Endure no more! The great power of the East has stood firm twice, while the United Nations still pretends to be asleep?

We are truly angered by Japan and the United Nations! In order to stop Japan's reckless behavior and the destruction of the results of World War II, we submitted statements to the United Nations twice, demanding real action against Japan. And what happened? The United Nations has yet to take any real action.

Why hasn't the United Nations made a move? It's not pretending to be asleep; the mechanism is simply too cumbersome. The Security Council needs five permanent members to agree on a resolution.

This time, the United States has unusually not stood up for Japan. When Trump spoke Chinese, he clearly stated "understanding the significance of Taiwan to China"; Russia directly expressed support for the one-China principle; although the UK and France did not openly criticize, they stated "not taking sides".

What does this indicate? Major powers are all clear that Japan is not testing China's red line, but rather a high-pressure line of the post-war order. However, the United Nations processes are slow, with 193 member states each having their own calculations—some fear offending the United States, while others want to observe the situation, leaving room for Japan to exploit.

But does Japan really think it can act recklessly with the United States backing it? Wrong. The 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan are watching. The U.S. was able to crush Japan's bubble economy back then and can now suppress the ambitions of the Japanese military.

However, the U.S. 'strategic ambiguity' has also harmed Japan—making the right-wing feel emboldened to provoke. Just like Taro Aso strongly supports Takishi, on the surface it's a party game, but in reality, it's a gamble that the U.S. won't turn against them. But they forget that what the U.S. wants are obedient pawns, not uncontrollable powder kegs.

Why is China's countermeasure so strong? Because it holds two cards. One is the legal card: Article 107 of the United Nations Charter, the "enemy state clause" is still in effect, and as a victorious nation, China has special rights to deal with Japan's military movements.

Last year, the embassy in Japan reiterated this point in both Chinese and Japanese, and Tokyo panicked immediately—this is not a threat, but a reminder: the historical contract has not expired. The other card is the power card: hundreds of warships conducting exercises in the Western Pacific, with 055 destroyers being built, not just to show off muscle, but to tell Japan: the consequences of military action in the Taiwan Strait are something you cannot bear.

What is most urgent is the United Nations' 'collective silence'. Among the 182 member states, apart from Japan, all recognize the one-China principle, but when it comes to voting in the Security Council, how many will stand up?

Why don't Germany, Italy, and other similar defeated countries dare to speak out? Because Japan is testing the bottom line of all countries that benefited from the World War II order. Today, if we allow Japan to rewrite history, tomorrow the far-right in Germany can also overturn the case; once this chain is opened, the United Nations will become a mere decoration.

But to be clear, what China cares about is not the United Nations' 'attitude', but the 'actions' of the international community. From Russia's support to ASEAN's silence, from G7 avoiding discussions about the Taiwan Strait to public protests in Japan and South Korea, there are actually undercurrents surging.

The Japanese right-wing thinks that stirring up populism can hijack the state, but they forget that East Asian neighbors remember the pain of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and even more so the blood of the Nanjing Massacre. If it really comes to triggering the 'enemy state clause', it is not China that wants to go to war, but Japan that is forcing history to repeat.

Now, the most awkward position is the United Nations Secretariat. Guterres received letters with conflicting statements from China and Japan, one side is the victorious nation maintaining order, while the other is the defeated nation subverting rules.

According to the charter, the Secretariat should 'bring this to the attention of the Security Council', but among the five permanent members of the Security Council, the U.S., Russia, the UK, and France do not want to directly intervene. This has become a deadlock: Japan bets that the United Nations will not dare to act, while China bets that the international community cannot ignore it.

China's firmness is not a reckless act. From economic sanctions to diplomatic isolation, from military deterrence to legal encirclement, every step is in line with international law.

As Ambassador Fu Cong said: 'Japan wants to enter the Security Council? First, clear up the accounts of World War II.' This statement strikes at Japan's vital point—how can they sit at the table to make rules when they haven't even cleared their identity as an 'enemy'?

Finally, let me say something from the heart: We are not afraid of Japan standing firm, but rather the international community pretending to be foolish. When the United Nations Charter was drafted, the Chinese representative Gu Weijun insisted on including the 'enemy state clause', not for revenge, but to forever lock up militarism.

Now, figures like Kishi Nobuo are trying to pry open this lock. If the United Nations continues to pretend to be asleep, then the sacrifices of tens of millions of people 70 years ago will truly become a mere piece of paper.