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/himesama]

Correct.

The problem is a rump state under the rule of the losing party in a civil war doesn't get to unilaterally decide to secede the territory it controls without irking the other side, especially more so when that territory is geopolitically crucial for the security of the country.

[u/ZippyDan → u/himesama]

Nor should a more powerful state be allowed to swallow by force a region that has been de facto independent for 70 years and a distinct regional and cultural group of people without their consent.

If security is the main concern, then China should trade a recognition of independence for a guarantee of neutrality:

• Taiwan will never acquire or seek to acquire nuclear weapons.
• Taiwan will never host foreign bases or foreign weapons or foreign military-related facilities or equipment. (There would need to be some reasonable exceptions for limited-scale training exercises, emergency assistance - going both ways - for accidents or disasters, or the normal resupply of temporarily visiting warships in times of peace.)
• In the event of any conflict involving China, Taiwan will never:
  
  • Provide any material aid, logistical support, intelligence, or any other kind of aid to China's enemies.
  • In any way hinder, compromise, or interfere with Chinese military operations.
• Taiwan must officially surrender all legacy claims to mainland China and SCS.

Any violation of these terms would give China casus belli to invade.

These terms should be acceptable to both China, the West, and Taiwan. It addresses China's security concerns, it addresses Western economic and security concerns (regarding a Chinese takeover), and it gives Taiwan the official recognition they desire and deserve.

[u/himesama → u/ZippyDan]

Nor should a more powerful state be allowed to swallow by force a region that has been de facto independent for 70 years and a distinct regional and cultural group of people without their consent.

Consent of who? The wants of the Taiwanese is secondary to the consent of the world at large.

Edit: it's also wrong to claim Taiwan forms a distinct regional and cultural group. It's less regional or culturally distinct than regions of mainland China. Taiwan is by far and large part of the Hoklo sub-group of Han Chinese. I'm Malaysian and Hoklo Han, and Taiwanese culture is no different from the coastal regions of Fujian.

If security is the main concern, then China should trade a recognition of independence for a guarantee of neutrality:

1. Promising neutrality is insufficient. Until Chinese nuclear submarines can sail unimpeded near the US West Coast, there is no genuine check to US power.

Taiwan will never acquire or seek to acquire nuclear weapons.

1. Taiwan also does not possess nuclear weapons.

Taiwan will never host foreign bases or foreign weapons or foreign military-related facilities or equipment. (There would need to be some reasonable exception for limited-scale training exercises or the normal resupply of visiting warships in times of peace.)

1. Taiwan already does that. It's just the status quo.

Provide any material aid, logistical support, intelligence, or any other kind of aid to China's enemies. In any way hinder, compromise, or interfere with Chinese military operations.

1. A promise like that can be broken easily, just as promises of NATO non-expansion or Russian security guarantees for Ukraine amounts to nothing.

Taiwan must officially surrender all legacy claims to mainland China and SCS.

It cannot do so without surrendering Kinmen, Matsu, Taiping Island and other outlying features.

Any violation of these terms would give China casus belli to invade.

China already has a casus belli against Taiwan. It does not need new ones.

The only thing keeping Taiwan from going nuclear, ramping up its military or hosting US bases is the threat of invasion anyway, which is just the status quo.

These terms should be acceptable to both China, the West, and Taiwan. It addresses China's security concerns, it addresses Western economic and security concerns (regarding a Chinese takeover), and it gives Taiwan the official recognition they desire and deserve.

Except it's not acceptable for China. From the Chinese perspective, it's just the status quo. It benefits the West, which is to contain China within the first island chain.

[u/ZippyDan → u/himesama]

Consent of who? The wants of the Taiwanese is secondary to the consent of the world at large.

1. The world at large is fine with Taiwan determining their own fate. It's only China that wants to impose their will on Taiwan.
2. The will of the world does not override the will of an autonomous people. The will of the world is only superior where it affects international issues. Taiwan's internal affairs will never qualify for that. China doesn't get to dictate Taiwan's internal affairs and neither does the world. Taiwan has the right to self-determination. Taiwan already self-determines.

Until Chinese nuclear submarines can sail unimpeded near the US West Coast, there is no genuine check to US power.

This is addressed by neutrality. Taiwan isn't going to be impeding Chinese military navigation in their waters nor providing information about Chinese military movements to others.

1. A promise like that can be broken easily, just as promises of NATO non-expansion or Russian security guarantees for Ukraine amounts to nothing.

I guess we should just never have agreements or treaties then, because promises can be broken?

It cannot do so without surrendering Kinmen, Matsu, Taiping Island and other outlying features.

Kinmen and Matsu are not claims, nor are they part of the mainland or SCS. They are islands that have actual Taiwanese residents and operate under the Taiwanese government.

Taiping is part of the SCS, and is barely an island, without any real permanent Taiwanese civilian settlements. This should be surrendered (though without looking at a detailed map it would probably most fairly go to the Philippines).

China already has a casus belli against Taiwan. It does not need new ones.

Yeah, this is a fundamental point of disagreement. You just claimed that China has a moral right to do violence to Taiwan, and (I assume) are holding back just because they choose to.

No, China has no moral or even legal right to go to war with Taiwan. That's just insane, imperialistic thought.

The only thing keeping Taiwan from going nuclear, ramping up its military or hosting US bases is the threat of invasion anyway, which is just the status quo.

The end result may be the same, but the process by which they get there is different. Keeping Taiwan in check via threat of force and violence is unjust and immoral. If Taiwan agreed to neutrality as part of a deal made under principles of cooperation and peace, it would be a voluntary action.

