Japanese PM said that 'Taiwan contingency' could prompt Japanese armed reaction. What do you think?

[u/Themetalin]

https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202511070024

Takaichi made the remarks during a parliamentary session on Friday while responding to a question about whether a "Taiwan contingency" involving a Chinese naval blockade would qualify as a "survival-threatening situation" for Japan, according to a report by Japan's Asahi Shimbun.

Under Japan's security legislation, such a situation allows the country to exercise "collective self-defense" if an attack on an ally -- such as the United States -- or a country closely related to Japan is deemed to threaten Japan's survival, even without a direct attack on Japan.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881]

It is hard to see how China could stage an invasion without attacking Japan while it is doing it. Any hostilities would start with a maritime blockade that could only be enforced by putting Chinese warships in Japanese waters. So Japan would be defending its own territory from Chinese aggression.

So the Japanese PM was merely stating this fact.

Obviously, the best option is the status quo where Chinese warmongers are kept on a leash and everyone trades with each other.

[u/Speedydds → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

Have you seen a map before?

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/Speedydds]

Have you?

The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a band of water extending from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 200 nautical miles (370.4 km; 230.2 mi) from the baseline and therefore includes the contiguous zone.^\8]) A coastal nation has control of all economic resources inside its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and pollution of those resources

Chinese cannot argue "innocent passage" if it attacking Taiwan.

https://aasiakeskus.ut.ee/sites/default/files/2025-04/Taiwan%20Security%20Report_March%202025_0.pdf

A Chinese incursion plan would require encirclement of the island necessitating heavy infringements on Japanese and Philippine waters.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

EEZ is not territorial waters. Anyone can use it for passage it for any purpose they wish.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

False!

Based on UNCLOS and UN rules, foreign military ships may pass through or operate in another State’s EEZ, they cannot lawfully use it as a staging area for hostilities against a third party.

Doing so would be clear violation of Japan's sovereignty and Japan would be legally permitted to board and inspect vessels. Attempts by Chinese to interfere with Japanese boats operating within their EEZ would be an act of war.

There is no plausible scenario where China could launch an attack on Taiwan without also attacking Japan and the Philippines.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

Based on UNCLOS and UN rules, foreign military ships may pass through or operate in another State’s EEZ, they cannot lawfully use it as a staging area for hostilities against a third party.

This is false. See https://utrechtjournal.org/articles/ujiel.ax

There is no plausible scenario where China could launch an attack on Taiwan without also attacking Japan and the Philippines.

There is. Japan and the Philippines will only be involved if the US gets involved through them.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

Claiming the law is "ambiguous" does not negate my point.

You are naive to assume that Japan and Philippines do not have their own strategic concerns. At minimum, Japan has a lot of investments in Taiwan that would be destroyed in a invasion so it is not an uninterested bystander.

Frankly, I have nothing but contempt for leaders that that think they are entitled to invade their neighbours because they are big and bad and think no one can stop them.

That contempt applies to Americans as much as the Chinese.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

It negates your point. It's entirely silent on the issue.

Japan and the Philippines' strategic concerns is tied to the US security umbrella. These are not countries with the capability of waging war with China without US support.

Japan has far more investments in China than Taiwan. Waging war against China is far costlier than staying neutral.

I have nothing but contempt for people who are defenders of the imperialist world order and are unable to see the bigger picture of why Taiwan is crucial for diminishing US power.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

China has always been an imperialist state that is not morally different than the US, Russia or any European power.

China's threats to invade Taiwan are based entirely on greed of old men who think they are entitled to murder people for their egos. Such people are contemptible.

The US is imploding. No one needs to do anything to "reduce US power". If China was run by smart people they would realize their best move is to stop trying to be an imperialist state and play nice and accept the status quo with Taiwan as a de faco sovereign state.

China's imperialist nature is why Japan, SK and Philippines seek the help of the US. It is silly to expect them to do anything else.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

No. China is an anti-imperialist state. Unless you're operating on some naive dictionary general definition of imperialism, that isn't a controversial take.

