On February 25, I delivered a 20-minute speech at a meeting in Tokyo organized by the “Association for Preventing a State Funeral for Former Prime Minister Abe.” My talk was titled “Can Japan Afford to Remain Isolated from China?” An English translation of the transcript follows. Special thanks to my friend Dennis Riches for his help with the translation.
これは２月２８日の投稿「中国と断絶したまま孤立する日本でいいのか」の英語版です。
 |
An activist waving a flag that reads, “Japan-China Friendship — Let’s Get Along.”
Shinjuku, March 28, 2026. Photo by the author. |
Can Japan Afford to Remain Isolated from China?
by Satoko Oka Norimatsu
Article 9 of the Constitution as an Apology
Hello, my name is Satoko Oka Norimatsu. I am deeply grateful to the Association for Preventing a State Funeral for Former Prime Minister Abe for inviting me here today. I have lived in Canada for a total of 30 years, beginning with my high school studies in the country.
In the early 2000s, after having spent many years away from Japan, I became aware of an accelerating move to revise the Constitution and transform Japan into a country capable of waging war. In response, I helped found the Vancouver Article 9 Society in 2005. For our inaugural commemorative lecture, we invited Kato Shuichi, who had previously taught at the University of British Columbia. I was particularly struck by his observation that Vancouver, facing the Pacific Ocean, is a place where East and West meet, making it an ideal location for activities dedicated to peace.
As part of the Society’s activities, we screened John Junkerman’s film Japan’s Peace Constitution across Canada. One of the people featured in the film was Chalmers Johnson, a former conservative consultant to the CIA. Invited to Okinawa by then-Governor Ota Masahide, he witnessed firsthand the damage caused by the U.S. military bases there, and afterward became a consistent critic of the American empire.
In the film, Johnson said that Article 9 of the Constitution itself represents an “apology” to the Asian countries invaded by Japan. At the same time, he warned that “abandoning Article 9 would mean abandoning this apology.”
Professor Kimijima Akihiko of Ritsumeikan University likewise argues, in his theory of “Article 9 as a hexahedron,” that Clause 2 of Article 9 contains a “punitive meaning” directed at Japan, which, as one of the Axis powers during World War II, invaded and dominated the entire Asia-Pacific region.
Immediately after the Japanese election on February 8, 2026, I saw reports that Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson Jiang Bin criticized Prime Minister Takaichi for expressing her desire to amend the Constitution to explicitly recognize the Self-Defense Forces, stating that “Japan is once again walking down the wrong path of militarism.”
At first, I felt that, however understandable the concern, it was inappropriate for another country to interfere in Japan’s Constitution. However, when I reflected on the significance of Article 9 as both apology and punishment, I realized once again that Article 9, established as a reflection on Japan’s war of aggression, does not belong solely to Japan. Countries victimized by Japanese aggression, such as China, are also stakeholders in it.
Prime Minister Takaichi Refuses to Retract Her “Taiwan Remarks”
These concerns were raised because Prime Minister Takaichi has refused to retract remarks she made in the Diet on November 7 of last year, when she stated that a so-called “Taiwan emergency” could constitute an “existential crisis” that would provide a legal basis for the exercise of collective self-defense under the security legislation forcibly passed by the Abe administration.
Despite fierce backlash and criticism from China, which led to travel restrictions, a ban on Japanese seafood imports, and stricter export controls on dual-use goods, Prime Minister Takaichi has steadfastly refused to withdraw her remarks, and continues to do so today.
On the contrary, after dissolving the House of Representatives on January 23, she appeared on a television program with leaders of various political parties on January 26, the day before the election campaign officially began. There, she stated that in the event of a “Taiwan emergency,” both Japan and the United States would carry out rescue operations for their nationals in Taiwan, and went so far as to say: “If the U.S. military working together with Japan comes under attack and Japan simply runs away without doing anything, the Japan-U.S. alliance will collapse.” She made this openly defiant statement at a crucial moment just before the election.
Perhaps Prime Minister Takaichi understood that such remarks would work to her political advantage. Around 2010, the Obama administration announced its “pivot to Asia,” targeting a China whose economic and military power was rapidly growing. Japan, as a subordinate ally of the United States, revived the Senkaku Islands issue, which had previously been shelved. This led to the Self-Defense Forces’ “southwestward shift,” accelerating the construction of military fortifications stretching from Kagoshima through Okinawa toward Taiwan. At the same time, the Japanese government and media launched a large-scale anti-China campaign.