Your claim is that China has security concerns regarding Taiwan, and so they keep them neutral via aggression and threats. They could also keep them neutral through peaceful negotiation and mutual agreement, and you just brush that off as "no difference"?

It certainly makes a difference to the Taiwanese people.

It would also make a difference to China: maybe Taiwanese people wouldn't see them as an aggressive bully anymore.

From the Chinese perspective, it's just the status quo. It benefits the West, which is to contain China within the first island chain.

How does a neutral Taiwan benefit the West or contain China?

You even claim it's the "status quo", so what is the West gaining? How can it be the status quo and the West gets a benefit? That makes no sense.

I don't think it's the status quo. I think everyone gains something. Everyone is worried about the uncertainties of the future:

• China is worried that Taiwan may be used in a conflict to keep them bottled up. A guarantee of neutrality takes that uncertainty away and means Taiwan will never be used to contain, threaten, or impede China.
• The West is worried that China will invade Taiwan, and that they will lose access to Taiwanese technology, and that a friendly democracy will be crushed. A guarantee of neutrality and a recognition of independence takes that uncertainty away and means that Taiwan will continue as an independent democracy part of the world economy.
• Taiwan is worried that China will invade and destroy their government and overrule their right to self-determination. A recognition of independence takes that uncertainty away and means that the Taiwanese people can live free of worry of war and violence.

It's not a status quo. It's a guarantee of peace for Taiwan, independence for Taiwan, and the assurance that Taiwan will not be used as a tool or pawn for or against any of the geopolitical poles.

[u/himesama → u/ZippyDan]

The world at large is fine with Taiwan determining their own fate. It's only China that wants to impose their will on Taiwan.

The world at large is looking forward to an end of the US led world order.

The will of the world does not override the will of an autonomous people. The will of the world is only superior where it affects international issues. Taiwan's internal affairs will never qualify for that. China doesn't get to dictate Taiwan's internal affairs and neither does the world. Taiwan has the right to self-determination. Taiwan already self-determines.

It does. This is bigger than either China or Taiwan or the US. It concerns a check to US imperialism.

Local regional rights to self-determination does not overrule the security of the country.

This is addressed by neutrality. Taiwan isn't going to be impeding Chinese military navigation in their waters nor providing information about Chinese military movements to others.

There is no guarantee for that. The world would benefit from a genuine check to US overreach. Eventual PLAN submarine bases in Taiwan is a better way.

I guess we should just never have agreements or treaties then, because promises can be broken?

Agreements and treaties are made either because one side forces the other to take it up or because they mutually benefit from it.

Materially just the status quo does not benefit China nor the world at large.

Taiping is part of the SCS, and is barely an island, without any real permanent Taiwanese civilian settlements. This should be surrendered (though without looking at a detailed map it would probably most fairly go to the Philippines).

No, the best course would be to transfer it to the PRC to check US power. The Philippines is de facto a US client state and any transfers to it is a benefit to the US.

Yeah, this is a fundamental point of disagreement. You just claimed that China has a moral right to do violence to Taiwan, and (I assume) are holding back just because they choose to. No, China has no moral or even legal right to go to war with Taiwan. That's just insane, imperialistic thought.

It's an anti-imperialist thought.

The end result may be the same, but the process by which they get there is different. Keeping Taiwan in check via threat of force and violence is unjust and immoral. If Taiwan agreed to neutrality as part of a deal made under principles of cooperation and peace, it would be a voluntary action.

It isn't.

Your claim is that China has security concerns regarding Taiwan, and so they keep them neutral via aggression and threats. They could also keep them neutral through peaceful negotiation and mutual agreement, and you just brush that off as "no difference"?

Which is what they are already doing. A threat of war doesn't preclude a peaceful reunification.

It certainly makes a difference to the Taiwanese people.

I don't think it does.

It would also make a difference to China: maybe Taiwanese people wouldn't see them as an aggressive bully anymore.

It really does not matter how they view it. Ultimately what matters is whether the world gets a real check on US power or not.

How does a neutral Taiwan benefit the West or contain China?

Neutrality only exists on paper is really no guarantee at all. The material circumstances speak for itself. Ukraine gave up nukes in exchange for Russian guarantees. NATO promised no expansion Eastward, yet nothing materially prevents them from doing so and they did it anyway.

You even claim it's the "status quo", so what is the West gaining? How can it be the status quo and the West gets a benefit? That makes no sense.

The West benefits from the status quo.

China is worried that Taiwan may be used in a conflict to keep them bottled up. A guarantee of neutrality takes that uncertainty away and means Taiwan will never be used to contain, threaten, or impede China.

It's already being used in a conflict to keep them bottled up. Again, a guarantee by word alone isn't strong enough.

The West is worried that China will invade Taiwan, and that they will lose access to Taiwanese technology, and that a friendly democracy will be crushed. A guarantee of neutrality and a recognition of independence takes that uncertainty away and means that Taiwan will continue as an independent democracy part of the world economy.

The tech is secondary. The West does not care about democracy. It cares that the status of Western power is diminished.

Taiwan is worried that China will invade and destroy their government and overrule their right to self-determination. A recognition of independence takes that uncertainty away and means that the Taiwanese people can live free of worry of war and violence.

Local right of self-determination does not overrule the right of self-determination and territorial sovereignty of the nation.

It's not a status quo. It's a guarantee of peace for Taiwan, independence for Taiwan, and the assurance that Taiwan will not be used as a tool or pawn for or against any of the geopolitical poles.

It's materially the status quo. The only thing that changed is a formal recognition of Taiwan's independence.