On November 7, 2025, during a session of the House of Representatives Budget Committee, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi publicly declared that “a contingency in the Taiwan Strait would constitute a ‘survival-threatening ’situation”. This statement implies that Japan may, under the banner of exercising its so-called “right of collective self-defence,” recklessly interfere in China’s internal affairs, crossing the basic post-war red line long-acknowledged by the Japanese government on the Taiwan Issue.
In response to Takaichi’s absurd claim, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of National Defence, and the Taiwan Affairs Office promptly issued stern rebuttals, while the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the Ministry of Education subsequently released travel safety advisories concerning travel to Japan. Taken together, these measures formed a forceful “combination counterstrike,” signalling to right-wing forces within Japan and to the broader international community China’s firm resolve to safeguard its national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The concept of an “existential crisis” situation was concocted by the Abe Administration in 2015 when it forcibly passed the “new security legislation.” It refers to scenarios in which Japan, or a country with close ties to Japan, comes under armed attack in a way that is deemed to endanger Japan’s very existence. Such notion was crafted to provide a legal basis for the Japanese government to exercise its right of collective self-defence and to coordinate military operations with U.S. forces stationed in Japan. However, this concept lacks clear criteria and grants the Cabinet vague discretionary power.
Existential crisis is a euphemism for military action
Once the Japanese government arbitrarily designates a situation as an “existential crisis,” it can claim legal justification for engaging in overseas military actions and supporting U.S. military operations. By now forcibly placing Taiwan under the scope of this concept, Takaichi is evidently attempting to create a legal pretext for Japan’s future military involvement in Taiwan. Yet, such a move would not only drag Japan into a potential conflict, but could also plunge the island country into a dangerous quagmire from which it may find no escape. In the face of Beijing’s legitimate demand that she withdraws her remarks, Takaichi has stubbornly insisted that her assertions were “consistent with the Japanese government’s long-held position,” a stance that will inevitably undermine political trust between China and Japan.
The Taiwan issue is at the core of China’s national interests and is related to the political foundation of China-Japan relations. The 1972 China-Japan Joint Statement clearly states that “the Japanese government fully understands and respects the Chinese government’s position that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China and maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.”
Cairo Declaration
Subsequent documents, including the China-Japan Treaty of Peace and Friendship, reaffirmed this position. During their meeting on October 31, 2025, President Xi Jinping reiterated China’s stance on the Taiwan issue, and Takaichi explicitly pledged that Japan would adhere to the position outlined in the 1972 Joint Statement. Her recent remarks, however, blatantly disregard established political consensus and undermine the diplomatic achievements of the summit, leaving dangerous room for future Japanese transgressions and eroding the foundation of political trust between the two countries. It must be emphasised that the status of Taiwan under international law had long been clearly defined, forming an essential part of the post–World War II international order. The 1943 Cairo Declaration, signed by China, the United States, and the United Kingdom, explicitly states that territories seized by Japan from China, including the north-eastern provinces, Taiwan, and the Penghu Islands, “shall be restored to the Republic of China.”
Taiwan belongs to China
The 1945 Potsdam Proclamation further stipulates that “the Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine.” Japan accepted these provisions upon its surrender in the same year. Together, these documents constitute the legal foundation that the Taiwan issue belongs to China’s internal affairs—an understanding supported by the overwhelming majority of the international community, as evidenced by the fact that Taiwan today maintains so-called “diplomatic relations” with only 12 countries. By forcing Taiwan into the narrative framework of an “existential crisis”, Takaichi is treating Taiwan as a “state,” violating the basic principles of the post-war international legal system and in defiance of the post-war order and historical justice. At first glance, Takaichi’s rhetoric on the Taiwan issue appears to be nothing more than an outward expression of her right-wing political stance, but the deeper motivations behind it are far more complex. Over the past two years, the rise of right-wing populism has eroded the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party’s traditional support base, with many conservative voters shifting toward populist groups such as the Sanseitō. in response, Takaichi has sought to consolidate her political standing through an aggressive stance on China. Meanwhile, Japan’s conservative forces have long exploited “crisis narratives” to justify military expansion, from amplifying the “North Korea threat” in the 1990s to promoting the “China threat theory” in the 21st century, using external threats to legitimize constitutional revision, military buildup, and the pursuit of “normal statehood.” Today, by labelling the Taiwan issue as an “existential crisis,” Takaichi is effectively attempting to manufacture a pretext for higher defence spending, revisions to Japan’s “three national security documents,” and new constitutional debates. More worrying still, is the fact that pre-war militarist ideology never fully exited Japan’s political system. After the outbreak of the Cold War, the U.S. shifted its policy from “punishing” Japan to “supporting” it, leading to a premature end of the purge against militarists. Of the 210,000 individuals purged during the occupation, 95 percent returned to public office after 1950, and even wartime Class-A suspect Nobusuke Kishi became prime minister. Since then, remnants of militarist ideology have remained embedded within Japanese politics, and Takaichi and her supporters are contemporary manifestations of this unresolved historical legacy.
Japan at the G20 in South Africa
Against this backdrop of escalating China-Japan tensions, Japan’s participation in the G20 summit (from November 22 to 23, 2025) appears particularly contradictory. As a leading platform for global economic cooperation, the G20 is intended to foster multilateral engagement and promote stable, sustainable global growth. Both the 2023 New Delhi Summit Declaration, which called on all countries to uphold international law principles including territorial integrity and sovereignty, and the 2024 Rio de Janeiro Summit Declaration, which emphasised that sustainable development and prosperity are possible only under peaceful conditions, have underscored the G20’s commitment to peace and its opposition to geopolitical confrontation. Amid global supply chain disruptions, widening development gaps, and intensifying geopolitical conflicts, the international community expects the G20 to strengthen cooperation and contribute constructively to global economic governance.
Japan should lead by example
As the world’s fourth-largest economy, Japan should play a stabilising and cooperative role in this process. Yet Takaichi’s deliberate provocation on the eve of the summit injects unnecessary instability into regional affairs, casting a long shadow over the prospects for East Asian economic cooperation. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, as well as the 80th anniversary of Taiwan’s recovery from Japanese colonial rule. Only by returning to the path of peaceful development, respecting history and honouring its commitments can Japan work together with other East Asian countries to safeguard peace and stability in the region, and truly assume the international responsibilities befitting a major economic power. If, however, it still refuses to reflect, continues to allow the extreme-right to hijack its foreign and security policies, and persists in pushing beyond the framework of the Peace Constitution while stoking tension and confrontation, then Japan must ultimately bear full responsibility for all possible consequences. The lessons of history have never been far away. If the Takaichi administration continues to march down the wrong path, Japan will likely be dragged into a new ‘Shōwa-era’ of war.
Visit SW YouTube Channel for our video content