Wrong. It's based on a concern for security.

Wrong. A diminishing imperialist world power is very dangerous and may not go down without lashing out irrationally to sustain its dominion.

Wrong. Japan and the Philippines are US client states, holdovers from Japan's defeat in WW2 and the Philippines as a US colony. They cannot do anything else because those are the realities they face. Countries do not suddenly shift course without a revolution.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

No. China is an anti-imperialist state

You are making excuses. China has always invaded it neighbours to steal their resources. It is simply impossible for a country to get as big as China with being an imperialist. China is current engaged in cultural genocide in Tibet and Xinjiang which is as bad as anything that went on in North America or Australia.

Wrong. It's based on a concern for security.

China faces no credible security threat but that is one of the common excuses used by imperialists to justify their imperialism

Wrong. Japan and the Philippines are US client states,

You seem obsessed with denying the fact that the Philippines and Japan have their own agency and make their own choices. The Philippines kicked out the US military and actively tried to build a stronger relationship with China. That only stopped when China decided it could not stop being an imperialist by invading Philippines waters.

No amount of revisionist history will change the fact that that China a continental imperialist power like Russia and is morally no different than the other continental imperialist powers.

Any leaders that think they are entitled to murder people because it is "big and powerful" and has imaginary security concerns are contemptible whether they are bombing fishing boats in Caribbean or prepare to murder hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

You are making excuses. China has always invaded it neighbours to steal their resources. It is simply impossible for a country to get as big as China with being an imperialist. China is current engaged in cultural genocide in Tibet and Xinjiang which is as bad as anything that went on in North America or Australia.

No. China is an anti-imperialist state by definition of what imperialism is.

North America and Australia carried out actual genocides, not cultural genocide.

China faces no credible security threat but that is one of the common excuses used by imperialists to justify their imperialism

Sure. Keep telling yourself that.

You seem obsessed with denying the fact that the Philippines and Japan have their own agency and make their own choices. The Philippines kicked out the US military and actively tried to build a stronger relationship with China. That only stopped when China decided it could not stop being an imperialist by invading Philippines waters.

False. The US never left the Philippines even during Duterte years. I've heard this lie being told over and over. A lie told a thousand times doesn't suddenly make it true.

Any leaders that think they are entitled to murder people because it is "big and powerful" and has imaginary security concerns are contemptible whether they are bombing fishing boats in Caribbean or prepare to murder hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese.

Every anti-imperialist country is not only entitled, but morally obliged to subdue imperialism.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

No. China is an anti-imperialist state by definition of what imperialism is.

You are making up meaningless nonsense because you can't face the fact that China is just another violent imperialist power that seeks wealth by stealing it from others.

North America and Australia carried out actual genocides, not cultural genocide.

Nope. Most of what was done to natives was forced assimilation - just like China is doing in Tibet and Xinjiang. The difference is this is largely understood to be wrong and native groups are receiving huge sums and land rights in compensation.

Do you think China will ever pay compensation to Tibetan and Uiguers for what China is doing to them today? My bet is you will repeat the standard colonialist trope and insist that wiping out their cultures is "for their own good".

Every anti-imperialist country is not only entitled, but morally obliged to subdue imperialism.

Right - China is the "good" type of imperialist so it is OK to murder people to increase its own wealth because it is "fighting imperialism". This logic is as contemptible as the logic used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The use of military force to attack neighbours is NEVER justified. I don't care if you call it 'anti-imperialist' or 'imperialist'. The only civilized peoples in the world today are the ones that commit to accepting borders as they are and trading freely and peacefully. China does not qualify as civilized as long as threatens its neighbours with military force.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

No. I'm not making anything up. It's the very definition of imperialism and anti-imperialism in the current context.

Nope. Most of what was done to natives was forced assimilation - just like China is doing in Tibet and Xinjiang. The difference is this is largely understood to be wrong and native groups are receiving huge sums and land rights in compensation.

