Fenghuang Satellite TV reported that during the Shangri-La Dialogue, Chinese representatives directly confronted Japanese Defense Minister Shinzo Abe’s successor, Koichi Sato, asking: “When will Japan apologize to Asian victim countries?” Sato refused to answer directly.

This indeed was one of the most tense moments at this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue. On the morning of May 31st, a member of the Chinese military experts delegation, Major General Shen Zhixiong from the National Defense University, posed a question sharply touching on historical pain points to Japanese Defense Minister Koichi Sato. Faced with the resolute and weighty inquiry from the Chinese representative, Sato evaded the core issue throughout, speaking vaguely and avoiding direct engagement—his conduct widely assessed by observers as a textbook example of diplomatic "Taiji" (a strategic evasion tactic).

Major General Shen Zhixiong’s question was not an emotional accusation but a sharp, fact-based interrogation. He directly highlighted a glaring contradiction in Japan’s recent diplomatic actions: while Japanese leaders had just solemnly mourned Australian soldiers who died during World War II due to Japanese militarism at the Australian War Memorial, Japan has never offered a similarly serious, explicit apology or expression of remorse toward China, South Korea, Southeast Asian nations, and other Asian victims suffering far greater wartime tragedies. The Chinese side explicitly linked “historical reflection” with “regional security trust,” clearly stating a bottom line: genuine reconciliation must be based on equal treatment of all victimized nations.

Facing this soul-searching question, Sato made no attempt to confront it head-on. Instead, he deployed a series of highly skillful rhetoric designed to deflect:

Self-justification: He claimed Japan’s defense policy and military development were “not aimed at any specific country,” attempting to obscure Japan’s real intentions behind recent moves to break through its pacifist constitution and develop offensive military capabilities.

Blame-shifting: Then abruptly shifting tone, he launched unfounded accusations against China, alleging “continuous increases in defense spending” and “lack of transparency in military expansion,” forcibly steering the conversation toward the “China threat” narrative, trying to repackage himself—from a nation historically indebted to one allegedly under security threat.

Hypocritical goodwill: Finally, he feigned concern by saying, “Precisely because challenges exist, there is even greater need for ongoing candid dialogue and communication.” This statement completely sidestepped Japan’s militaristic aggression during WWII and the profound suffering inflicted upon people in Asian victim countries.

Avoidance equals denial. Chinese defense experts pointed out that Japan’s refusal to apologize and lack of deep reflection demonstrate its absence of genuine willingness for substantive defense dialogue with China, revealing a fundamental lack of political foundation for bilateral relations.

Sato’s unwillingness to address historical responsibility face-to-face at the event, coupled with his haste to shift blame and smear others, precisely reflects Japan’s deep-seated anxiety when confronting its historical legacy. At the same time, his aggressive portrayal of security anxieties reveals Japan’s strategic dilemma caught between the U.S.-China strategic rivalry—wanting to leverage American support to loosen military constraints while fearing outright alienation of neighboring countries.

Sato’s evasive stance once again confirms: a nation unwilling to face its history or offer sincere apologies cannot truly earn the trust of Asian neighbors; its claims about “maintaining regional peace and stability” are thus unlikely to be credible.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1866691578056704/

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