By Xu Yongzhi
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi openly claimed that a “Taiwan contingency” could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” under which Japan may exercise the right of collective self-defense. From a legal perspective, this fallacious argument commits at least three serious offenses.
First, it challenges the international order established after World War II.
In 1943, China, the United States and the United Kingdom held the Cairo Conference and jointly issued the Cairo Declaration afterward. From the standpoint of international law, the document made it unequivocally clear that Japan’s occupation of Taiwan was illegal, affirmed that Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory, and requested Japan to return all Chinese territories it had stolen, including Taiwan.
In July 1945, China, the United States and the United Kingdom jointly issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which reaffirmed that “the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out.” In September of the same year, Japan signed the Instrument of Surrender, explicitly pledging to “fulfill the obligations laid out in the Potsdam Proclamation.” On October 25, 1945, the Chinese government proclaimed the restoration of the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan and held a ceremony to accept Japan’s surrender in the Taiwan province of the China war theater.
A series of documents and historical facts demonstrate that Japan’s return of Taiwan to China was a victorious outcome of the World Anti-Fascist War and an integral part of the post–World War II international order. Takaichi’s fallacies, insinuating the possibility of military intervention in the Taiwan question, constitute a blatant interference in China’s internal affairs and an open challenge to the postwar international order.
Second, it reneges on Japan’s obligations.
During negotiations on the normalization of China-Japan diplomatic relations in 1972, the Japanese government submitted a written document to China explaining the concrete meaning of the statement later incorporated into the Sino-Japan Joint Statement — that “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.”
Based on Japan’s acceptance of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, the document stated that Taiwan should be returned to China, which it described as “the consistent view of the Japanese government,” and that Japan “has not envisaged that Taiwan would have any legal status other than as part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China.” This constituted Japan’s commitment to China on the Taiwan question. Subsequently, China and Japan signed the Sino-Japan Joint Statement.
In 1978, the two countries concluded the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which explicitly stipulates that the principles set forth in the Sino-Japan Joint Statement shall be strictly observed. Accordingly, recognizing that “Taiwan belongs to China” and refraining from interference in the Taiwan question are obligations binding on Japan.
The above documents clearly demonstrate Japan’s explicit commitment to treating the Taiwan question as China’s internal affair. While Takaichi’s remarks violate diplomatic commitments and amount to a repudiation of treaty obligations.
Third, it violates fundamental principles of international law.
By linking a so-called “Taiwan contingency” with Japan’s “survival-threatening situation,” Takaichi is attempting to use Japan’s domestic law to confer legitimacy on intervention in the Taiwan question. Her remarks imply the use of force to interfere in China’s internal affairs and undermine China’s territorial integrity. This not only contravenes the Potsdam Proclamation and the guiding principle of the four political documents between China and Japan, but also violates international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. China will never accept such actions, nor will the international community permit them. So far, multiple countries have already spoken out to condemn these remarks.
Those who challenge the international order will inevitably suffer the consequences; those who renege on treaty obligations will forfeit their credibility; and those who violate international law will ultimately face the verdict of justice. The Taiwan question allows no room for Japanese interference, and any act that crosses the line will be met with a resolute response.
(Xu Yongzhi is the director of the Division of Japanese Security Studies of the Institute of Northeast Asian Studies, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations)