Opinion polls show that Japanese attitudes toward China remained relatively positive until around the mid-2000s. Since the 2010s, however, 80 to 90 percent of respondents have consistently reported negative views of China. Some surveys even indicate that 80 to 90 percent of Japanese people do not personally know any Chinese people. In other words, most Japanese people have come to dislike a country with which they have had no direct interaction. The influence of the media is likely significant.
The UNESCO Constitution states that “wars begin in the minds of men,” and preparations for war against China already seem well advanced within the Japanese public consciousness. Prime Minister Takaichi likely realized that taking a hardline stance against China would boost her popularity. The results of the February 8 election demonstrated exactly that.
Since Takaichi’s “Taiwan remarks,” I have spoken with many friends across China, as well as Chinese-origin friends in North America. Some are critical of the Chinese government, yet even they told me that it would not be an exaggeration to say that “1.4 billion Chinese people will never forgive Prime Minister Takaichi for suggesting intervention in Taiwan.”
The Election That Gave a Green Light to Takaichi’s “Taiwan Remarks”
In reality, however, the hardline stance toward China did not begin with Prime Minister Takaichi, nor was it initiated by Japan itself. Senior figures in the U.S. military, government, and intelligence community—including Admiral Davidson of Indo-Pacific Command—spread the narrative that a Taiwan crisis would occur by 2027. Japan has been absorbed into the United States’ hostile China policy. The same is true of other U.S. allies in the region, including the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, and Australia.
The U.S. National Security Strategy released at the end of last November, and the National Defense Strategy issued by the Department of Defense in January, both reflect this approach. They call for the “deterrence” of China through “burden-sharing” in collective defense, and Prime Minister Takaichi’s hardline stance is fully aligned with the Trump administration’s strategy. China, of course, sees this clearly.
This is only my personal interpretation, but it seems to me that China is deliberately framing this as a problem centered on Prime Minister Takaichi personally. In other words, China appears prepared to move beyond the issue if Takaichi either retracts her “Taiwan” remarks or resigns. I sense that China wishes to avoid direct confrontation with the United States, which stands behind Takaichi’s provocation, while also leaving open a possible path toward restoring Japan-China relations by defining this as “the Takaichi problem.”
As a Japanese voter, I had never engaged in strategic voting before. However, this time, for the sake of Japan-China relations, I voted for the leading opposition party—the only party with any realistic chance of unseating the Takaichi administration. I reluctantly cast my vote for the Chudo Party, hoping that a victory by the opposition might force Takaichi to resign, or at the very least compel her to take responsibility for her Taiwan remarks if the LDP lost significant seats.
The result was a crushing defeat for the opposition. For years it has been said that Japanese politics is shifting steadily to the right, but in this election left-wing parties weakened even further, with some now seemingly on the verge of collapse. Ironically, my strategic vote may have contributed to the accelerating decline of the left.
With Takaichi and the LDP achieving a landslide victory, Japanese voters effectively gave their approval to her “Taiwan” remarks. During the campaign, the media largely downplayed the significance of Japan-China relations, and it bears considerable responsibility for this outcome. I also believe that the deeply rooted anti-China sentiment within Japanese society played a major role. Our Chinese friends had hoped that Japanese citizens might follow the example of the people of the Republic of Korea, who forced the impeachment of President Yoon Seok-yeol after he declared martial law. After this election result, however, I feel unable even to face those Chinese friends who had placed their hopes in the Japanese public.
Thinking from the Perspective of the Victimized Countries
I am sometimes accused of being “pro-China” or “not Japanese enough” because of views like these. But if we are truly to stop or prevent war, the absolute minimum required is to understand the perspective of the other side. This is especially true in relation to countries that suffered under Japan’s wars of aggression and colonial rule, and where those wounds have still not healed. I believe it is essential to place ourselves, consciously and sincerely, in the position of those harmed by our own country.
Last year marked the 80th anniversary of the end of the war. Yet how many Japanese people reflected on that war from the perspective of the countries and peoples invaded by the Japanese Empire?
Japan’s war of aggression against China can be traced back to its invasion of Taiwan in 1874, which occurred as the Meiji government severed the Ryukyu Kingdom’s ties with Qing China and forcibly annexed it. Japan then seized Taiwan from China in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95. For Chinese people, any Japanese involvement in “Taiwan” inevitably raises alarms about the return of Japanese militarism and aggression.
