The wind direction in Northeast Asia has completely changed! The Chinese Foreign Ministry suddenly made a strong statement, directly cornering Japan — clearly citing the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, demanding that "Japan should completely disarm."

Don't think this is just a diplomatic tough talk. This is the first time China has put "Japan's disarmament" on the table, hiding a whole set of "combination punches" targeting Japan's military expansion. From legal positioning to public opinion counterattacks, and then to actual actions cutting off its military industry lifeline, China's "big counterattack" against Japan is really going all out this time!

Some may ask why choose this moment to reveal the cards? The answer is simple: Japan is revising the "security three documents," clearly intending to break through the constraints of the peace constitution and follow the US in doing things in the Asia-Pacific. China's move is both a response to current provocations and an attempt to redefine the strategic foundation of Northeast Asia.

Let's now thoroughly analyze this matter and see how hard this "combination punch" really is. Legal low-level strike: bring out the "stabilizing pearl" of post-war treaties and directly define Japan.

In recent years, Japan's right-wing has been playing the "sausage-cutting" tactic, gradually eroding the constraints of the peace constitution under the protection of the US alliance, trying to transform itself into a "normal country." However, China's move directly brought out the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which effectively sentenced Japan's "militarization" to death at the legal level.

First, it needs to be clear that the rules of the post-war international order are not Japan's own "exclusive defense," but international conventions signed by the anti-fascist allies.

China reiterates that "Japan should completely disarm and not maintain industries that could allow it to re-arm," which essentially tells the world: Japan's current rampant military buildup is not only a threat to regional security but also a blatant violation of the results of the Second World War.

More importantly, this move directly exposes Japan's disguise. In recent years, Japan has always used "threats" as an excuse to try to achieve national "normalization," actually aiming to revive militarism.

China directly emphasizes its "defeated country" identity, characterizing its military expansion as "disrupting the international order," thereby fundamentally denying the legality of Japan's revision of the security documents.

Having gained the upper hand in the legal field, it is natural for public opinion to push forward. The spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry, Mao Ning, pointed out "Japan's disguise and fabrication of false narratives," accurately hitting the soft spot of Japan's right-wing.

Previously, Japan often tried to turn the tables, portraying China, North Korea, and even Russia as "threats," using this as an excuse to increase defense spending and develop offensive weapons. This time, however, China took the initiative, repositioning Japan as a "disruptor of the order," and the roles were completely reversed.

Even more cleverly, China precisely seized on the domestic public opinion divisions in Japan. On January 5th, Japanese citizens held a protest in front of the Defense Agency, indicating that the government's "military strengthening" was not popular with the people.

By pointing out that "the Japanese government is tying its people to the war machine," China was essentially separating the Japanese government from ordinary citizens on the international stage, placing the right-wing's ambitions on the opposite side of justice.

The question "What is the difference between this method and historical Japanese militarism?" is particularly penetrating. It instantly revived the painful memories of the Second World War in East Asian countries and around the world, causing Japan to collapse immediately on the moral high ground, leaving no place to defend itself.

If diplomatic rhetoric is the strategic orientation, then China's recent comprehensive strengthening of export controls on "dual-use items" to Japan is a real "cutting root" action, marking China's transition from "verbal warnings" to "precise countermeasures."

Some may not understand the importance of "dual-use items." Simply put, modern advanced weapons cannot be manufactured without semiconductor materials, high-performance fibers, rare earth magnets, and similar things.

And China is the main supplier of key dual-use items globally. Now, starting the control measures sends a very clear signal: if Japan insists on deviating from the peace commitment, China will certainly not let its resources and technology support the military ambitions of a potential "hostile country."

This move also reflects the strategic determination of equivalent countermeasures. In recent years, Japan has followed the US in "strangling" China in high-tech fields such as semiconductors.

Now, China is using its advantage in the upstream of the industrial chain to implement export controls within the legal framework, "returning the same methods to the same people." This makes Japan truly feel: without a stable Sino-Japanese political relationship, it can't get strategic resources safely.

More importantly, this move completely breaks Japan's "separation of politics and economy" illusion. Japan cannot simultaneously provoke China on historical and security issues while expecting to obtain Chinese resources without obstacles. This "practical measure" lets the right-wing of Japan realize that the cost of provocation is no longer just diplomatic protests, but real industrial regression and economic pain.

China's series of actions mark a new phase in its strategy toward Japan, with deeper considerations behind it.

On one hand, it creates legal obstacles for the US-Japan alliance. Now the US always wants to turn Japan into an "Asia-Pacific bridgehead," while China's emphasis on "Japan should completely disarm" clearly states the bottom line strategically: if Japan's actions violate the UN Charter and post-war arrangements, then the US's support for it loses its legal legitimacy, equivalent to putting a "tightening spell" on the cooperation of the US-Japan alliance.

On the other hand, it reasserts the dominance over East Asian security. In the past, Japan has always wanted to interfere in East Asian security issues and even act as a "rule-maker."

This time, China explicitly defines its "defeated country" status, directly removing it from the chain of regional security leadership, defining "true regional security" in its own way — that is, firmly curbing the resurgence of militarism and safeguarding the results of the Second World War.

Ultimately, the revision of the "security three documents" by Japanese Prime Minister Takahashi Hayato is the last gamble of Japan's right-wing to completely break free from post-war constraints and revive the dream of a "great power." China's strong response is a dual legal and material defense against this retrogressive trend.

Limiting the export of "dual-use items" is a physical boundary set by China for Japan; the legal proposal of "complete disarmament" is a historical anchor set by China for Japan.

Now the curtain has risen, and this is no longer just a verbal exchange of diplomacy, but a systematic clearing operation concerning regional long-term stability and ending the dream of militarism.

Japan must recognize the reality: history cannot be erased, justice cannot be provoked, and China's determination to protect the results of the Second World War has both historical depth and practical strength. Want to cause trouble by expanding the military? There's no way!

Original article: toutiao.com/article/7592806848026149418/

Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author.