By: Zhao Qian, CMG Journalist
A recent political confrontation has engulfed China-Japan relations following remarks by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi suggesting that a hypothetical Chinese attack on Taiwan could trigger a military response from Tokyo. The comments delivered in Japan’s parliament on November 7 were immediately condemned by Beijing and sparked criticism across political, academic and diplomatic circles both within Japan and abroad.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian denounced Takaichi’s comments as “provocative”, warning that her statements implied the possibility of Japanese armed intervention in the Taiwan Strait. Despite Beijing’s official démarches, Takaichi refused to retract her position.
Zhao Qian, a journalist with China Media Group (CMG), noted that the public reaction was swift and fierce. Waves of criticism came not only from mainland China and Taiwan but also from prominent Japanese politicians and scholars who viewed Takaichi’s remarks as destabilizing and historically insensitive.
Former Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba cautioned that Takaichi’s comments came “very close to claiming that a Taiwan contingency is a Japan contingency,” a position past administrations deliberately avoided. Opposition lawmakers demanded an immediate retraction. Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama reiterated that Japan should not interfere in China’s internal affairs. Notwithstanding, Beijing’s strong reaction is rooted in the deep historical memory surrounding the Taiwan question. China considers Taiwan its internal affair, the core of its core interests, and an inviolable political red line.
Following the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), Japan forcibly seized Taiwan and ruled it as a colony for 50 years. After Japan’s defeat in 1945 and the victory of China’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, Taiwan was restored to China under international legal instruments including the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.
Given this history, Zhao Qian argued, Japan bears “unshirkable and serious historical responsibilities” for the Taiwan issue. Any suggestion of Japanese military involvement touches on painful wartime memories and is seen as crossing a political red line.
However, this year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory in the World Anti-Fascist War and the restoration of Taiwan to China, making Takaichi’s comments especially sensitive. Zhao Qian also linked the controversy to broader global concerns about the legacy of colonialism, writing: “Many African countries have experienced brutal colonial rule. Surely no one wishes to turn back the clock. The international system based on multilateralism is a justice that all must uphold. History must not be forgotten or distorted.”
China’s firm response, the journalist argued, is not merely bilateral diplomacy, but part of a wider effort to protect post-war international norms that developing countries rely on.
In addition, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong has since submitted a formal letter to the UN Secretary-General describing Takaichi’s statement as the most serious provocation by a Japanese leader since 1945.
Analysts warn that Takaichi’s framing of a Taiwan conflict as a potential Japanese military obligation is unprecedented. It marks the first time since WWII that a Japanese leader has, in an official capacity linked Taiwan directly to Japan’s right of collective self-defense. They suggested that military intervention in the Taiwan question issued what Beijing interprets as a threat of force against China.
Critics argue that such rhetoric risks eroding Japan’s postwar pacifist identity and may signal the rise of right-wing forces seeking to dismantle long-standing constraints on Japan’s military posture.
Japan has already begun relaxing defense-related export controls, including the export of Patriot missiles to the United States, and discussions are under way within the Liberal Democratic Party to review key security principles such as the Three Non-Nuclear Principles.
Some Japanese commentators have warned that Takaichi’s stance is “Japan’s true survival crisis,” fearing she may steer the nation toward militaristic revival.
The controversy has also unsettled regional markets. Reports indicate heightened risk aversion among investors, with Japanese assets being sold off amid rising uncertainty. Japanese economists warn that reduced Chinese tourism alone could cost Japan up to 2.2 trillion yen (USD 14 billion) and cut 0.36% from its GDP.
Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee publicly backed China’s diplomatic stance, calling Takaichi’s remarks “extremely erroneous” and damaging to China-Japan exchanges. Hong Kong has reportedly suspended certain interactions with the Japanese consulate, and its Security Bureau has updated its travel advisory urging residents in Japan to remain vigilant.
Japan remains one of Hong Kong’s most popular destinations, with nearly 150 daily flights connecting the two sides during peak seasons and 2.68 million Hong Kong visitors traveling to Japan last year.
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned that Beijing will never allow right-wing forces in Japan to “turn back the wheel of history” or interfere in China’s Taiwan region. Citing the Potsdam Proclamation, he emphasized that irresponsible militarism must never be allowed to return.
The message from Beijing is unequivocal stating that if Japan attempts armed intervention in the Taiwan question, China will exercise its right of self-defense under the UN Charter.
The outcry over Takaichi’s remarks reflects deep historical wounds, divergent national narratives, and the volatile geopolitics of East Asia. With bilateral relations already strained, many fear that Japan’s shift toward a more assertive security posture combined with China’s red lines on Taiwan risks pushing the region into greater instability.
For now, Beijing maintains that the path forward is clear. Stating that Japan must reflect on its wartime responsibilities, retract its provocative statements, and act with the prudence required to preserve regional peace.