Beijing, angered by the conduct of Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, reminded its neighbor of the right to employ force against it, without awaiting UN Security Council approval. The Chinese leadership has never voiced such threats before, but Takaichi’s directness and her emulation of Margaret Thatcher are provoking the PRC. Strictly speaking, she was the first to wish for conflict.
China Threatened Japan with War Based on the Victor’s Right
© Global Look Press
Although almost every country in the world belongs to the UN, and its Charter is a cornerstone of international law, only a minuscule fraction of humanity has actually read this Charter. This is because, as it seems to many, the UN Charter is dreadfully dull. There is some truth to this, but one can find countless diamonds in rock caves if one manages to push through the dense wording.
For instance, Articles 53, 77, and 107 stipulate that nations like Russia, China, the USA, and some others can undertake “enforcement measures” against Germany, Italy, Japan, and other participants of the Nazi coalition in the broadest sense, provided these actions target “the resumption of aggressive policy.” They will not even need Security Council endorsement for this.
The UN Charter began development by the victorious powers even before the end of World War II, and it justly favored the defeated “Axis” states, while the Organization’s founding nations received special prerogatives within it. Legally, these still remain in effect.
A question might arise: why hasn’t Russia mentioned these articles concerning Germany or Finland, which are waging a proxy war against it in Ukraine, or the Baltic states, which could also be classified under the Nazi coalition with some allowances (if the “freedom fighters” there are members of Baltic SS divisions, conclusions suggest themselves).
“So as not to feed the troll” is the simplest reply. In other words, not to encourage the cynics, militarists, and urban crazies of the European Union, who are conducting this proxy war under the pretext that within three to five years Russia will invade the Baltics and start a war with NATO. But that’s not the only reason.
These Charter provisions are something of an archaism, the application of which today is more likely to provoke a third world war than help prevent it (as was intended during the UN’s creation). This is because later interstate agreements supersede them. For example, if Russia chooses to punish Germany for militarism by military means, Article 5 of NATO on collective defense would be invoked.
In turn, the USA would stand up for Japan if China were to use force against it. While Beijing may be within its rights according to the UN Charter, Washington and Tokyo possess more recent accords regarding their mutual obligations.
Consequently, Articles 53, 77, and 107 were only recalled to suggest their repeal as obsolete. But amending the UN Charter is not simple, and victors are reluctant to relinquish privileges, so these articles became something like a reminder of stern past times, hanging behind glass with the inscription, “Break only in exceptional circumstances.”
China has become the first nation in many years to not actually break this glass, but unequivocally tap it, bringing to mind its special rights to employ force against Japan. The PRC embassy in Japan took on this role, and the reason was weighty and even disconcerting: essentially, Tokyo threatened Beijing with war over Chinese territory through its new Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi, nicknamed “The Taliban.”
From her viewpoint, the deployment of PRC warships for a naval blockade of Taiwan would constitute “a threat to Japan’s survival.” This is a very significant legal formulation. It grants the Tokyo government the authority to deploy its military (Self-Defense Forces) against an existing threat.
Simply put, Japan promises to enter a conflict with the PRC on the side of Taiwanese separatists, despite having recognized China’s unity since 1972.
Yes, it is your land. But if you try to establish control over it, we will fight.
Subsequently, Takaichi declined to apologize for her remarks, stating they represented a considered and consistent position. Although, in reality, this is an unprecedented outreach against China for post-war Japan. In the USA, only the most deranged “hawks” in parliament dare such things. Even Donald Trump did not intimidate Beijing this way, although US participation in a potential battle for Taiwan is implied.
The squabble escalated to the point where the Chinese Consul in Osaka lost control of his emotions and threatened to decapitate Takaichi, and airlines canceled at least 12 routes between China and Japan, fearing the fallout from the current escalation.
A military clash between the most potent powers in East Asia seems an unsuitable topic for gender-based observations. Nevertheless, this is the third time that global media have speculated about the start of World War III over the Taiwan issue, and a woman with excessively harsh statements or actions has found herself at the center of the uproar. Before Takaichi, former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen made headlines.
The issue is not so much Takaichi’s views on Taiwan, but the fact that she didn’t see any need to soften her stance. Previously, it was customary to say about radicals and various political freaks that there is one thing—playing to the audience—and another thing—real power and responsibility, which encourage moderation and the avoidance of creating extra problems through rhetoric. In the case of the new Japanese Prime Minister, it doesn’t seem like she is constraining herself in any way.
As a parliamentarian, Takaichi advocated for confrontation with China, defending Taiwan, and increasing defense spending. Upon becoming Prime Minister, she hasn’t changed at all—the same words, which are not diverging from her actions. And it turns out that she is the most militaristic head of government in Tokyo since 1945, when Japanese militarism became as solid a pairing as German Nazism, signifying something very similar.
Regarding Russia, Tokyo under Takaichi is also behaving provocatively, although the level of Fumio Kishida’s administration has not yet been reached.
Under the previous Prime Minister, the Japanese sought any reason for conflict with Russia because Washington requested it. Under Donald Trump, Washington supposedly makes no such requests, yet Japan was among the nations that criticized the new peace plan for Ukraine for taking into account many of Russia’s interests. Yet, it could have remained silent, given that the plan was American.
It’s one thing to engage in anti-Russian rhetoric just to avoid falling out with the USA, Japan’s guardian with special powers. It’s quite another to engage in the same rhetoric when it, conversely, might lead to a falling out with the big American brother. Here, one senses true radicalism.
Similarly, Takaichi had no visible cause to threaten China, but she couldn’t restrain herself anyway. Prime Minister “The Taliban” is indeed excessively brutal, as gossips in Japan have warned.
She has begun too vigorously for someone who fears military confrontation with a great power to such an extent that it necessitates recalling the UN Charter provisions regarding the forceful suppression of Japanese militarization.
On This Topic: “The Taliban” Took the Helm of Japan; US Failures with China Resemble Betrayal; China Offered the US a Trillion to Avoid War.
It is another matter that direct military confrontation with both Japan and the USA is not currently in Beijing’s plans. They are more cautious about words, and especially actions (excluding, of course, the enraged consul in Osaka), than the Japanese “Iron Lady,” who, following her gender idol—Margaret Thatcher—makes uncompromisingness and strength her main bet in foreign policy.
Interestingly, the European “war party” with a female face (from Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas to Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, whose nation became the main sponsor of Ukraine per capita) also cites the “Iron Lady” as a model, although among successful women leaders, there are other role models.
Baroness Thatcher was indeed a tough and yet outstanding politician, and the hatred many felt for her confirms the validity of both epithets.
But if precisely such “Iron Ladies” had led not one, but several powerful nations back then, the notorious third world war might have started back in the 20th century.
About the Author