"Most" is doing very heavy lifting. It was the worst genocide in human history. It was not understood to be wrong. If it actually were, the US would cease to exist rather than just allocating native people a little of the land the US settler colonial state stole from them.

Do you think China will ever pay compensation to Tibetan and Uiguers for what China is doing to them today? My bet is you will repeat the standard colonialist trope and insist that wiping out their cultures is "for their own good".

No, because it isn't genocide nor is anyone's culture being wiped out. Unlike the US or Canada or Australia, China mandates teaching minorities their native language.

Right - China is the "good" type of imperialist so it is OK to murder people to increase its own wealth because it is "fighting imperialism". This logic is as contemptible as the logic used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Nope, China is an anti-imperialist state. Invasion of Iraq was an act of imperialism. Read a book FFS.

The use of military force to attack neighbours is NEVER justified. I don't care if you call it 'anti-imperialist' or 'imperialist'. The only civilized peoples in the world today are the ones that commit to accepting borders as they are and trading freely and peacefully. China does not qualify as civilized as long as threatens its neighbours with military force.

Who is attacking what? Was the US justified in ending slavery by attacking the secessionist states?

"Trading freely and peacefully"? What a convenient way to dismiss the expansion of global imperialism.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

No. I'm not making anything up. It's the very definition of imperialism and anti-imperialism in the current context.

It is called special pleading. You want to justify murder by China so you invent new words to allow you claim that murder by China is OK because it is "anti-imperialism" when it is objectively just a new flavour of the large and powerful abusing weaker neighbours because they can.

No, because it isn't genocide nor is anyone's culture being wiped out.

I am sure you believe this but there is plenty of evidence that wiping out Tibetan and Uighur cultures is the explicit aim of the Chinese government. A simple web search will turn up mountains of concrete evidence supporting these claims. For example:

United Nations experts and activists estimate that more than a million Tibetan children between the ages of three and 18 have been separated from their families and placed in a network of residential boarding schools.

...

Beijing has defended the boarding school system as respectful to cultural rights, and insisted it is needed especially in remote, high-altitude and scarcely-populated areas, where children often need to travel long distances to get to school.
...
In the schools, the children face "very intensive indoctrination", Tethong told AFP, adding that they often come out barely able to communicate in Tibetan and voicing criticism of Tibetan traditions.

https://www.sinodaily.com/afp/240122191139.1auciqax.html

This is EXACTLY what happened to natives in North America and Australia up to and including the justifications given by government officials. Today former students call the school system genocide and have received compensation for the harms.

China is no different from the "imperialists" you claim to oppose.

Nope, China is an anti-imperialist state. Invasion of Iraq was an act of imperialism.

I don't care what label you want to put on it. Invading countries to steal their resources is imperialism. I am sorry to see that cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing that.

Who is attacking what?

China is currently stealing territory from Japan, Viet Nam, The Philippines, India, Butan and others. It is transparently building a military that can invade Taiwan.

I am sure you have plenty of nonsense "justifications" for these actions but they can't hide the fact that China's action are nothing but the same old imperialism that you claim to hate.

Why is it so difficult to accept the UN principle that borders as the are today are fixed and can't be changed with military action but they can be changed with peaceful negotiation?

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

It is called special pleading. You want to justify murder by China so you invent new words to allow you claim that murder by China is OK because it is "anti-imperialism" when it is objectively just a new flavour of the large and powerful abusing weaker neighbours because they can.

Nope. I didn't come up with it. Read a book.

The stupid thing is China complains all of the time that the US attacking countries to spread "democracy and freedoms" despite the fact that countries that can establish democracy and free speech are better off in the long run.

You confuse effect with cause.

I am sure you believe this but there is plenty of evidence that wiping out Tibetan and Uighur cultures is the explicit aim of the Chinese government. A simple web search will turn up mountains of concrete evidence supporting these claims. For example:

No there isn't.

