“If China attacks Taiwan, Japan Could Take Military Action In Self-Defense,” Prime Minister Takaichi Said

Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival”, allowing Japan to take military action in self-defence, during deliberations in the House of Representatives’ budget committee on November 7, 2025.
Prime Minister’s comments about a possible attack by Beijing on Taiwan have sparked a furious response from Chinese officials. Chinese consul-general in Osaka, Xue Jian, wrote on X on that “we have no choice but to cut off that dirty neck that has lunged at us without a moment’s hesitation. Are you ready?” Xue’s comment triggered criticism from the Taiwanese government and the U.S. ambassador to Japan while Chinese officials condemned Takaichi’s remarks.
Although the post was later deleted after protest by the Japanese government, it led to a diplomatic row between Japan and China.
Japan and China issued mutual travel advisories and summoned the other country’s ambassador. China subsequently dispatched China Coast Guard vessels and military drones to patrol through the Senkaku Islands.
The saga began in late October when Prime Minister Takaichi was questioned in parliament over how Japan would respond if China conducted a military blockade of Taiwan.
“I believe any action involving the use of force, such as China deploying naval ships, can only be described as a survival-threatening situation,” she replied. The phrase “survival-threatening situation” is a benchmark necessary for Japanese military involvement.
It means, Takaichi confirmed that Japan may respond to an escalation in Taiwan with military force and become embroiled in regional conflict.
Since then, Beijing has tried to make an example of her.
China issued travel warnings against Japan, calling on nationals to refrain from visiting due to “serious” safety risks. That resulted in some 500,000 travellers cancelling their plane tickets. Two Japanese films have also been pulled from the box office and, most recently, China again suspended seafood imports from Japan.
Before taking power last month, Takaichi, an acolyte of ex-leader Shinzo Abe, was a vocal critic of China and its military build-up in the Asia-Pacific.
She has been a regular at a shrine that honours Japan’s war dead, including those guilty of crimes in World War II, which is seen by Asian nations as a symbol of Japan’s militaristic past.
Japan’s first woman prime minister has visited Taiwan in the past and met Taipei’s representative at a recent APEC summit.

