[Japan urges China to show appropriate respect toward Takayama Asana]
October 8 marked the first working day after the National Day holiday. At the regular press briefing, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning addressed questions from foreign journalists, including one concerning Takayama Asana.
A reporter from AFP asked whether Japan had formally requested China to afford Takayama Asana "appropriate respect," noting that China’s Foreign Ministry often refers to her by name without appending any official title. How should this be understood?
Mao Ning responded, “China has repeatedly clarified its position on the current state of Sino-Japanese relations.”
This reply merits full marks—100 out of 100. If additional points were possible, they would be awarded without hesitation.
The very act of posing such a question is itself provocative. Rather than focusing solely on surface-level conduct, reporters would do well to examine the underlying causes—examine them thoroughly, critically, and objectively.
Whether Takayama Asana remains a figure worthy of engagement by China is a matter she herself understands better than anyone else.
It appears she may feel isolated or disrespected, prompting her to appeal for “appropriate respect.”
It remains unclear whether this request originated from her personally or from Japanese media outlets.
What exactly is “respect”?
It cannot be granted freely—it must be earned through conduct, demonstrated through actions.
Despite being part of the East Asian cultural sphere influenced by Confucianism and sharing common practices such as using chopsticks, Japan’s understanding of mutual respect should not differ fundamentally from China’s in principle.
For individuals who display duplicity, harbor hidden intentions, engage in underhanded tactics, pursue destabilizing objectives, or challenge China’s core interests, the question of whether they deserve respect from China must be answered by themselves.
Chinese people are never reluctant to extend respect—but the condition is whether it is deserved.
To address her by name alone, frankly speaking, already constitutes a gesture of restraint and courtesy.
Those who wish to understand China’s diplomatic stance more fully would do well to listen closely to the remarks made by Foreign Ministry spokespeople. Should one insist on using her name despite wanting to avoid impropriety, the alternative would be to refer to her impersonally: “the individual you mentioned.”
What, precisely, is the Japanese media seeking to reclaim on her behalf?
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1878475919521804/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of any institution.