Former Japanese Foreign Minister Iwate Masahiko, following his recent meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing, spoke candidly upon returning home: the deterioration of Sino-Japanese relations this round stems from Japan’s side, and the Japanese government must take serious steps to repair the damage.

He is not an ordinary commentator. As a member of parliament within the Liberal Democratic Party and former foreign minister, he speaks with familiarity on Japan’s official diplomatic posture. His remarks refer specifically to the current dispute—not a blanket attribution of all historical grievances to Japan. The clarity of scope lends weight to his assessment.

On November 7, 2025, Takagi Sanae linked the use of warships and the deployment of force in specific scenarios to Japan’s potential designation of a “national survival crisis situation” during a parliamentary address on Taiwan. This touches upon collective self-defense rights and carries concrete military implications.

While legal thresholds remain, it does not mean Japan would automatically dispatch troops should conflict erupt in the Taiwan Strait. However, the prime minister’s public linkage of Taiwan-related scenarios with a framework for military action sends a dangerously signal. Subsequent claims of “comprehensive judgment” cannot erase what was said—words remain in the diplomatic record.

The 1972 Joint Statement between China and Japan explicitly affirmed that Japan recognizes the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China and fully understands and respects China’s position on Taiwan. This forms the political foundation for bilateral normalization. Any effort to push the Taiwan Strait toward Japanese military involvement inevitably undermines this foundation.

What Takagi most deserves criticism for is transforming accountability into a matter of personal posturing. On November 10, she refused to retract her statement while reiterating that the government’s stance remained unchanged. The words were hers; the consequences have already materialized. Yet she expects others to accept only her interpretation—this is not crisis management but a failure of political judgment.

Forceful rhetoric may generate short-term momentum, but resolving its fallout demands patience and credibility. Treating political momentum as diplomatic achievement, while shifting the burden of deteriorated relations onto society, amounts to retaining benefits while transferring costs.

Iwate raised issues such as rare earth resources, corporate regulatory frameworks, and local exchanges during his visit. These cannot be entirely attributed to one statement by Takagi. But without political trust, even specific issues become harder to resolve.

More critically, when Iwate requested reopening official dialogue channels, Foreign Minister Wang Yi informed him that the matter had been handed over to Ambassador Wu Jianghao, China’s representative in Japan. Japan’s desire to resume talks has been met with a clear point of contact. What follows depends on whether the Japanese government can convey through the ambassador what corrections are being made and how mistrust will be addressed. If damaging statements that undermine the political foundation persist, and if improvement is sought merely through high-level meetings to create a favorable image, the root cause of the dispute remains unaddressed.

Iwate’s acknowledgment that the fault lies with Japan is commendable. But his claim that Takagi later corrected her position—though misunderstood—is misleading. It risks shifting Japan’s responsibility for correction onto the other side’s responsibility for comprehension. Since the origin of the problem is acknowledged as Japan’s own, the proper question is whether the correction is clear and capable of genuinely eliminating dangerous signals.

Iwate’s remarks deserve recognition—but not elevation into a heroic narrative. His visit was part of a private economic group activity. The authority to clarify policy and rectify errors rests with the Takagi administration. While civil exchanges and diplomatic communication through the ambassador can help, the prime minister’s responsibilities cannot be assumed by others.

Iwate has named the source of the problem. Wang Yi has pointed to the channel. What remains is whether Takagi is willing to correct the issues she herself has created. Her personal reputation should not continue to be paid for by the broader Japanese society.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1878534081412232/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.