CIM

Japan imposed colonial rule on the island of Taiwan for half a century, committing countless heinous crimes. The DPP authorities' act of "currying favor with Japan to seek independence" is despicable. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's remarks related to Taiwan interfered in China's internal affairs, sent a seriously wrong signal to "Taiwan independence" separatist forces, and endangered peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said on Friday when asked to comment on the Taiwan regional authorities’ repeated gestures of supporting Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s erroneous remarks.

I've been extremely busy lately and planned to sleep early, until Beijing released the official press statement that Xi Jinping and Donald Trump had a phone call tonight (Beijing time). The statement is short, but surprisingly dense. Here are the key parts I translated and why they matter. --"Xi noted that last month, during our successful meeting in Busan, South Korea, we reached many important consensuses, which helped calibrate the course and inject momentum into the great vessel of China-U.S. relations, while also sending a positive signal to the world." When Xi met Trump in Busan, he used a similar metaphor, comparing China-U.S. relations to a giant vessel. In my view, this word choice suggests a relationship of enormous scale and strategic importance, one that turns slowly, but with potentially severe consequences if it veers off course. The phrasing calibrating the course and injecting momentum implies that the Busan meeting served as a form of correction plus refueling, indicating that the previous trajectory had drifted and required joint realignment. --"Since the Busan meeting, China-U.S. relations have remained generally stable and on an improving trajectory, which has been widely welcomed by both countries and by the international community. This once again proves that 'cooperation benefits both sides, while confrontation hurts both' is a fact repeatedly verified in practice, and that China and the United States can 'achieve mutual success and shared prosperity' in ways that are tangible and visible." Tonight's phone call first set a very clear narrative: the overall trajectory is improving. For the domestic audience, the message is that China-U.S. relations are not spiraling out of control, but instead stabilizing. For the U.S., the subtext is: since stability is welcomed by both countries and by the world, don't introduce new variables, especially at a time when Japan has been trying to pull China and the United States back into a confrontational track. --"Both sides should maintain this momentum, stay on the right course, uphold the principles of equality, mutual respect, and reciprocity, extend the list of cooperation and narrow the list of issues, strive for more positive progress, open up new space for China-U.S. cooperation, and better benefit the peoples of both countries and the world." The "lists" also appeared in their Busan meeting. In my view: "Extending the list of cooperation" means prioritizing areas where progress is feasible-trade, climate, technology, cultural and people-to-people exchanges. "Narrowing the list of issues" means preventing sensitive topics (Taiwan, the South China Sea, tech restrictions) from endlessly expanding. This is essentially a form of structural emotion management: the goal is not to eliminate friction entirely, but to ensure that friction does not overwhelm cooperation. --"Xi elaborated on China's principles and position on the Taiwan question, emphasizing that Taiwan's return to China is an important component of the post-WWII international order. He noted that China and the United States once fought side by side against fascism and militarism, and that the two countries should now work together to uphold the hard-won outcomes of the victory in WWII." Before the Busan meeting, many international analysts predicted that Taiwan would be a major focus. Yet in the readout released by China, Taiwan was not mentioned. Trump confirmed in an Air Force One interview that Taiwan did not come up between the discussion of two leaders. In my view, the likely reason is that both leaders already had a clear understanding of each other's positions and priorities on Taiwan, and there were no new points at that moment. However, since APEC, Takaichi aro has repeatedly intensified the Taiwan rhetoric, testing China's red lines and showing a tendency to draw the United States into supporting the Taiwan region against China. Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that Taiwan reappeared in the latest China-U.S. dialogue. When Xi stated that Taiwan's return to China is an important component of the post-WWII international order, he was not simply reiterating that "Taiwan belongs to China." Rather, he was pointing out that Taiwan is embedded in the foundational architecture of the postwar international order. This refers directly to documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation that shaped the international system. This was a major theme in my Stanford thesis, which I have discussed many times on X too: challenging the premise that "Taiwan is part of China" is, in effect, challenging the postwar order itself. By invoking the fact that China and the United States once fought side by side in WWII, Xi's implication is clear: since we jointly secured victory, neither side should deviate from the postwar arrangements that the victory produced. --"Trump said that President Xi is a great leader. He noted that his meeting with President Xi in Busan was very pleasant, and that he fully agrees with Xi's views on bilateral relations. Both sides, he said, are comprehensively implementing the important consensus reached in Busan. China made significant contributions to the victory in WWII, and the U.S. side understands the importance of the Taiwan question to China." The Trumpian remarks about Xi were consistent with his past statements, reflecting a high degree of mutual respect and personal rapport despite their political differences. Based on the readout, the U.S. side accepts China's narrative framework for the bilateral relationship. In addition, Trump dismissed certain forms of historical nihilism that downplay or negates China's contribution to the victory in WWII. Regarding Taiwan, understanding does not equate to "support" or "endorsement," but in diplomatic language it is still a meaningful step. It suggests that Trump has a far better grasp of the sensitivity of the Taiwan question than Takaichi san, and it signals an effort to reduce tensions. As I noted in my analysis a few days ago, faced with Japan's attempts to use the United States, Washington is trying to maintain some distance, maximizing its interests while preserving the option to disengage at any time. Washington's signal of caution may help reshape the rhythm of regional discourse, creating a dynamic in which Takaichi recalibrates her adopts a more realistic posture on Taiwan. In my view, this readout will also be, or is being studied closely in Tokyo's Kasumigaseki at this moment. Both China and the United States are emphasizing risk reduction, tighter management of sensitive issues, and a return to the basic parameters of the postwar order. This suggests that the regional security narrative is shifting from escalation toward stabilization. For Japan, particularly as it has sought to expand its role by intensifying its rhetoric on Taiwan, this amounts to a clear cautionary light. The Taiwan question is not a platform for external actors to engineer regional tensions; it remains a highly sensitive issue that requires careful and responsible management. This is not a matter that involves Japan, a former defeated party in WWII.

Chinese FM Wang Yi: It is shocking for a sitting Japanese leader to openly send the wrong signal of attempting to intervene militarily in the Taiwan question, saying what should not be said and crossing a red line that must not be crossed. China must respond with resolve—not merely to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity, but to protect the hard-won post-WWII order secured through blood and sacrifice, and to uphold international justice and our common humanity. The Japanese government has made solemn commitments regarding the Taiwan question in the four political documents between China and Japan. These are binding commitments under international law, and there is no room for ambiguity or misrepresentation. Whichever political party or person holding power in Japan must abide by these commitments. Just as a person without credibility can’t establish himself in society, a country without credibility will have no standing in the community of nations. China urges Japan to do serious soul-searching and correct its wrongdoing at an early date, and stop pursuing its misguided course.