܀𓂃 Kaori Fujisawa 𓈒𓏸𑁍
@layla1988.bsky.social
Forensic and Litigation Consulting
Paralegal
Anti-Money Laundering Counter Fraud, Risk Compliance and Audit Analyst
Criminal Intelligence Analyst
Junior Cyber & Electronic Warfare Modeling & Simulation Engineer
Electronic Warfare Test Engineer
Paralegal
Anti-Money Laundering Counter Fraud, Risk Compliance and Audit Analyst
Criminal Intelligence Analyst
Junior Cyber & Electronic Warfare Modeling & Simulation Engineer
Electronic Warfare Test Engineer
Arnaud’s post gives them 100% of their preferred talking points,
That makes his message incredibly effective propaganda,
That makes his message incredibly effective propaganda,
November 17, 2025 at 6:25 PM
Arnaud’s post gives them 100% of their preferred talking points,
That makes his message incredibly effective propaganda,
That makes his message incredibly effective propaganda,
Arnaud’s framing activates ALL the triggers of Japanese America-skepticism
All share three core fears:
✔ “The U.S. won’t defend Japan.”
✔ “The U.S. is unreliable and self-interested.”
✔ “Japan must bow to China because America won’t back us.”
All share three core fears:
✔ “The U.S. won’t defend Japan.”
✔ “The U.S. is unreliable and self-interested.”
✔ “Japan must bow to China because America won’t back us.”
November 17, 2025 at 6:25 PM
Arnaud’s framing activates ALL the triggers of Japanese America-skepticism
All share three core fears:
✔ “The U.S. won’t defend Japan.”
✔ “The U.S. is unreliable and self-interested.”
✔ “Japan must bow to China because America won’t back us.”
All share three core fears:
✔ “The U.S. won’t defend Japan.”
✔ “The U.S. is unreliable and self-interested.”
✔ “Japan must bow to China because America won’t back us.”
America’s restraint bloc will respond with denial, minimization, blame-shifting, or falsified scarcity — because Japan just cornered them.
November 17, 2025 at 5:58 PM
America’s restraint bloc will respond with denial, minimization, blame-shifting, or falsified scarcity — because Japan just cornered them.
✔ Taiwan has never been ruled by the PRC for even a single day.
✔ Self-determination and effective control override outdated wartime statements.
✔ Self-determination and effective control override outdated wartime statements.
November 17, 2025 at 2:50 PM
✔ Taiwan has never been ruled by the PRC for even a single day.
✔ Self-determination and effective control override outdated wartime statements.
✔ Self-determination and effective control override outdated wartime statements.
✔ Taiwan’s status was left undetermined in the only binding treaty (SFPT).
✔ Japan never recognized PRC sovereignty over Taiwan.
✔ Cairo & Potsdam have no legal force in modern sovereignty law.
✔ Japan never recognized PRC sovereignty over Taiwan.
✔ Cairo & Potsdam have no legal force in modern sovereignty law.
November 17, 2025 at 2:50 PM
✔ Taiwan’s status was left undetermined in the only binding treaty (SFPT).
✔ Japan never recognized PRC sovereignty over Taiwan.
✔ Cairo & Potsdam have no legal force in modern sovereignty law.
✔ Japan never recognized PRC sovereignty over Taiwan.
✔ Cairo & Potsdam have no legal force in modern sovereignty law.
Every “proof” China cites is:
non-binding
pre-treaty propaganda
irrelevant to sovereignty
deliberately incomplete
contradicted by the San Francisco Peace Treaty
The 🇨🇳narrative collapses under even minimal legal scrutiny.
non-binding
pre-treaty propaganda
irrelevant to sovereignty
deliberately incomplete
contradicted by the San Francisco Peace Treaty
The 🇨🇳narrative collapses under even minimal legal scrutiny.
November 17, 2025 at 2:49 PM
Every “proof” China cites is:
non-binding
pre-treaty propaganda
irrelevant to sovereignty
deliberately incomplete
contradicted by the San Francisco Peace Treaty
The 🇨🇳narrative collapses under even minimal legal scrutiny.
non-binding
pre-treaty propaganda
irrelevant to sovereignty
deliberately incomplete
contradicted by the San Francisco Peace Treaty
The 🇨🇳narrative collapses under even minimal legal scrutiny.
China’s modern claims rely on:
propaganda
wartime communiqués
misinterpretations
cherry-picked treaty fragments
Not on actual legal transfers.
propaganda
wartime communiqués
misinterpretations
cherry-picked treaty fragments
Not on actual legal transfers.
November 17, 2025 at 2:48 PM
China’s modern claims rely on:
propaganda
wartime communiqués
misinterpretations
cherry-picked treaty fragments
Not on actual legal transfers.
propaganda
wartime communiqués
misinterpretations
cherry-picked treaty fragments
Not on actual legal transfers.