Even my own family history reminds me that Japan’s war against China began long before what Japanese historiography calls the “Fifteen-Year War.” My grandfather came to China in 1896 and lived for thirty years in the Japanese settlement in Hankou before returning to Japan in 1927. He participated in propaganda campaigns that used newspapers to manipulate public opinion in China. He served as a spy for Japan.
Over the past two years, I have visited China five times, traveling to Shanghai, Nanjing, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Shenyang, Fushun, Beipiao, Fuxin, Chengdu, Chongqing, Changde, Changjiao, Changsha, and Wuhan. I was deeply impressed by the extraordinary economic development, infrastructure, and multicultural societies I encountered in each of these places. But I also witnessed the scars left by Japan’s war of aggression.
The Nanjing Massacre is widely known, but during my travels I learned that in countless places whose names I had never even heard before, the Japanese occupation brought forced labour, massacres, sexual violence, and looting on a scale similar to what occurred in Nanjing. The more I traveled, the more ashamed I became, realizing that what I previously knew was only the tip of the iceberg.
If your own mother or daughter had been raped and brutally murdered, how many years would it take for you to forgive? I know that I never could. Japan committed countless unforgivable crimes, yet China chose to distinguish Japanese militarism from the Japanese people and forgave Japan without demanding reparations. But that forgiveness rested on Japan’s promise never again to interfere in Taiwan.
That is why, when a Japanese politician speaks of intervention in Taiwan, it is immediately understood in China as signaling the return of Japanese militarism and aggression. Yet today it is the Prime Minister herself making such statements in the Diet. Most Japanese people do not grasp the gravity of this situation, and the media downplays it further, insisting that Japan should simply strengthen ties with countries other than China. This ignorance helped produce the LDP’s victory under Takaichi.
Japan should reaffirm to China that it understands and respects China’s position that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China,” as stated in the 1972 Japan-China Joint Communiqué, and should also reaffirm its commitment to the “One China” policy. These commitments were reiterated in four subsequent bilateral documents, including the 1978 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, the 1998 Japan-China Joint Declaration, and the 2008 Joint Communiqué.
Even if Prime Minister Takaichi is unlikely to reaffirm these commitments, another Japanese leader must do so. Otherwise, Japan will permanently lose China’s trust. Takaichi speaks of “keeping the door to dialogue open,” creating the impression that China is refusing dialogue. But who can sincerely believe appeals for dialogue when one side is simultaneously stepping on the other’s foot?
Should Japan Remain Subservient to the United States?
On January 26, Prime Minister Takaichi stated, “If the U.S. military is attacked in Taiwan and Japan does nothing, the Japan-U.S. alliance will collapse.” I believe this was an unusually candid statement that revealed her true priorities. For Takaichi, the Japan-U.S. military alliance—and the arms industry that profits from it—appear more important than either the lives of people in Japan or Japan-China relations.
Western countries generally view China as a threat in much the same way Japan does. Yet even so, cutting ties with one of the world’s largest economic powers cannot possibly serve Japan’s interests. Since the end of last year, leaders from countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and the Republic of Korea have all visited Beijing. Only Prime Minister Takaichi, convinced that relations with the United States alone are sufficient, has completely severed ties with China.
So I ask once again: Is it acceptable for Japan to remain subordinate to the United States? Is it acceptable for Japan to isolate itself by following hostile U.S. policies toward countries such as China, Russia, and DPRK?
Some people claim that Trump’s interference in countries such as Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba represents a revival of U.S. imperialism. But the United States has never ceased to be an empire since its founding. According to the Congressional Research Service, the United States has carried out approximately 500 military interventions abroad since its founding, half of them occurring after the Cold War.
Some reports estimate that since World War II, the United States has caused the deaths of 20 million people in 37 countries. The slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank continues, alongside the operation of 800 to 1,000 overseas military bases. No other country behaves on this scale.
Today, February 25, on my way here, I listened to President Trump’s State of the Union address. The United States appears poised to launch a war against Iran under the pretext of preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons, even though Iran has no intention of acquiring them. This is exactly the same false narrative used to justify the Iraq War more than twenty years ago. Once again, Congress shows no intention of stopping it. Trump’s hostility toward Iran received bipartisan standing ovations during the speech.
