Diet 'talk show' belies Takaichi's intentions

There were some media reports on Wednesday that interpreted Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's statement on the Taiwan question in the Japanese Parliament that day as evidence that she "understands and respects" the Chinese government's position on China's Taiwan region.

They viewed her latest remarks as an attempt to defuse the tensions with China triggered by the erroneous and dangerous remarks she made regarding the Chinese island in the Diet on Nov 7.

But as Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian pointed out in response to a question on these reports in a news conference on Thursday, such reports are "inaccurate", as Takaichi only mentioned that Japan's stance on the Taiwan question remains unchanged, as stated in the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement.

Since "that's all" she said, Takaichi is still trying to mislead the international community.

Takaichi has had many chances to prevent the escalation of tensions between China and Japan that were unilaterally caused by her remarks. But her recalcitrant refusal to heed China's solemn demand that she retract her remarks and correct her mistakes, and the great lengths she has gone to in a bid to blur the implications of her Nov 7 remarks, only serve to highlight those remarks were not a slip of the tongue as suggested by some.

China is not only protecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity by pressing Takaichi to retract her remarks and correct her mistakes but also safeguarding the postwar international order that lays the foundation for regional peace, stability and prosperity. That's why many regional countries have voiced their support for China.

What makes Takaichi's denial of a change in her government's position particularly alarming is that despite this claim it has wasted no time in accelerating Japan's remilitarization by sharply increasing its military spending, deploying offensive missiles in islands near Taiwan, trying to push the country to discard its "Three Non-Nuclear Principles", and planning to scrap the restrictions on arms sales.

These moves unmistakably reveal the militancy of Takaichi's government. The question is how long will it be allowed to hold the pacifist mask to its militarist face by saying one thing and doing the opposite.

As for her "talk show" in the Diet on Wednesday, as Lin noted, since Takaichi claims that Japan's position on the Taiwan question is as stated in the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement, can she accurately and completely reiterate the contents of the joint statement?

She stopped short of quoting the other crucial part of the joint statement that states Japan "firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation". That is because that article requires that "the terms of the Cairo Declaration "shall be carried out, and the Cairo Declaration unequivocally stipulates that "all territories Japan had stolen from China", including Taiwan and the Diaoyu Islands, must be returned to China.

The part that Takaichi selectively omitted is what makes the joint statement internationally binding on Japan. Takaichi's partial quote of the joint statement only serves to show she is not an "inexperienced and careless" new leader but an astute and veteran politician eager to pave the way for a comeback of the militarist Japan.

That answers the questions that Lin raised: If the Japanese side's fundamental position on Taiwan is indeed as stated in the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement, can Takaichi accurately and fully articulate that position? Why is the Japanese side unwilling to clearly state the commitments it has made and its legal obligations? What is the logic and motive driving this attitude?

Beijing has made its position clear: Tokyo should earnestly reflect on its mistakes and retract Takaichi's erroneous and dangerous remarks. Yet despite it being a matter of principle and international law that is clearly documented in the historical archives, Takaichi continues to use the excuse of "no change in position" to obfuscate what she is doing.

China will by no means accept this.