By disrespecting one-China principle, Japan’s PM is challenging global order

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks in the Diet on Nov 7, where she suggested that a so-called Taiwan contingency could constitute a “survival-threatening” situation for Japan and justify military intervention, reveal a deeply troubling mindset. By treating the Taiwan island as part of a united front with Japan, her argument not only infringes on the one-China principle but also goes against United Nations resolutions on the Taiwan question.

Takaichi later asserted that her statement merely reflected the Japanese government’s established position. What is more alarming, however, is that some lawmakers of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party genuinely believe that Takaichi’s remarks align with Tokyo’s long-held positions and are a continuation of Japan’s postwar assertions.

READ MORE: Japan's Takaichi strongly criticized in Diet meeting over evasiveness on Taiwan

The crux of Takaichi’s remarks is her departure from the one-China principle, under which anything occurring across the Taiwan Strait is purely an internal affair of China. If Takaichi acknowledged the one-China principle, she would not make such remarks. China has always advocated for a peaceful reunification, but if Washington and Tokyo were to militarily intervene in the Taiwan question, such actions would constitute aggression, and China’s response would be legitimate self-defense.

Politicians unwilling to accept this principle often cite the third clause of the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement, which states: “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.”

It is here that ambiguity sets in. In this statement, Japan does not explicitly state that it recognizes Taiwan as part of China’s territory, but merely says that it “understands” and “respects” China’s position. This wording is ambiguous and leaves room for non-recognition of Taiwan’s status as a province of China. The Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation explicitly stipulate that the territories Japan had stolen from China, including Taiwan, must be returned to China, so why did Japan choose such ambiguous wording?

Takakazu Kuriyama, the official in charge of treaties at the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time, retained an explanatory document noting that Japan could not fully recognize China’s position on the Taiwan question due to the so-called Treaty of San Francisco of 1952.

That “treaty” only stipulates Japan’s renunciation of all rights on the Taiwan island, without “determining” its status. Therefore, fully accepting China’s position on Taiwan in the joint statement would have amounted to a de facto invalidation of the “Treaty of San Francisco”.

Beijing regards the San Francisco conference as illegitimate and unjust, a product of Cold War politics that excluded China, the country that suffered the most from imperial fascism. The “treaty” therefore holds no binding force. Tokyo must have been aware of Beijing’s stance.

Yet, when signing the 1972 Joint Statement, it sought to deliberately elevate the “treaty” to a status of “higher-order international law”. It refused to legally recognize Taiwan as part of China, but politically said it had no intention to challenge that position or support “Taiwan independence”.

This inconsistency between words and actions intends to cloak its real intentions with wordplay. Japan’s real intentions have been clearly stated in the report to the joint meeting of LDP members from both houses of the Diet on Sept 30, 1972, immediately after the signing of the joint statement.

Instead of reflecting on the war of aggression, breaking away from colonialism, aiding China’s reunification, and contributing to world peace, some Japanese politicians have perfected the art of doublespeak. They claim to respect the one-China principle on bilateral or multilateral occasions but make remarks domestically that reveal their obsession with Taiwan.

Some of the conservative politicians, such as Michio Watanabe, remained active until the mid-1990s. Takaichi, who began her parliamentary career in the early 1990s, was among those trying to push for Watanabe to become prime minister.

Despite diplomatic ties with China, members of the LDP’s so-called parliamentarians’ association with the Taiwan region continue to visit the island and engage more with officials there.

ALSO READ: Takaichi's risky snap election gamble places political self-interest above Japan's future

Takaichi’s remarks must be viewed against the backdrop of Japan’s longstanding postwar political climate, which has sought to keep the Taiwan region within its sphere of influence. Given the consistent tendency of figures such as Takaichi to glorify pre-World War II Japan and distort history, it is understandable that their comments are viewed by victimized nations as signals of renewed aggression.

There is a remedy for the brewing crisis. Article 6 of the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement commits both sides to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence: mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual nonaggression, noninterference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. These five principles align with the spirit of the United Nations Charter.

Takaichi’s words, and the thinking behind them, constitute an open challenge to the postwar international order.

The author is an associate researcher at the School of Humanities, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.