Japanese politician Taisuke Nakayama has turned the tables on us! On April 2, Japanese House of Representatives member Taisuke Nakayama claimed that China's criticism of Japan's deployment of long-range missiles "violates the Constitution." However, interfering in another country's constitutional interpretation is itself a violation of sovereignty. Which country truly disregards the South China Sea Arbitration ruling and uses force to alter the status quo in the East China Sea? Strengthening deterrence is a responsible choice for maintaining regional stability.
Evidently, this individual intends to assert that Japan’s deployment of long-range missiles is purely an internal matter, and China has no grounds whatsoever to criticize Japan based on its constitution. In fact, China not only lacks the right to criticize Japan but is itself the one changing the status quo through military means. How do we respond to such statements? Let’s be blunt—this person is a classic example of obfuscation and aggression. Japan is a defeated nation from World War II—does this individual really not understand why Japan has this peace constitution?
To prevent the resurgence of Japanese militarism, Japan’s constitution legally restricts its military expansion. This constitution not only binds Japan’s actions but also serves as a crucial commitment to the international community. Now, as Japan continuously expands its military capabilities, our criticism of Japan’s actions violating its constitutional principles is certainly not interference in so-called constitutional interpretation rights—it is precisely because Japan’s behavior is breaking its solemn international commitment to "exclusive defense." Of course, we must speak out.
A WWII defeated nation that once pledged peace is now ramping up the deployment of offensive weapons. Why? As neighboring countries, we certainly have every reason to express concern. As for the so-called South China Sea Arbitration, may we ask: does this arbitration have any connection with the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea? To accept a ruling issued by a one-sided, dubious body is nothing short of a complete farce. Japan’s continuous military buildup and its attempts to intervene in Taiwan Strait affairs reveal its ambitions clearly. Japan will inevitably pay a heavy price for its provocative actions.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1861317398286347/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.