Tokyo-Beijing relations have been rapidly deteriorating over the past two weeks as China tries to punish Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks about Taiwan earlier this month, and the off-ramp to this conflict is yet to be seen.
Takaichi saying that a “Taiwan contingency” could cause a “situation threatening Japan’s survival” — which would allow Japan to act in self-defense — has drawn Beijing’s ire and sparked retaliatory measures. Her remark did not gain public attention until Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) made an apparent threat to behead her.
The two sides lodged protests against each other, with China repeatedly demanding that Takaichi retract her words, which she has refused. China resorted to verbal threats, diplomatic pressure, economic coercion, “gray zone” operations and fabricating media narratives to attack Takaichi, while also trying to influence Japanese politics to force her to back down.
In its latest attempt to reinforce pressure, China on Friday accused Japan of threatening “an armed intervention” over Taiwan, saying it deems that an act of aggression and that it “will resolutely exercise its right of self-defense” in response.
Aside from lodging protests and warning its citizens to stay safe in China, Japan has been avoiding tit-for-tat retaliation and calling for dialogue. It also remained firm on its stance, saying it neither contradicted nor deviated from the previous government’s stance.
Former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, Takaichi’s political mentor, in 2015 described Taiwan as “an important partner and a precious friend of Japan,” leading a pivotal improvement in Taiwan-Japan relations. His government in the same year passed security legislation that allowed its military to engage in limited collective self-defense if there is a clear threat to Japan’s survival.
Abe in 2021 said “a Taiwan contingency is a contingency for Japan,” and that it was “a contingency for the Japan-US alliance.” A defense white paper that year also stated that with China’s intensifying military activities around Taiwan, “stabilizing the situation surrounding Taiwan is important for Japan’s security and the stability of the international community.”
Even earlier, following the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, shuhen jitai (situations in surrounding areas, 周?事態) became a key concept in Japan’s defense policy. Tokyo had refused Beijing’s demand that Taiwan be excluded from this policy.
Japan has not changed its long-standing position on a “Taiwan contingency,” but Takaichi’s remark could be seen as “popping the bubble” of strategic ambiguity the US and its allies, including Japan, apply to Taiwan. Her message could also serve as a deterrence, telling Beijing’s leadership that Taipei is not as isolated as it assumes.
As there is no reason to believe that Beijing is unaware of Tokyo’s long-standing stance, China’s exaggerated response could be seen as a “pressure test” on Japan and its new government, and serves as a warning to other democracies to stay away from Taiwan.
Although Taiwan is technically not involved in the rising tensions between Japan and China, it is at the core of the issue. Taipei should be careful not to trigger an escalation, but it should also show its support — such as by encouraging travel to Japan or imports of Japanese goods — and deepen cooperation with Japan and other like-minded countries in security and intelligence sharing.
Showing support for Takaichi and her government could reassure other democracies that supporting Taiwan and stability in the Taiwan Strait are welcomed and backed by actions. Moreover, it could reinforce the government’s “Taiwan can help” message, demonstrating the nation’s willingness and capability to contribute to maintaining peace and stability in the region. That is in sharp contrast to China, which forces other countries to put Chinese interests above their own.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS