Japan’s Prime Minister Takaichi Finally Says Something Close to What Beijing Wants to Hear

Source. 

For decades, the Taiwan issue has been the central, non-negotiable pillar of Chinese diplomacy—a matter Beijing defines as core national sovereignty. Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s recent comments on Taiwan, to some extent, tested how “unshakable” Beijing’s position on the issue truly is.

After nearly a month of heated diplomatic sparring between the two countries, Takaichi on December 3 finally delivered a formulation on Taiwan that comes closer to what Beijing has been hoping to hear.

Takaichi’s latest comments on Taiwan drew widespread media attention. Most outlets viewed them as a softening from the remarks she made last month. On November 7, Takaichi stated that a mainland Chinese “attack” on Taiwan would constitute an “existential crisis situation” for Japan—implying that Tokyo might deploy the Self-Defense Forces in response. Her remarks triggered the most serious crisis in China–Japan relations in more than a decade.

On November 14, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Chinese Embassy in Japan formally issued a travel alert, warning that public security in Japan had deteriorated—with a rise in crimes targeting Chinese nationals—and that Takaichi’s remarks had heightened tensions between the two countries, posing “major risks” to the safety of Chinese citizens in Japan. The alert advised Chinese nationals to “avoid traveling to Japan for the time being and for those already in Japan to remain highly vigilant.”

Historically, Japan’s wartime aggression during World War II remains deeply ingrained in Chinese public consciousness. As a result, Takaichi’s remarks were interpreted not simply as foreign policy rhetoric, but as a signal of potential Japanese military involvement in what China regards as its internal affairs. The comments unleashed a wave of nationalist sentiment online, putting immense pressure on Beijing to respond forcefully. Any sign of softness could trigger domestic backlash and undermine the government’s long-standing insistence that Taiwan is a sovereignty issue on which China cannot compromise.

On November 24, when asked about Takaichi’s remarks, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said: “We have noted that the Japanese side has recently referred to its ‘consistent position’ on the Taiwan question, but what exactly does this so-called ‘consistent position’ entail? Can Japan articulate this ‘consistent position’ in full and in public?”

Mao stressed that the one-China principle is a universally recognized international consensus that cannot be shaken. If Japan’s position on Taiwan truly has not changed, she said, Tokyo should explicitly uphold the one-China principle and honor the spirit and commitments of the four China–Japan political documents—including the relevant language in the 1972 Joint Communiqué: that “the Government of Japan recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China,” that “the Government of the People’s Republic of China reaffirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China,” and that Japan “fully understands and respects” this position while standing by Paragraph 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation. “Why,” Mao asked, “is the Japanese side unable to restate these points fully and accurately?”

That same day—November 24—something unexpected happened: U.S. President Donald Trump spoke by phone with the leaders of both China and Japan. It became one of the most closely watched moments in this entire wave of China–Japan confrontation.

Trump’s two phone calls set off an intense reaction among the Chinese public and academic community. Many began speculating about who initiated the calls and what exactly Trump had said to the Japanese prime minister.

On November 26, The Wall Street Journal published a report titled “Trump, After Call With China’s Xi, Told Tokyo to Lower the Volume on Taiwan.” According to the article, Trump suggested that Takaichi avoid provoking Beijing on the sovereignty question. The report noted that Trump’s advice was delivered gently and did not constitute pressure for her to walk back her earlier remarks.

From Chinese media reports on the calls, one can see that the optics of Trump phoning the Chinese leader first and the Japanese leader afterward did not reflect favorably on Japan. The Wall Street Journal’s reporting certainly did not help Tokyo’s image.

Perhaps for this reason, Japan did not appear to soften immediately after the Trump call. On November 26, Takaichi made her third set of remarks on Taiwan. During a party leaders’ debate at the Lower House Budget Committee, she stated that under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan had renounced all rights and claims to Taiwan and therefore has no authority to determine Taiwan’s legal status or define its nature.

These remarks prompted further strong criticism from China. Beijing’s long-standing view is that the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty—signed without China, the Soviet Union, and other major parties to World War II—constituted a separate peace in violation of the 1942 Declaration by United Nations, which prohibited such arrangements, and therefore contravened the U.N. Charter and basic principles of international law. Any disposition of Taiwan’s sovereignty involving China, which was not a signatory, is thus considered illegal and invalid.

Another core Chinese position is that Taiwan’s return to China is an integral part of the victory of World War II and the postwar international order. Documents with binding force in international law—including the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and Japan’s Instrument of Surrender—all affirmed China’s sovereignty over Taiwan.

As of now, Beijing has not issued an official response to Takaichi’s latest remarks. But Hu Xijin, the former editor-in-chief of the Global Times, wrote on his WeChat blog: “Under strong pressure from China and from within Japan’s political circles, Takaichi’s stance on Taiwan has softened—but only slightly, in a slow, toothpaste-squeezing fashion.”

He also wrote: “Takaichi must personally reiterate the key formulations in the China–Japan Joint Communiqué, such as ‘Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China,’ as well as Japan’s commitment to ‘stand by Paragraph 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.’” Paragraph 8 stipulates that Japan’s sovereignty is limited to “Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine,” meaning that Taiwan and the Penghu Islands must be returned to China. “Under Paragraph 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation, there is no room for any ‘undetermined status’ interpretation of Taiwan.”

From Hu’s writing, we can see that this is likely the formulation Beijing most wishes to hear from Takaichi. However, Hu concluded his article by adding: “We believe the relevant professional institutions will be able to provide a more precise assessment of Takaichi’s latest response.”

The question now is: How will the Chinese government respond to Prime Minister Takaichi’s latest statement on Taiwan?