President,

China exercises its right of reply in response to the statements made by Japan and the Philippines.

I. In its statement on September 22, Japan claimed that, as a peace-loving country, it adheres to an exclusively defense-oriented policy and called for the deletion of the “Enemy State Clauses” from the Charter of the United Nations. China firmly opposes this. What matters more to the international community than what Japan says is what Japan does.

Historically, Japanese militarism launched wars of aggression and committed heinous crimes, including the illegal occupation of China's islands and reefs in the South China Sea, bringing immense suffering to the Chinese people and peoples of the region. At that time, Japan joined the United Nations on the premise of acknowledging the crimes of militarism and accepting the Charter in its entirety. Japan's post-war concept of itself as a “peace-loving country” was built on profound reflection on its history and a complete break with militarism. However, more than 80 years later, the Takaichi government has avoided addressing Japan's historical crimes. It has not only refused to reflect on them, but has also sought by every means to whitewash and glorify them, while continuously fabricating false narratives about threats from neighboring countries in an attempt to conceal its ongoing drive to strengthen and expand its military.

In recent years, Japan has substantially increased military spending, relaxed restrictions on exports of lethal weapons, advanced the deployment of medium- and long-range missiles, expanded offensive military capabilities, stockpiled large quantities of sensitive nuclear materials, promoted revisions to its pacifist Constitution, sought to break through the “Three Non-Nuclear Principles,” and even advocated becoming a “country capable of waging war.” Facts have shown that Japan's “remilitarization” has become a real threat to peace and stability in the region and the world.

It is the common responsibility of the international community to uphold the post-war international order, safeguard the outcomes of victory in World War II, and maintain regional peace and stability. The “Enemy State Clauses” in the Charter are an important institutional arrangement, designed to prevent fascism and militarism from again threatening international peace and security, and have provided important institutional safeguards for upholding the post-war international order. They remain of important contemporary relevance today. Any attempt to deny or whitewash the history of aggression, promote the resurgence of militarism, or challenge the post-war international order runs counter to peace and justice and will be firmly opposed by peace-loving peoples around the world.

This year marks the 81st anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Tokyo Trial. China hereby makes clear to the right-wing forces in Japan that Japan must honor its international obligations, make a complete break with militarism, and stay committed to peaceful development. Japanese politicians should face up to history, engage in profound reflection, and win the trust of Asian neighbors and the international community through concrete actions. China will work with peace-loving countries around the world to firmly contain the growth and spread of Japan's “new militarism” under the guise of “normalization,” which would disrupt the region and endanger the world.

II. With regard to the statement made by the Philippines on September 26, China has consistently maintained that the United Nations is not an appropriate forum for discussing the South China Sea issue. Nevertheless, China finds it necessary to make a solemn response to the erroneous assertions made by the Philippines.

China's position on the South China Sea arbitration is consistent and clear. The Philippines unilaterally initiated the so-called arbitration, in violation of fundamental principles of international law, including “State consent” and “agreements must be observed,” as well as international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The arbitral tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and rendered an erroneous ruling. The so-called “award” is illegal and null and void, seriously undermines the principles and spirit of the Convention, and seriously undermines the authority and integrity of the international law of the sea. China neither accepts nor recognizes the “award,” and opposes and rejects any claims or actions based on it. This is both a defense of China's territorial and maritime rights and interests and an effort to uphold the rule of law in international maritime affairs and maintain a fair and equitable international maritime order.

The Philippines' emphasis on the so-called “award” having been issued ten years ago is meaningless. The fact is that the “award” has not only failed to resolve the maritime disputes between China and the Philippines, but has increasingly become a tool for the Philippines to expand its territorial and maritime claims, aggravating regional tensions and becoming a stumbling block to China-Philippines relations and peace and stability in the South China Sea.

On territorial issues and maritime delimitation disputes, China does not accept any dispute settlement solution imposed upon it, and has consistently advocated resolving disputes through negotiation and consultation with the countries directly concerned. China will continue to work with ASEAN countries to jointly uphold peace and stability in the South China Sea.

Thank you, President.

Second Intervention

Mr. President,

China again exercises its right of reply.

The Japanese representative's feeble arguments cannot conceal the historical truth, whitewash Japan's present-day actions, or disguise the complete collapse of its so-called image as a “peace-loving country.”

At that time, Japan joined the United Nations on the premise of acknowledging the crimes of militarism and accepting the Charter in its entirety. In recent years, Japan has made frequent moves in the military and security fields, continually breaking through the constraints of the post-war system, expanding its military capabilities, and sending dangerous signals, fully exposing its true intention to depart from the path of peaceful development and pursue military expansion.

The growth of Japan's “new militarism” into a force causing harm is an indisputable fact. This series of developments is well documented, supported by evidence, and plain for all to see, and poses a real threat to regional peace and stability.

The “Enemy State Clauses” are an indispensable part of the Charter. Against the backdrop of Japan's negative developments in recent years, their historical and contemporary significance has become even more evident, and they must not be deleted or amended.

Japan must make a serious choice: Will it continue to disregard the lessons of history and allow the remnants of militarism to resurface, or will it face up to its history of aggression, honor its commitment to peace, and earn the trust of the international community through sincere reflection? Will it continue to confuse right and wrong, distort facts, and challenge the post-war international order, or will it honor its commitment to peace through concrete actions?

To forget history is to betray the past; to deny culpability is to risk repeating the same mistakes. China urges Japan to draw profound lessons from history and immediately stop its dangerous acts of remilitarization. China also calls upon the international community to distinguish right from wrong, remain vigilant, jointly uphold the outcomes of victory in World War II, and safeguard world peace and stability.

In response to the statement by the Philippines, China once again reiterates that the award in the South China Sea arbitration is illegal and null and void.

First, the essence of the China-Philippines dispute in the South China Sea is a territorial and maritime delimitation issue. Territorial issues do not fall within the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, while maritime delimitation has been excluded from compulsory procedures by a declaration made by China. The arbitral tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, and its “award” is the fruit of a poisonous tree and has no validity whatsoever.

Second, the Convention has never denied historical rights. Many countries have historical rights and practices of historical fishing rights. The “award” completely denies historical rights, fully demonstrating its illegality and invalidity.

Third, the “award” misinterprets Article 121 of the Convention, unlawfully raising the threshold for determining the status of islands, seriously departing from the Convention and general State practice. It is extremely absurd and erroneous.

The South China Sea arbitration is a negative example in the international law of the sea. No matter how the Philippines portrays or whitewashes it, its illegal, null and void, ultra vires, and reactionary nature remains unchanged. We urge the Philippines to stop hyping up the issue in multilateral forums, promptly return to the right track of bilateral consultations, work with China to manage differences in the South China Sea, and work together to safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea.

Thank you, President.