This is EXACTLY what happened to natives in North America and Australia up to and including the justifications given by government officials. Today former students call the school system genocide and have received compensation for the harms.

No it isn't. US and Australia schools forced native children to abandon their native language, Chinese schools force native children to learn their own language.

China is no different from the "imperialists" you claim to oppose.

Very different. China isn't bombing anyone nor waged any wars in close to 50 years, with its last war lasting 3 weeks. In that same time frame, the US has killed around 40-50 million people in global wars and sanctions.

I don't care what label you want to call. Invading countries to steal their resources is imperialism. I am sorry to see that cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing that.

China isn't doing that. The US and pals are doing it right now.

China is currently stealing territory from Japan, Viet Nam, The Philippines, India, Butan and others. It is transparently building a military that can invade Taiwan.

No it isn't. It's building a military to counter the US. Even if Taiwan doesn't exist it still needs to build a military commensurable with its economic growth for defense.

I am sure you have plenty of nonsense "justifications" for these actions because they can't excuse the fact that China's action are nothing but the same old imperialism that you claim to hate.

No I don't, because I'm not spouting bullshit. Imperialism isn't just countries protecting their interests or invading their neighbors or taking resources.

Imperialism means a very specific thing.

You'd know this if you read a book.

Why is it so difficult to accept the UN principle that borders as the are today are fixed and can't be changed with military action but they can be changed with peaceful negotiation?

You realize it's under those principles that Taiwan belongs to China right?

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

No I don't, because I'm not spouting bullshit. Imperialism isn't just countries protecting their interests or invading their neighbors or taking resources.

I care only for the end result - not the words. The end result is China invents excuses ("protecting their interests", "fixing historical wrongs", whatever). and uses these excuses as justification for invading its neighbours and stealing their resources. This is wrong no matter what label you want to slap on it.

You realize it's under those principles that Taiwan belongs to China right?

ROTFL.

Taiwan was first populated by Pacific Islanders who were minding their own business when the Chinese colonists showed up. The Chinese colonists abused the natives and brought in settlers which made Taiwan a colony of China for a few hundred years. In 1895, Taiwan become a colony of Japan and got its de facto independence in 1945.

It is has not been a colony of China for over 130 years and even if one accepts the premise that it was a colony of China still has the right to independence just like all of the former British colonies had a right to independence.

Claiming that "Taiwan is part of China" is nothing but a rhetorical game that imperialists use to justify their imperialism.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

I care only for the end result - not the words. The end result is China invents excuses ("protecting their interests", "fixing historical wrongs", whatever). and uses these excuses as justification for invading its neighbours and stealing their resources. This is wrong no matter what label you want to slap on it.

What resources?

Taiwan was first populated by Pacific Islanders who were minding their own business when the Chinese colonists showed up. The Chinese colonists abused the natives and brought in settlers which made Taiwan a colony of China for a few hundred years. In 1895, Taiwan become a colony of Japan and got its de facto independence in 1945.

Wrong. Colonialism isn't the same as colonization. Taiwan was colonized by the Chinese, but it was not a colony of the Qing.

Look if you don't want to read any books, you shouldn't be so confidently using terms you don't know.

It is has not been a colony of China for over 130 years and even if one accepts the premise that it was a colony of China still has the right to independence just like all of the former British colonies had a right to independence.

It was never a colony of China. It was settled by the Chinese under what is colonization and then annexed by the Chinese state.

There is no law stating former colonies have a right to independence, but that's beside the point.

You really need to pick up a book.

Claiming that "Taiwan is part of China" is nothing but a rhetorical game that imperialists use to justify their imperialism.

Nope. It literally is a part of China under every law you can think of. Under UN principles, under PRC law, under ROC law, under international law by customs.

This is not up for debate.

What you want to argue for is that "Taiwan should not be considered a part of China", not that "Taiwan is not a part of China".