新华社东京12月5日电 题：高市早苗企图蒙混过关行不通 新华社记者陈泽安 日本首相高市早苗3日在参议院会议上就其此前发表的涉台错误言论辩称，日方在台湾问题上的基本立 场如1972年《中日联合声明》所述，"这一立场没有改变"。高市继续回避阐明相关立场的明确内容，企 图以"立场没有改变"敷衍搪塞，蒙混过关，无法令人接受。 高市此前在国会答辩时发表挑衅性言论，妄称"台湾有事可能对日本构成存亡危机事态"，暗示日本会武 力介入台湾问题。此番言论随即引发中方连日来的多次质问和日本国内、国际社会的批评。时至今日， 高市仍不思悔改，拒不撤回错误言论。 《中日联合声明》明确规定，"日本国政府承认中华人民共和国政府是中国的唯一合法政府"，"中华人 民共和国政府重申：台湾是中华人民共和国领土不可分割的一部分。日本国政府充分理解和尊重中国政 府的这一立场，并坚持遵循波茨坦公告第八条的立场"。此后日本政府在中日两国一系列条约和声明中 都明确承诺坚持上述立场。这些政治文件对台湾问题作出的明确规定，也是日本政府作出的郑重承诺， 具有国际法效力，没有任何模糊、曲解的空间。无论日本哪个党派、哪个人执政，都必须坚持和恪守日 本政府在台湾问题上的 ...

Core Viewpoint - Recent provocative statements by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi regarding Taiwan represent a serious interference in China's internal affairs and pose a significant threat to stability in Northeast Asia and international security [1][2]. Group 1: Provocative Statements - Takaichi's remarks on Taiwan are seen as highly provocative and detrimental to Sino-Japanese relations, with no benefits for Japan [1]. - The reference to the "San Francisco Peace Treaty," which is deemed illegal and invalid, is criticized as inappropriate and misleading regarding Taiwan's status [1]. Group 2: Military Developments - Japan's Defense Minister, Nobuo Kishi, announced plans to deploy missiles on Yonaguni Island, approximately 110 kilometers east of Taiwan, which is viewed as a destabilizing action [2]. - Takaichi's discussions about potentially allowing nuclear weapons on Japanese soil directly contradict Japan's long-standing "Three Non-Nuclear Principles" [2]. Group 3: Historical Context and Risks - Experts warn that Japan's recent military rhetoric reflects a dangerous trend of seeking to expand the Self-Defense Forces' capabilities and potentially engage in overseas operations [2]. - The revival of nationalist sentiments and the glorification of the "Bushido spirit" by Japanese leaders could lead the country into perilous situations reminiscent of its aggressive policies during World War II [2].

Core Viewpoint - The remarks made by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi regarding Taiwan are seen as a distortion of history and have sparked significant criticism within Japan [1][2]. Group 1: Takaichi's Statements - On November 7, Takaichi stated that a "Taiwan emergency" could constitute a "survival crisis situation" for Japan, which led to strong backlash from various sectors in Japan [1]. - Takaichi continues to defend her statements, claiming that Japan has relinquished all rights according to the "San Francisco Peace Treaty" and does not hold a position on Taiwan's legal status [2]. Group 2: Historical Context and Criticism - Professor Hiroshi Onishi criticized Takaichi's focus on the "San Francisco Peace Treaty," arguing that it ignores other significant documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which clearly state Taiwan's return to China [2][3]. - Onishi emphasized that the "San Francisco Peace Treaty" was made without the participation of key WWII parties like China and the Soviet Union, making it an invalid basis for discussions regarding Taiwan's sovereignty [3]. - He highlighted the importance of documents like the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement and the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China, urging Japan to return to a stance based on these agreements [3].

Core Viewpoint - The remarks made by Japanese Prime Minister Kishi Nobuo regarding Taiwan's status are seen as a distortion of history and a dangerous escalation towards military involvement in the Taiwan Strait [1][2]. Group 1: Historical Context - Kishi's comments on Taiwan being a potential "survival crisis" for Japan have sparked significant criticism within Japan [1]. - The reference to the "San Francisco Peace Treaty" is criticized for ignoring other important documents like the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which clearly state Taiwan's return to China [2][3]. Group 2: Legal and Political Implications - The "San Francisco Peace Treaty" is deemed illegal and invalid as it was made without the participation of key wartime parties such as China and the Soviet Union, violating international law principles [3]. - The Cairo Declaration explicitly states that territories stolen from China, including Taiwan, should be returned to China, reinforcing that Taiwan is not a "temporary administrative object" of Japan [3]. Group 3: Call for Reassessment - There is a strong call for Japan to return to a stance based on the Sino-Japanese political documents, such as the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement and the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China [3].

Core Viewpoint - The statements made by Japanese Prime Minister Kishi Nobuo regarding Taiwan reflect a deep-rooted historical revisionism and a misjudgment of current international political realities, indicating Japan's intentions to militarily intervene in the Taiwan Strait [1][2]. Historical Context - Japan's occupation of Taiwan began in 1895 through an unequal treaty, and subsequent international agreements, such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, established the legal basis for Taiwan's return to China after World War II [1]. - The San Francisco Peace Treaty, cited by Kishi, is criticized for being an illegal document that disregards the established international legal framework regarding Taiwan's sovereignty [2]. Implications of Military Rhetoric - Kishi's assertion that "Japan is back" raises concerns about a resurgence of militarism in Japan, especially in light of historical atrocities committed during its colonial rule over Taiwan [3]. - The historical context of Japan's colonial rule is marked by severe human rights violations and exploitation of Taiwanese resources, which serves as a reminder of the potential dangers of militaristic rhetoric in contemporary politics [3]. Taiwan's Status - Taiwan is emphasized as a core interest of China, with a strong commitment from the Chinese government to counter any foreign interference or attempts to disrupt national unity [4]. - Japan is urged to reflect on its historical responsibilities and to refrain from provocative actions regarding Taiwan to avoid repeating past mistakes [4].

Core Viewpoint - The statements made by Japanese Prime Minister Kishi Nobuo regarding Taiwan reflect a deep-rooted historical revisionism and a misjudgment of current international political realities, indicating Japan's intentions to militarily intervene in the Taiwan Strait [1][2]. Summary by Sections Historical Context - Japan's occupation of Taiwan began in 1895 through an unequal treaty, and the legal basis for Taiwan's return to China is established through international documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration [1]. - The Cairo Declaration, issued in 1943, stated that territories stolen by Japan, including Taiwan, should be returned to China, reaffirmed by the Potsdam Declaration in 1945 [1]. Legal Implications - The San Francisco Peace Treaty, cited by Kishi, is criticized as an illegal document that violates international law and disregards the rights of China as a non-signatory [2]. - The selective reference to this treaty by Kishi is seen as a distortion of historical facts and a violation of established international norms [2]. Military and Political Concerns - Kishi's assertion that "Japan is back" raises concerns about a resurgence of militarism in Japan, particularly in relation to Taiwan, where historical atrocities committed by Japan are recalled [3]. - The historical context of Japan's colonial rule in Taiwan is highlighted, emphasizing the suffering and oppression experienced by the Taiwanese people during that period [3]. National Interests - Taiwan is identified as a core interest of China, with a strong commitment from the Chinese government to counter any foreign interference regarding Taiwan [4]. - Japan is warned against provocative actions related to Taiwan, with a reminder of its historical responsibilities and the potential consequences of such actions [4].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the diplomatic tensions between Japan and China, particularly focusing on Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's controversial statements regarding Taiwan, which have led to significant backlash from China and raised concerns about Japan's foreign policy approach [2][11][31]. Group 1: Japan's Diplomatic Maneuvering - Takaichi's initial comments on Taiwan being a potential "survival crisis" for Japan were perceived as a hint at possible military involvement in the Taiwan Strait, causing outrage in China [2][11]. - In a subsequent debate, Takaichi attempted to clarify her stance by stating that Japan would assess situations based on specific circumstances, avoiding direct references to Taiwan's legal status [3][4]. - The Japanese government is seen as trying to navigate the fallout from Takaichi's remarks while maintaining a balance between domestic pressures and international relations [29][30]. Group 2: China's Response - China's Foreign Ministry firmly rejected Takaichi's attempts to downplay her previous statements, emphasizing that "not mentioning" does not equate to a retraction of her erroneous comments [7][12]. - The Chinese government highlighted that Takaichi's reference to the "San Francisco Peace Treaty" was inappropriate, as it undermines China's territorial claims and disregards significant historical agreements [13][14]. - China's stance reflects a broader concern about Japan's adherence to its political commitments and the potential implications for regional stability [16][31]. Group 3: International Reactions - The article notes that while Western nations typically support Japan, there has been a notable silence from other countries regarding Takaichi's comments, indicating a lack of consensus on the issue [20][21]. - U.S. President Trump reportedly urged Takaichi to tone down her rhetoric on Taiwan, suggesting that even allies are wary of escalating tensions in the region [23][24][26]. - The situation illustrates the complexities of international diplomacy, where historical grievances and current political dynamics intersect [30][31].

