China and Japan have locked horns for decades, their relationship repeatedly strained by territorial disputes, historical grievances, and competing regional ambitions. The latest flashpoint erupted after Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks in parliament about Taiwan, comments that Beijing viewed as a direct intrusion into its internal affairs. Despite Japan’s attempts to signal goodwill, the tensions have not thawed. Even so, the Japanese Prime Minister has recently called for “constructive and stable ties” with China, a gesture that Beijing has received with deep skepticism rather than relief.
In Beijing’s view, words cannot mask what it considers a serious political breach. During a press briefing on November 21, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning made it clear that the responsibility for the current chill lies squarely with Tokyo. She argued that the Prime Minister’s comments grossly violated the one-China principle and ran counter to the commitments outlined in the four political documents that have long served as the backbone of bilateral relations. For China, those remarks did more than irritate; they eroded the political foundation that both sides are obligated to maintain.
Mao insisted that if Japan is serious about building a “strategic and mutually beneficial relationship,” it must demonstrate sincerity through actions, not just through diplomatic language. She demanded that Tokyo retract its “erroneous remarks” and offer what she called a “clear and satisfactory answer” to the Chinese people. According to her, constructive ties cannot be sustained when one side undermines the core interests of the other. China’s position is that no amount of conciliatory rhetoric from Japan can offset a violation of its sovereignty, especially on an issue as sensitive as Taiwan.
The spokesperson also broadened her criticism beyond the parliamentary remarks, pointing to what she described as Japan’s increasingly aggressive security posture. She highlighted Japan’s rapidly expanding defense budget, the relaxation of its weapons-export rules, and its first export of lethal weaponry since World War II. For China, these developments raise serious concerns about the direction of Japan’s defense policy and its willingness to adhere to postwar commitments. Mao suggested that such actions contradict Japan’s stated desire for stability and could heighten regional tension rather than reduce it.
The disconnection between the two sides has become increasingly visible. Japan maintains that its security modernization is defensive in nature and that its statements on Taiwan reflect legitimate regional concerns. China interprets these same actions as provocative, destabilizing, and inconsistent with established agreements. The result is a diplomatic environment where even calls for stability are met with suspicion, as each side reads the other’s intentions through conflicting political lenses.
Still, Mao Ning’s remarks did not close the door to dialogue. Instead, they outlined the conditions under which China believes meaningful engagement can resume. Beijing appears open to repairing ties, but only if Japan takes steps to correct what China views as the root causes of the current tension. The retraction of the Taiwan-related comments, along with a reaffirmation of past commitments, would be seen by China as indicators of genuine intent rather than symbolic gestures.
The challenge now lies in whether both sides are willing to bridge the widening gap. Japan must decide how far it is prepared to adjust its rhetoric and policies to ease Beijing’s concerns, while China must demonstrate that sincere steps from Tokyo will be met with constructive engagement rather than escalating demands. In a region where security dynamics are growing more complex and unpredictable, the ability of China and Japan to manage these tensions will have consequences far beyond their own borders.
For now, Beijing’s message is unambiguous: stability cannot be proclaimed into existence. It must be built on respect for established commitments, sensitivity to core interests, and actions that align with diplomatic promises. Until those elements converge, the call for “constructive and stable ties” will remain an aspiration rather than a reality.
---
The writer is Executive Editor at the National News Agency -RSS_