Taiwan exists in a sensitive, strange grey area. In many ways, the self-governing, democratic island behaves like an independent country, running its own schools, hospitals, police, military and taxation system.
It overwhelmingly supplies the world’s most sophisticated microchips, vital for anything from mobile phones to the most advanced military hardware.
And its geographic position forms part of a wall with Japan and the Philippines, both US allies, that impedes China’s access to the Pacific Ocean.
But Taiwan is a legacy from the Chinese civil war, a final bastion of the Nationalists that lost the mainland to the communists.
Since then, the Chinese Communist Party has regarded Taiwan as a breakaway province that must be brought back into the fold, with force if necessary.
Governments in the U.S., Japan, and other like-minded nations navigate the issue of Taiwan’s freedom with “strategic ambiguity”, refusing to make clear if they would respond to Chinese action on the island with military force.
The U.S. does, however, provide Taiwan with the “means” to defend itself, under the Taiwan Relations Act, and maintains unofficial defence relations with the island.
“In the U.S., there’s debate about this,” said Professor Stephen Nagy, an international relations expert from the International Christian University in Tokyo. “Should we drop the strategic ambiguity and just say, ‘Taiwan matters for everybody’? If there’s a fight over Taiwan, we’re going to be there.”
The U.S. has previously warned China is readying its military to be ready to invade Taiwan in 2027. If the United States did get involved militarily with a Taiwan conflict, or “contingency”, there would be an expectation of support from its allies, particularly Japan, even if it was logistical support rather than direct military engagement. Japan, after all, hosts the largest contingent of US forces outside continental America.
It’s also built military bases on islands near Taiwan, purchased Thomahawk missiles capable of striking mainland China, and Ms Takaichi has hastened the country’s military spend to reach two per cent of GDP by next year, instead of 2028. So, Japan, like other nations, is preparing for a possible conflict with China over Taiwan.
The incident began with Takaichi’s remarks to the Japanese Diet on No. 7. Asked under what conditions a Chinese attack on Taiwan might threaten Japanese security, she responded that the use of force and the presence of warships could constitute a survival-threatening si-tuation under Japan’s security laws.
This was not a radical departure from Tokyo’s regional worldview. Prime Minister Takaichi was echoing Abe-era statements linking Japan’s security to Taiwan. It certainly pales in comparison to repeated assertions by past U.S. Presidents that the United States would use force to defend Taiwan. Yet Takaichi’s comment set off a chain reaction in Beijing that appeared entirely out of proportion relative to the message itself.
In short order, China summoned Japan’s ambassador for a dressing down and warned that Tokyo was “playing with fire,” while Xue Jian’s infamous words erased and China’s Foreign Ministry refused to distance itself from.
These official responses – and the ensuing wave of uncensored nationalist outrage online – should be understood as deliberate political posturing rather than a spontaneous outburst that is beyond Beijing’s control.
Past episodes of Sino-Japanese tension have followed a similar pattern. When Japan is perceived as challenging Beijing’s preferred narratives, nationalist fervor reliably surges. But in China, nationalism is not something the government merely reacts to; it is something the government actively must manage, temper or encourage. Online outrage is permitted when it is useful, yet disappears when it is not. The line between domestic and international strategies often appears blurred
The timing of this flare-up is telling. Takaichi hit her stride early with high approval ratings, a successful first round of diplomacy, and a constructive summit with U.S. President Donald Trump. Her early moves – accelerating defense spending, calling for stronger eco-nomic security, and speaking plainly about Taiwan – all signaled a willing-ness for Japan to actively shape its surrounding security environment rather than remain passive behind the United States.
Beijing was watching. Combined with China’s own desire to frame itself as an equal partner to the United States, particularly after the Trump-Xi summit in Busan, Takaichi’s posture presented an inconvenient narrative for Beijing, which prefers to treat Japan as a regional sideliner.
Prime Minister Takaichi’s recent on Taiwan Straits are drawing criticism from some senior Japanese political figures and media.

Former Japanese prime minister Yukio Hatoyama responded her remarks, stating that Japan should not interfere in China’s internal affairs. Hatoyama expressed a similar view the day after Takaichi made the claims. He criticized her remarks for clearly stoking a crisis to justify military buildup. “Japan should respect the fact that Taiwan is part of China,” he added.
According to legislation, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces could exercise the right of collective self-defense if such a situation is recognized as “survival-threatening.”
Hiroshi Ogushi of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan had demanded Takaichi revoke the remarks at a Lower House Budget Committee. “If a ‘survival-threatening situation’ is recognized, it would lead to a defense mobilization. This is a judgment equivalent to entering a war, and past cabinets have been cautious in making such statements,” Ogushi said.
In response, Takaichi appeared to step back from her previous remarks. While maintaining that her position “aligns with the government’s longstanding view and I have no intention of retracting or rescinding it,” she characterized the statement as “a response based on a worst-case scenario” and pledged to “reflect on specific scenarios moving forward and exercise greater caution in future remarks.,”
Shimbun Akahata, the newspaper of the Japanese Communist Party (JCP), reported that JCP Chief of Secretariat Akira Koike has criticized Takaichi’s claims on Taiwan as “an extremely dangerous statement.”
Tokyo Shimbun published an editorial, questioning whether Takaichi understands the gravity of such a statement coming from a prime minister, condemning this as “extremely reckless and imprudent” remarks.
The Okinawa Times reported that Takaichi’s claims on Taiwan have sparked controversy. Quoting a Japanese government source, the report added that “this should not have been stated from the position of prime minister.”
“That a so-called ‘Taiwan emer-gency is a Japanese emergency’ is, in essence, creating a problem where none exists for Japan,” Liu remarked.
This position was a blatant claim first raised by former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and echoed by some conservative Japanese politicians. Liu noted that it serves as a pretext to break through the constraints of Japan’s postwar pacifist constitution and to justify further military expansion. “Such actions are destined to lose the support of the Japanese people and are bound to fail,” Liu said.