Core Viewpoint - The Chinese Foreign Ministry firmly opposes Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's remarks regarding Taiwan, emphasizing that his reference to the "San Francisco Peace Treaty" is illegal and invalid, and calls for international vigilance against such statements [1][2] Group 1: Legal and Historical Context - The return of Taiwan to China is considered a significant outcome of World War II and an essential part of the post-war international order, confirmed by various international legal documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation [1] - The establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) on October 1, 1949, is viewed as a legitimate government representing all of China, maintaining the country's sovereignty over Taiwan [1] - The 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement acknowledges the PRC as the sole legal government of China and reiterates that Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory [1] Group 2: Critique of Japanese Statements - The "San Francisco Peace Treaty" is criticized for being a unilateral agreement that excluded major WWII parties like China and Russia, violating international law principles [2] - Kishida's focus on the "San Francisco Peace Treaty" while ignoring legally binding documents like the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation is seen as a disregard for the political foundation of Sino-Japanese relations [2] - The Chinese government urges Japan to reflect on and correct its erroneous statements, emphasizing the need for Japan to fulfill its obligations as a UN member [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of recognizing the historical significance of Taiwan's return to China and condemns the "Taiwan independence" narrative that distorts this history [1][5]. Group 1: Historical Narratives - The article criticizes the Taiwanese authorities for promoting a distorted view of history regarding the end of World War II and Taiwan's status, particularly through the rhetoric of "end of war" and neglecting the contributions of the Chinese people in the anti-Japanese war [2][4]. - It highlights the deliberate omission of Taiwan's "Restoration Day" by Taiwanese officials, framing it as a "poisoned candy" and denying its significance in the context of Taiwan's return to China [3][5]. Group 2: Legal and International Context - The article discusses the "Taiwan status undecided theory," asserting that it is a fabricated narrative stemming from U.S. policies post-Korean War, which aims to undermine China's sovereignty over Taiwan [4]. - It references international legal documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which affirm China's sovereignty over Taiwan, countering claims made by Taiwanese officials and U.S. entities [3][4]. Group 3: Political Implications - The article argues that the actions of the Taiwanese authorities reflect a broader agenda of seeking independence through foreign support, particularly from the U.S. and Japan, which is viewed as a betrayal of national interests [5]. - It calls for unity among Chinese people to remember history and oppose separatist movements, emphasizing the inevitability of China's reunification [5].

Core Viewpoint - The spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, Chen Binhua, emphasized that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China, historically and legally established, and criticized the U.S. for distorting historical documents regarding Taiwan's status [1][2][3] Group 1: Historical Context - The Cairo Declaration (1943), the Potsdam Declaration (1945), and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender (1945) clearly affirm China's sovereignty over Taiwan [2] - Taiwan was restored to China in October 1945, marking the end of Japanese rule and the resumption of Chinese governance over Taiwan and the Penghu Islands [2] - The issue of Taiwan's status was resolved with the victory of the Chinese people in the War of Resistance against Japan [2] Group 2: Current Political Stance - The establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) on October 1, 1949, replaced the Republic of China (ROC) government, maintaining China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, including Taiwan [2] - The return of Taiwan to China is considered a significant outcome of World War II and an essential part of the post-war international order [3] - The U.S., as a signatory of the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration, is criticized for promoting the "Taiwan status undecided" narrative, which is seen as a distortion of historical facts [3] Group 3: Response to External Influence - Chen Binhua expressed strong dissatisfaction and opposition to the U.S. for manipulating Taiwan-related issues and supporting "Taiwan independence" forces [3] - The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is accused of colluding with specific media and U.S. institutions to create a false narrative regarding Taiwan's status [3] - The spokesperson asserted that historical facts cannot be altered, and the unification of China, including Taiwan, is an unstoppable trend [3]