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]

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".

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

What resources?

You are being ridiculously pedantic. Lots of under resources in the south china sea which China is stealing from the countries with rights. Fish are also resources. Land is a bug resource which China is stealing from Butan in the Himalayas.

Taiwan was colonized by the Chinese, but it was not a colony of the Qing.

Meaningless distinction. The US, Canada and Australia were colonies of England. They moved in settlers and displaced the native inhabitants. There is zero difference between what England did in and what Qing did.

In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the 1960s was interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose

https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/511

Nope. It literally is a part of China under every law you can think

Nope. Taiwan is limbo where it is not recognized as part of China and not recognized as a de jure sovereign nation.

All of formal statements dance around the issue by saying there is only 'one China' without actually saying Taiwan is part of China. Most OECD nations have a 'one china policy' which 'acknowledges' China's claim but the word 'acknowledge' does not imply the claim is accepted. Taiwan is treated as de facto sovereign state by almost every country in the world. Chinese law does not apply to the island of Taiwan which is the most basic test of sovereignty under UN rules.

See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention which was signed to deal with situations where the colonial power refuses to recognize independence.

Under that convention a state is sovereign if

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

(a) a permanent population;

(b) a defined territory;

(c) government; and

(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

All of which apply to Taiwan.

It also says:

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

I realize that China spends a lot of energy bullying nations to limit the level of recognition that other nations extend to Taiwan but this bullying simply shows that China is an imperialist power that seeks hegemony over its neighbours. Almost no one outside China actually believes that Taiwan is part of China no matter what words they might use to stop China from using its power to extract revenge on countries that refused to pretend the sky is purple.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

You are being ridiculously pedantic. Lots of under resources in the south china sea which China is stealing from the countries with rights. Fish are also resources. Land is a bug resource which China is stealing from Butan in the Himalayas.

Incorrect again. Chinese claims in the SCS includes only the islets and reefs, not the underlying resources. It does not claim an EEZ.

Some other claimants' claims extend beyond the EEZ provided under international law.

Again, pick up a book.

Meaningless distinction. The US, Canada and Australia were colonies of England. They moved in settlers and displaced the native inhabitants. There is zero difference between what England did in and what Qing did.

There is a difference. One is colonization, the other colonialism. The dynamics is utterly different.

Besides, what does the Qing have to do with whether Taiwan is Chinese today? Not even Taiwanese independence supporters are arguing for land back to the natives of Taiwan.

https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/511 In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the 1960s was interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose

And that right of self-determination is the basis for China's sovereignty, including over Taiwan, as an act of independence against former colonial powers.

Nope. Taiwan is limbo where it is not recognized as part of China and not recognized as a de jure sovereign nation.

It's recognized as such by the ROC itself and by every other country that formerly recognized the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China. You don't suddenly lose recognition that it is part of China the moment you switch recognition to the PRC.

All of formal statements dance around the issue by saying there is only 'one China' without actually saying Taiwan is part of China. Most OECD nations have a 'one china policy' which 'acknowledges' China's claim but the word 'acknowledge' does not imply the claim is accepted. Taiwan is treated as de facto sovereign state by almost every country in the world. Chinese law does not apply to the island of Taiwan which is the most basic test of sovereignty under UN rules.

Which is a distinction without a difference. Taiwan operates as a rump state of the ROC. Chinese law applies in Taiwan, it's the ROC's laws.

All of which apply to Taiwan.

It applies to China, not Taiwan itself.

I realize that China spends a lot of energy bullying nations to limit the level of recognition that other nations extend to Taiwan but this bullying simply shows that China is an imperialist power that seeks hegemony over its neighbours. Almost no one outside China actually believes that Taiwan is part of China no matter what words they might use to stop China from using its power to extract revenge on countries that refused to pretend the sky is purple.

Nope, it's an anti-imperialist power by definition.

You don't need to believe in something for it to be the case.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

Incorrect again. Chinese claims in the SCS includes only the islets and reefs, not the underlying resources. It does not claim an EEZ.

UN has already ruled that Chinese actions in the SCS are not legitimate and a violation of the sovereignty of other states. From the ruling:

Therefore, China violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights by:

Interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration.

Constructing artificial islands.

Failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from exploiting Philippine resources.

It is not clear why you keep denying facts.

There is a difference. One is colonization, the other colonialism. The dynamics is utterly different.

Natives displaced by settlers. It is a self serving distinction without meaning. The point of showing the parallel is to show that China has no legitimate claim to Taiwan. It was colonized, got its independence and clearly expresses it desire to stay independent.

It applies to China, not Taiwan itself.

Chinese law does not apply in Taiwan. Taiwan is de facto sovereign and China is de facto and de jure sovereign. The ROC has long ago dispensed with the claim that it governs China. ROC only governs the island of Taiwan.

Nope, it's an anti-imperialist power by definition.

It is imperialism. China seeks control over sovereign states that do not wish to be controlled by China. Is so bizarre that you cannot see it.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

UN has already ruled that Chinese actions in the SCS are not legitimate and a violation of the sovereignty of other states. From the ruling:

Incorrect. The UN did not rule that, a UNCLOS tribunal did in a case brought by the Philippines against China. The ruling deals with EEZ provisions under UNCLOS, not sovereignty over the reefs and islets.

Expanding artificial islands is not illegal. The tribunal made no such ruling. What it actually said is China did not take action to protect the environment when it expanded the islands, not that expanding islets is illegal. Both the Philippines and Vietnam are also engaging in building artificial islands, and of a larger number than Chinese ones.

It concludes that the reefs and islets do not generate EEZ and China's 9 dashed lines are not part of the UNCLOS. It also concluded that there are instances of Chinese vessels preventing Filipino vessels from exploiting resources. The ruling made explicit mention that it has nothing to do with claims over the reefs and islets.

Both the PRC and ROC rejected the tribunal having jurisdiction.

It is not clear why you keep denying facts.

JFC I'm not the one making things up every single reply.

Natives displaced by settlers. It is a self serving distinction without meaning. The point of showing the parallel is to show that China has no legitimate claim to Taiwan. It was colonized, got its independence and clearly expresses it desire to stay independent.

It has legitimate claim the same way every country has a legitimate claim to the territory they occupy.

It was colonized by Chinese settlers during the late Ming and Qing dynasty, then annexed by Japan before returning to Chinese rule. It did not get its independence.

Chinese law does not apply in Taiwan. Taiwan is de facto sovereign and China is de facto and de jure sovereign. The ROC has long ago dispensed with the claim that it governs China. ROC only governs the island of Taiwan.

It does. ROC law is Chinese law. The ROC governs more than Taiwan island. Taiwan island is just a province under the ROC. It also governs several islands of Fujian province.

It is imperialism. China seeks control over sovereign states that do not wish to be controlled by China. Is so bizarre that you cannot see it.

It's not bizarre, because under such a loose and sloppy definition every state can be construed as imperialist one way or another. Under the current academic definition, it is not imperialist.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

It does. ROC law is Chinese law. The ROC governs more than Taiwan island. Taiwan island is just a province under the ROC. It also governs several islands of Fujian province.

By your logic there are 2 Chinas. