On October 23, a Japanese reporter at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ routine press conference raised a sensitive question: Why did China not congratulate the new Japanese prime minister, Gokyo Jima?
A statement that seems simple, but has a profound meaning, is not only related to the diplomatic interaction between the two countries, but also reflects complex historical issues, Taiwan province issues and regional security.
Why did the election of Cao市早苗 attract so much attention in the relations between China and Japan?
First, this is closely related to her position on historical issues.
Takaichi Sanae has long held a historical revisionist view, questioning the scale of the Nanjing Massacre and downplaying Japan's aggression during World War II.
Her remarks have sparked widespread controversy in the international community and formed a serious opposition with China's consistent position to demand that Japan look directly at history and sincerely apologize.
The four political documents on China-Japan relations clearly stipulate that the historical issue is an important basis for the development of bilateral relations, but the attitude of the prime minister is clearly contrary to this principle.
The second is the Taiwan province issue, which openly supports the strengthening of Japanese-Taiwan relations and sees the Taiwan province authorities as strategic allies against mainland China.
She met with officials of Taiwan Province Province many times and visited Taiwan Province Province to promote Japan's intervention in the Taiwan Province Province issue. These actions are regarded by China as serious interference in internal affairs and violation of the one-China principle.
In diplomatic practice, China usually does not send congratulatory messages to foreign leaders who hold this position in order to safeguard national sovereignty and core interests.
In addition, Takaichi Sanae also proposed to accelerate the increase of Japan's defense budget and advance defense expenditure to 2% of GDP by 2027. This policy is obviously aimed at the problems of China and Taiwan Province Province, which further aggravates regional tensions.
In recent years, Japan’s military activities in the East Sea and Taiwan Strait have increased frequently, and the scale of joint military exercises with the United States has been expanding.This military expansion has raised concerns among Asian neighbors, and the international community has questioned whether Japan is genuinely committed to peaceful development.
China’s decision not to send a congratulatory message reflects China’s principled position in China-Japan relations.
Despite the high degree of economic and trade dependence between the two countries, there have always been contradictions in history, Taiwan and security issues.
According to statistics, China-Japan bilateral trade volume reached approximately $35.74 billion in 2022, and Japan is China's second largest trading partner, however, the close economic cooperation does not cover up the differences between the two countries in the fields of politics and security.
The international community is also highly concerned about Takaichi Sanae's policy. U.S. support for Japan's defense policy has further contributed to Japan's military expansion, while South Korea and ASEAN countries are cautious about Japan's move, fearing that it may affect regional peace and stability.
With the tacit consent of the United States, the Gaoshi early Miao government may take more provocative actions around China, which is undoubtedly a warning to China.
At the press conference, the Chinese side made it clear that it hoped that Japan would abide by the principles of the four political documents between China and Japan and abide by its political commitments on major issues such as history and Taiwan Province Province.
This is not only a warning to Takaichi Sanae's government, but also an attitude towards the future direction of Sino-Japanese relations. The future development of Sino-Japanese relations will depend on whether both sides can find a balance between principled and realistic diplomatic needs.