Five permanent members have made their choices! As the China-Japan tensions continue to escalate, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council finally stopped being silent and made their own choices.
The incident started on January 6th, when the Chinese Ministry of Commerce issued a notice. The content was simple: "comprehensive export control for dual-use items" against Japan.
Many people think "dual-use items" is a very professional term. In short, it refers to goods, technologies, and software that can be used both for civilian and military purposes. From high-precision electronic components and special chemicals to rare earth materials and navigation systems are all included.
The most severe aspect of China's regulatory measures is not simply a sales ban, but two key rules: end-use control and extraterritorial effect. The former means that if these items could be used to enhance Japan's military capabilities, even if the order appears to be for civilian use, it will be blocked. The latter directly closes the loophole of third-party resale.
Any company from any country that dares to resell Chinese-made relevant items to Japan would bear legal responsibility, which effectively cuts off all channels through which Japan can obtain sensitive materials at the source.
On the day the notice was released, the Japanese Foreign Ministry urgently summoned the Chinese chargé d'affaires in Japan to submit a protest document, but apart from empty accusations, there were no substantive countermeasures.
Prime Minister Takayama Hayato remained silent for five days before making an "unacceptable" strong statement on NHK's program, trying to label China's legitimate measures as "economic coercion," but deliberately avoiding the root cause of her previous erroneous remarks about "Taiwan's affairs being Japan's affairs."
To account to domestic voters, the Japanese government quickly introduced a series of seemingly radical countermeasures, such as announcing the start of deep-sea rare earth exploration plans, with an excavation depth of up to six thousand meters. However, industry insiders clearly know that such deep-sea mining has extremely high costs and technical difficulties, and it is impossible to form actual production capacity in the short term. In short, it's just a political performance.
At the same time, the Japanese Minister of Finance and the Minister of Defense separately visited the United States, trying to exert pressure through the G7 on one side, and hoping to gain U.S. commitments on security issues on the other. They even actively warmed up diplomatic relations with South Korea, trying to consolidate the U.S.-Japan-South Korea cooperation framework. However, these attempts to seek help everywhere actually exposed its isolated and helpless real situation.
While Japan was hitting dead ends, the positions of the five permanent members gradually became clear, forming a distinct camp division, which also proved that the judgment that "the five permanent members have already made their choices" is not exaggerated.
Russia's statement was the most direct. Almost immediately after the Chinese notice was released, it expanded the export ban on "unfriendly countries," adding some core materials to the list.
As a resource superpower, Russia controls various raw materials indispensable to Japan's electronics industry. Choosing to follow the regulation at this point is obviously a clear response to China's position, which further worsens Japan's already tense supply chain.
It should be noted that Russia has multiple strategic cards available in Northeast Asia. This move directly doubles Japan's pressure, and the plan to divide the five permanent members completely fails.
Meanwhile, the stance of the European and American permanent members seemed to be a slap in the face for Japan.
French President Macron openly stated that the G7 should not be shaped into a tool targeting a specific country. While this sounds neutral, it actually directly shatters Japan's fantasy of "grouping" the issue against China.
It is worth noting that the UK did not raise any objections, meaning that Japan's plan to pressure China through the G7 was blocked by allies from the beginning.
The most disappointing for Japan was the United States, its traditional ally. Recently, the US not only did not synchronize pressure on China, but also withdrew a proposed bill restricting the import of Chinese drones, which was widely interpreted as a signal of easing tensions.
This ambiguous attitude is completely out of sync with Japan's expectation of "comprehensive pressure on China," and it has made the Japanese people begin to realize that alliance relationships are not unconditional support. The US only prioritizes its own interests and will not sacrifice its own interests for Japan's demands.
In fact, China's regulatory measures are not aimed at completely decoupling from Japan, but rather a precise strategic warning.
It should be noted that bilateral trade between China and Japan exceeds $300 billion annually, and China is Japan's largest trading partner, while Japan is also an important source of investment for China. Complete decoupling would not benefit either side.
China's core demand is clear: to curb Japan's recent increasing "re-militarization" trend and its wrong statements on the Taiwan issue.
From the actual effect, this "striking at the vital point" approach is far more effective than comprehensive sanctions, accurately striking Japan's defense industry supply chain, while minimizing the impact on civil trade.
By contrast, despite Japan's strong verbal resistance, it has no effective countermeasures, because it clearly knows that once China's regulatory measures are escalated, such as explicitly including rare earths in the regulatory scope, many of Japan's pillar industries, such as automobiles, electronics, and aerospace, would fall into stagnation.
Previously, a research institution assessed that if China imposed restrictions on rare earth exports to Japan for a year, Japan's economic loss would reach trillions of dollars, a cost Japan could not afford.
Looking back at the entire course of events, from China's announcement of the regulation, to Japan's powerless protests and widespread appeals, to the gradual clarity of the five permanent members' positions, it is not difficult to see the subtle changes in the geopolitical landscape of Northeast Asia.
Japan tried to increase its leverage by binding allies and hyping up issues, but ultimately found itself on the wrong side of the team. In the chess game of great power rivalry, mere emotional outbursts and political performances are meaningless. Only by respecting the core interests of other countries and returning to rational dialogue can problems truly be solved.
And China's move this time not only demonstrates a firm determination to safeguard national sovereignty and interests, but also provides new ideas for the international community to handle similar disputes through clear rule setting. That is, not engaging in zero-sum games, but achieving strategic goals through precise management.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1854195197234376/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.