Regarding the CCP’s Refusal to Recognize the San Francisco Peace Treaty HoonTing 20251203

有關中共不承認〈舊金山和約〉

Regarding the CCP’s Refusal to Recognize the San Francisco Peace Treaty    HoonTing 20251203

On November 7 and 10, 2025, two Constitutional Democratic Party members of Japan’s House of Representatives, OKADA Katsuya and ŌGUSHI Hiroshi, questioned whether an armed invasion of Taiwan or a maritime blockade would constitute a “situation threatening Japan’s survival.” Newly appointed Prime Minister TAKAICHI Sanae envisioned scenarios involving the use of force around Taiwan and the potential exercise of collective self-defense rights, concluding: “It is necessary to make a comprehensive judgment based on the actual situation at the time.”

This was the clearest response any Japanese prime minister has ever given to such a question in the Diet—a calm and competent answer. Yet the CCP once again erupted into a shortsighted, hysterical rage.

This rage has lasted nearly a month: from a Chinese consul general to Osaka publicly threatening to “make the Japanese prime minister pay with his head,” to organized boycotts of Chinese travelers to Japan, sudden cancellations of Japanese artists’ performances in China, diplomats appearing at press conferences with hands defiantly in their pockets, the official declaration that Beijing does not recognize the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and even staging a large-scale naval exercise in the exact waters of the 1894–1895 First Sino-Japanese War. The scale and absurdity of these actions are unprecedented—yet the CCP has no legitimate justification whatsoever.

Key rebuttals from Japanese lawmakers and netizens include the following points:

1. If the CCP truly does not recognize the San Francisco Peace Treaty, then all territorial renunciations by Japan under Article 2 become null and void, and the pre-treaty territorial status should be restored. That would mean not only Taiwan (Formosa) and the Penghu Islands (the Pescadores) but also the entire Korean Peninsula would revert to Japanese sovereignty. Beijing is instantly rendered speechless on this point.
2. The CCP claims non-recognition because the People’s Republic of China, the Soviet Union, Poland, and Czechoslovakia were neither invited nor signatories. This argument collapses under scrutiny:
   a. The Soviet Union contributed nothing to the Pacific War and faithfully observed the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact until the very end.
   b. Only after Japan had already suffered two atomic bombs did the USSR hastily declare war and occupy Manchuria, northern Korea, southern Sakhalin, and the southern Kuril Islands—an opportunistic land grab, not combat.
   c. The provisional Korean government likewise “did not sign because it never formally declared war on Japan”; resistance was conducted by individuals and guerrilla groups, not a legitimate government.
   d. Like the USSR, the CCP made no meaningful contribution to the defeat of Japan and was therefore not invited—a perfectly reasonable decision. What was unreasonable was that the Republic of China (ROC), which actually fought Japan for eight years under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (Gimo), was also excluded.
3. By 1951, Gimo’s government had lost control of the mainland and was in exile in Taiwan. Even if invited, the ROC could not have effectively implemented treaty obligations across China, making its exclusion inevitable.
4. More bluntly, the very reason no legitimate Chinese representation could be confirmed was that the CCP had seized power by force in violation of the Chinese constitution. The international community could not determine who lawfully represented China and therefore preserved China’s rights while allowing the treaty to proceed.
5. Furthermore, the treaty explicitly granted China (whoever that turned out to be) full rights to all remaining Japanese public and private assets on Chinese territory. After normalization of relations, Japan provided the PRC with decades of massive, low-interest loans and grants that effectively served as war reparations. Rights and obligations are inseparable: having pocketed enormous benefits, the CCP cannot now disavow the treaty that made them possible.
6. On June 27, 1950—while the San Francisco treaty was still being negotiated—North Korea invaded South Korea. The UN Security Council immediately passed Resolution 83, authorizing member states to “repel the armed attack.” On February 1, 1951, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 498, explicitly condemning the People’s Republic of China as an aggressor for its intervention in Korea.
7. The Chinese Embassy in Tokyo recently cited Articles 53, 77, and 107 of the UN Charter (the so-called “enemy state clauses”) as still being in force, implying that China could legally attack Japan at any time. This is false. UN General Assembly Resolution 50/52 of December 11, 1995, already declared these clauses obsolete. Moreover, when the UN Charter was adopted, the San Francisco Peace Treaty did not yet exist, and Japan was still technically an enemy state. Once the treaty took effect in 1952 and Japan joined the United Nations as a sovereign member, those clauses ceased to apply. The CCP has no legal basis whatsoever to threaten or invade Japan.

In the end, it is the CCP that started aggressive war and moves, the CCP that benefited most from the post-war settlement, and the CCP that repeatedly uses force against sovereign nations and defies UN resolutions—yet now it accuses the international community of illegitimacy and refuses to recognize the very treaty that enriched it.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.