order established after 1945.

Chinese officials further argued that Takaichi’s comments erode the political foundation of China-Japan relations and undermine the “four political documents” that structure bilateral engagement. Beijing contends that her selective citation of treaties implies a willingness to question Taiwan’s settled status, a move considered both provocative and an attempt to distort historical facts. The Foreign Ministry has urged Japan to retract the remarks, noting that merely “stopping references” is not equivalent to formally correcting them.

This episode underscores the fragility of diplomatic ties between Tokyo and Beijing. Japan seeks to convey caution and continuity amid domestic political pressures and regional security concerns, while China reacts strongly to perceived challenges to its sovereignty claims. The Taiwan issue remains a flashpoint where history, law, security, and national identity collide, and even a single parliamentary remark can escalate into a broader diplomatic clash.

As strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific intensifies, Taiwan continues to symbolize unresolved historical legacies that shape the region’s future. The Takaichi-Guo exchange serves as a stark reminder that, in East Asia, the past is never truly past—and that clarity, acknowledgment, and mutual restraint are essential to prevent historical disputes from erupting into ongoing geopolitical tension.

The writer is the Executive Editor at the National News Agency (RSS)