After Japan’s defeat in 1945, Okinawa—effectively treated as a colony within Japan—was handed over to the United States, and Japan became the largest host of U.S. military forces in Asia. Naval facilities in Yokosuka, Sasebo, and Iwakuni, as well as Yokota and Kadena Air Bases, were originally Japanese military installations later inherited by the U.S. military. Far from becoming truly “peaceful” after the war, Japan was incorporated into the U.S. empire and has since participated in repeated wars of aggression. At times, it seems the very term “postwar” has lost its meaning.
There is also another, less visible form of warfare: sanctions. The United States and its Western allies currently impose economic sanctions on 40 countries, affecting one-third of the world’s population. A 2025 report in The Lancet estimated that sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union caused approximately 560,000 deaths annually between 1971 and 2021—comparable to the death toll of war itself. Half of these deaths were children. Sanctions disproportionately harm the most vulnerable: women, children, the elderly, disabled people, and the sick. Japan, by joining the United States in imposing sanctions, is complicit in this suffering. Even now, we are participating in policies that kill people around the world.
Japan, Return to Asia
Last June, I was in Shanghai while the world was in turmoil over the Trump tariffs. A researcher friend there said to me, “Perhaps this will bring Japan back to Asia.”
What he meant was that Japan, which has oriented itself toward the West since the Meiji era, might finally reconsider that course in light of the Trump administration’s behaviour—imposing harsh tariffs even on its so-called allies and even speaking openly about annexing Canada. His hope was that Japan might reclaim its autonomy and return to Asia with the conviction that “Asia’s affairs should be decided by Asians.”
Yet the results of the recent election suggest that Japan continues to choose total dependence on the United States and continued alignment with the West.
Canada, where I live, is currently distancing itself from the United States and seeking to diversify its trade relationships. Polls show that more than 80 percent of Canadians are concerned about their country’s relationship with the United States. At the recent Davos Forum, Prime Minister Mark Carney attracted worldwide attention by declaring that the “rules-based international order” promoted by Western countries is no longer functioning. The United States has cut off oil supplies to Cuba, contributing to a humanitarian crisis, while Canada has offered assistance. Although this trend in Canada may change after the Trump administration, it remains a development worth watching carefully.
The United States, meanwhile, remains trapped in an outdated imperial mindset. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Secretary of State Marco Rubio openly called for preserving Western imperial dominance. He argued that Western powers had spent five centuries building vast empires, but that “godless communist revolutions” and “anti-colonial uprisings” had caused them to shrink for the first time since Columbus. Therefore, he argued, the United States and Europe must unite to preserve this “noble civilization.” I could hardly believe what I was hearing.
Across the world, countries of the Global South—now often called the Global Majority and represented by the BRICS nations—are increasingly united in rejecting the Western imperialism that has oppressed them for centuries. This is a natural decolonization movement: oppressed nations seeking sovereignty and self-determination. I found it astonishing that Rubio could say such things in the twenty-first century—and even more astonishing that he received a standing ovation. The obsession of the United States and Europe with maintaining global dominance by a handful of wealthy white nations is extraordinary.
This reminds me of the “Greater Asianism Speech” delivered by Sun Yat-sen in Kobe in 1924. Sun Yat-sen observed that Japan had acquired the material civilization of the West while still retaining the moral civilization of the East. He asked whether Japan would become a “guard dog” of Western hegemony or a “guardian” of the East’s noble way. “This,” he said, “is a question the Japanese people must seriously consider.”
After that historic speech, Imperial Japan accelerated its own path of domination, invading and occupying the Asia-Pacific region before collapsing in 1945. Since then, Japan has become a subordinate instrument of Western hegemony and remains so today.
Is this truly the path Japan should follow? I do not believe so.
Japan must return to Asia, where it belongs. To do so, the current puppet regime must be overturned. While there may be little immediate hope, I believe that building solidarity among ordinary people—between Japan, China, and the broader non-Western world, the Global Majority—may offer one possible path forward.
Satoko Oka Norimatsu is a writer based in Vancouver and Tokyo. She is the co-author, with Gavan McCormack, of Resistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States (Bloomsbury, 2018). Satoko also writes regular columns for Ryukyu Shimpo and Choson Sinbo. She is co-founder of Article 9 Canada, Director of Peace Philosophy Centre, and a member of the International Network of Museums of Peace.
See here for her detailed bio, and books and articles.
Original Japanese version of this speech is here.