🇨🇳 argument deliberately ignores the core international-law principle:
Sovereignty cannot be transferred by historical declaration.
International law requires:
clear treaty text
signed instruments
ratification
identification of recipient state
acceptance by parties
Sovereignty cannot be transferred by historical declaration.
International law requires:
clear treaty text
signed instruments
ratification
identification of recipient state
acceptance by parties
November 17, 2025 at 2:48 PM
🇨🇳 argument deliberately ignores the core international-law principle:
Sovereignty cannot be transferred by historical declaration.
International law requires:
clear treaty text
signed instruments
ratification
identification of recipient state
acceptance by parties
Sovereignty cannot be transferred by historical declaration.
International law requires:
clear treaty text
signed instruments
ratification
identification of recipient state
acceptance by parties
But the 1978 treaty:
does not define Taiwan’s sovereignty
does not state Taiwan is part of the PRC
does not impose legal obligations on Japan regarding Taiwan’s status
It only affirms peaceful cooperation.
This is not a territorial treaty.
does not define Taiwan’s sovereignty
does not state Taiwan is part of the PRC
does not impose legal obligations on Japan regarding Taiwan’s status
It only affirms peaceful cooperation.
This is not a territorial treaty.
November 17, 2025 at 2:47 PM
But the 1978 treaty:
does not define Taiwan’s sovereignty
does not state Taiwan is part of the PRC
does not impose legal obligations on Japan regarding Taiwan’s status
It only affirms peaceful cooperation.
This is not a territorial treaty.
does not define Taiwan’s sovereignty
does not state Taiwan is part of the PRC
does not impose legal obligations on Japan regarding Taiwan’s status
It only affirms peaceful cooperation.
This is not a territorial treaty.
The 1978 Treaty of Peace and Friendship contains NO clause stating Taiwan belongs to China
China claims:
“The treaty states the Joint Statement must be strictly observed.”
China claims:
“The treaty states the Joint Statement must be strictly observed.”
November 17, 2025 at 2:46 PM
The 1978 Treaty of Peace and Friendship contains NO clause stating Taiwan belongs to China
China claims:
“The treaty states the Joint Statement must be strictly observed.”
China claims:
“The treaty states the Joint Statement must be strictly observed.”
This is diplomatic language, not a legal concession.
Japan’s 1972 position does not say Taiwan legally belongs to the PRC.
Japan’s 1972 position does not say Taiwan legally belongs to the PRC.
November 17, 2025 at 2:46 PM
This is diplomatic language, not a legal concession.
Japan’s 1972 position does not say Taiwan legally belongs to the PRC.
Japan’s 1972 position does not say Taiwan legally belongs to the PRC.
Japan acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China.
✔ “Acknowledge” ≠ “agree”
✔ “Understand” ≠ “recognize sovereignty”
✔ Japan maintains “one China policy,” not “one China principle”
✔ “Acknowledge” ≠ “agree”
✔ “Understand” ≠ “recognize sovereignty”
✔ Japan maintains “one China policy,” not “one China principle”
November 17, 2025 at 2:45 PM
Japan acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China.
✔ “Acknowledge” ≠ “agree”
✔ “Understand” ≠ “recognize sovereignty”
✔ Japan maintains “one China policy,” not “one China principle”
✔ “Acknowledge” ≠ “agree”
✔ “Understand” ≠ “recognize sovereignty”
✔ Japan maintains “one China policy,” not “one China principle”
The 1972 Joint Statement is Japan’s “one-China policy,” not China’s “one-China principle”
November 17, 2025 at 2:45 PM
The 1972 Joint Statement is Japan’s “one-China policy,” not China’s “one-China principle”
This means:
✔ Japan has no treaty obligation identifying “China” as the recipient
✔ Japan’s post-war territorial obligations come from SFPT, not Cairo/Potsdam
🚨China never mentions SFPT because it destroys their narrative.
✔ Japan has no treaty obligation identifying “China” as the recipient
✔ Japan’s post-war territorial obligations come from SFPT, not Cairo/Potsdam
🚨China never mentions SFPT because it destroys their narrative.
November 17, 2025 at 2:44 PM
This means:
✔ Japan has no treaty obligation identifying “China” as the recipient
✔ Japan’s post-war territorial obligations come from SFPT, not Cairo/Potsdam
🚨China never mentions SFPT because it destroys their narrative.
✔ Japan has no treaty obligation identifying “China” as the recipient
✔ Japan’s post-war territorial obligations come from SFPT, not Cairo/Potsdam
🚨China never mentions SFPT because it destroys their narrative.
