China and Japan have recently conducted multiple rounds of consultations on the issue of the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the sea, reaching a four-point consensus on September 20.

Two points in the consensus are particularly noteworthy: first, it is essential to ensure the effective participation of China and all other stakeholders, as well as the implementation of independent sampling monitoring and laboratory analysis comparison by these countries; second, China will adjust relevant measures based on scientific evidence after effectively participating in the long-term international monitoring under the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the implementation of independent sampling and other monitoring activities by participating countries, gradually resuming the import of Japanese aquatic products that meet standards.

In other words, the core of this consensus is that China must be able to independently sample, monitor, and conduct laboratory analysis comparisons.

Without this prerequisite, it would be impossible for both sides to reach a consensus, and it would be impossible to move this work forward.

It should be noted that previously, with the support and indulgence of the United States, the Japanese government believed that as long as it could manage the IAEA, it could disregard the feelings of China and other related countries and unscrupulously discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.

Advertisement

It is precisely because Japan did not fully respect the opinions of China and other countries, did not heed the advice of China and other countries, and the IAEA did not consider issues from a fair, impartial, and transparent standpoint, but instead indulged Japan's illegal discharge of nuclear-contaminated water, that the interests of China and other countries have been severely affected.

In order to protect the vital interests of its residents, China was forced to take measures to prohibit the import of aquatic products from Japan, which was entirely caused by Japan and indulged by the United States and the IAEA.

The responsibility lies entirely with the Japanese side, the United States, and the IAEA.

The fact that China and Japan have reached a consensus this time can be seen as an improvement in Japan's understanding of the issue of nuclear-contaminated water discharge.

However, whether it is a genuine improvement or a superficial one will depend on Japan's specific actions and whether it can fully implement the content determined by the consensus.

For this reason, China's decision on whether to resume the import of Japanese aquatic products is also conditional.

This point was made very clear and decisively by Mao Ning, the spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at the subsequent regular press conference.

She said, "The consensus reached between China and Japan does not mean that China will immediately and fully resume the import of Japanese aquatic products."

She emphasized that it must be based on scientific facts, with safety as the premise, and adjust relevant measures based on scientific evidence after effectively participating in relevant monitoring activities, implementing independent sampling, and confirming the results.

The import of Japanese aquatic products that meet standards will be gradually resumed on the premise that China's requirements are fully met.

It is evident that "reaching a consensus does not mean that China will immediately and fully resume the import of Japanese aquatic products" is also a consensus, and it is more important and clearer.

As long as the conditions are not met, as long as some aspects of the consensus are not well implemented, and as long as it is not seriously implemented according to the consensus, it is impossible to fully resume the entry of aquatic products into the Chinese market.

The vast majority of Chinese consumers will not accept aquatic products imported from Japan.

Even if the conditions clearly stated in the consensus are met, whether Chinese consumers can accept them in time, and whether Chinese operators dare to import Japanese aquatic products, is also a question.

Because once credit is lost, it takes time and patience to rebuild.

Japan is originally a country with a lack of credit, and this nuclear-contaminated water discharge has further eroded Japan's credit.

When a new credit can be established in the hearts of the Chinese people depends on whether the Japanese government is sincere, whether it can sincerely repent, and whether it truly realizes that it is extremely wrong to exclude China in the issue of nuclear-contaminated water discharge, and thus make a sincere repentance and sincerely accept the independent testing of China and other stakeholders.