Instead of retracting her earlier remark made at a Diet meeting on November 7 that - "the Chinese mainland's "use of force on Taiwan" could constitute a "survival-threatening situation" for Japan and implied the possibility of armed intervention in the Taiwan Strait", Sanae Takaichi further angered China by claiming that “under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan is not in a position to recognize the legal status of Taiwan” on Nov 26th.

Sanae Takaichi has stated that under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan is not in a position to determine or recognize the legal status of Taiwan because the treaty only stipulated that Japan renounced all rights and claims to the territory, without explicitly specifying the recipient of that sovereignty.

She has not retracted her earlier remark for several reasons:

• Consistency with Existing Position: Takaichi and her government maintain that this statement does not represent a shift but is a consistent interpretation of Japan's post-war legal obligations and the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement. The Japanese government "understands and respects" China's position that Taiwan is part of China, but this is a diplomatic formulation that stops short of formal recognition of China's claim in a legally binding way.
• Domestic Political Support: The unscripted comments have actually increased her popularity among the Japanese electorate, which is increasingly open to a stronger defense posture. Retracting the statement would likely be seen as caving to Chinese pressure and could harm her domestic political standing.
• Geopolitical Signal: Her remarks, made in the context of defining a "survival-threatening situation" that would allow Japan's Self-Defense Forces to be deployed, are viewed as a deliberate signal of Japan's willingness to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. Retracting the statement would undermine this strategic message.
• Challenging China's Position: The claim challenges China's assertion that the Taiwan question was resolved "once and for all" by other documents like the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation. By referencing the San Francisco Treaty, she is highlighting the ambiguity of Taiwan's status under international law from Japan's perspective, thus reinforcing the "theory of undetermined Taiwan status" that China strongly opposes.

In short, Takachi's statement was a carefully worded, albeit provocative, assertion of Japan's long-held diplomatic stance that serves specific domestic political and foreign policy objectives, making a retraction unlikely.

(Side note: The primary treaty involving Japan signed in September 1951 was the Treaty of San Francisco (formally the Treaty of Peace with Japan), which was signed by Japan and 48 Allied nations on September 8.
The Treaty of San Francisco officially ended World War II for the signatory nations, terminated the Allied occupation of Japan, and restored full sovereignty to Japan. A separate but related bilateral Security Treaty between the United States and Japan was also signed on the same day, September 8, 1951. The treaty came into force on April 28, 1952. )

Chinese Foreign Ministry's response: " China has never recognized anything set out in the “Treaty of San Francisco,” including on the sovereignty over Taiwan or the handling of the territory and sovereign rights of China as a non-signatory, and has never accepted the treaty. The 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement clearly states that “The Government of Japan recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. The Government of the People’s Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People’s Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.” The four political documents between China and Japan provide clear provisions on the Taiwan question and other issues, and together they constitute the political foundation of China-Japan relations.

(Side note: IMHO, why bother wasting time arguing with Takachi? Why not just make it clear to Japan that at any time when China is attacked by Japan for whatever reason not acceptable to China, many FD 61 will be on thier jolly way to Japan? At the same time, if USA gets involve, similar number of FD 61 will be on their jolly way to USA too.)