Japan renounced Taiwan without specifying any recipient.
Why?
Because in 1951:
The PRC (Beijing) was not recognized by the signatories
The ROC (Taiwan) was not universally recognized
The Allies intentionally left the legal status undetermined
Why?
Because in 1951:
The PRC (Beijing) was not recognized by the signatories
The ROC (Taiwan) was not universally recognized
The Allies intentionally left the legal status undetermined
November 17, 2025 at 2:43 PM
Japan renounced Taiwan without specifying any recipient.
Why?
Because in 1951:
The PRC (Beijing) was not recognized by the signatories
The ROC (Taiwan) was not universally recognized
The Allies intentionally left the legal status undetermined
Why?
Because in 1951:
The PRC (Beijing) was not recognized by the signatories
The ROC (Taiwan) was not universally recognized
The Allies intentionally left the legal status undetermined
The legally binding document is the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty — and it did not assign Taiwan to China
This is the core legal fact China always hides.
San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), Article 2(b):
This is the core legal fact China always hides.
San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), Article 2(b):
November 17, 2025 at 2:43 PM
The legally binding document is the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty — and it did not assign Taiwan to China
This is the core legal fact China always hides.
San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), Article 2(b):
This is the core legal fact China always hides.
San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), Article 2(b):
Thus:
❌ Japan’s surrender ≠ Taiwan transferred to China
❌ Japan’s surrender ≠ Taiwan transferred to China
November 17, 2025 at 2:42 PM
Thus:
❌ Japan’s surrender ≠ Taiwan transferred to China
❌ Japan’s surrender ≠ Taiwan transferred to China
A surrender means:
Japan stops fighting
Japan obeys temporary occupation rules
Japan awaits final peace arrangements
A surrender does NOT define borders.
Borders are defined ONLY by the post-war peace treaty.
Japan stops fighting
Japan obeys temporary occupation rules
Japan awaits final peace arrangements
A surrender does NOT define borders.
Borders are defined ONLY by the post-war peace treaty.
November 17, 2025 at 2:41 PM
A surrender means:
Japan stops fighting
Japan obeys temporary occupation rules
Japan awaits final peace arrangements
A surrender does NOT define borders.
Borders are defined ONLY by the post-war peace treaty.
Japan stops fighting
Japan obeys temporary occupation rules
Japan awaits final peace arrangements
A surrender does NOT define borders.
Borders are defined ONLY by the post-war peace treaty.
Japan’s acceptance of surrender did NOT legally transfer Taiwan to China
China claims:
“Japan accepted Potsdam and thus Taiwan belongs to China.”
Wrong.
China claims:
“Japan accepted Potsdam and thus Taiwan belongs to China.”
Wrong.
November 17, 2025 at 2:41 PM
Japan’s acceptance of surrender did NOT legally transfer Taiwan to China
China claims:
“Japan accepted Potsdam and thus Taiwan belongs to China.”
Wrong.
China claims:
“Japan accepted Potsdam and thus Taiwan belongs to China.”
Wrong.
Correct fact:
Potsdam was a surrender ultimatum, not a peace treaty.
A surrender document does not transfer territory.
Territorial disposition must be settled after war via a legal treaty — always.
Potsdam was a surrender ultimatum, not a peace treaty.
A surrender document does not transfer territory.
Territorial disposition must be settled after war via a legal treaty — always.
November 17, 2025 at 2:40 PM
Correct fact:
Potsdam was a surrender ultimatum, not a peace treaty.
A surrender document does not transfer territory.
Territorial disposition must be settled after war via a legal treaty — always.
Potsdam was a surrender ultimatum, not a peace treaty.
A surrender document does not transfer territory.
Territorial disposition must be settled after war via a legal treaty — always.
The Potsdam Proclamation also has no legal force for territorial transfer
China claims:
“Potsdam says Cairo must be carried out.”
China claims:
“Potsdam says Cairo must be carried out.”
November 17, 2025 at 2:40 PM
The Potsdam Proclamation also has no legal force for territorial transfer
China claims:
“Potsdam says Cairo must be carried out.”
China claims:
“Potsdam says Cairo must be carried out.”
Non-binding statements do not create territorial transfer under international law.
International law requires:
✔ a signed treaty
✔ with clear cession clauses
✔ ratified by governments
Cairo was none of the above.
International law requires:
✔ a signed treaty
✔ with clear cession clauses
✔ ratified by governments
Cairo was none of the above.
November 17, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Non-binding statements do not create territorial transfer under international law.
International law requires:
✔ a signed treaty
✔ with clear cession clauses
✔ ratified by governments
Cairo was none of the above.
International law requires:
✔ a signed treaty
✔ with clear cession clauses
✔ ratified by governments
Cairo was none of the above.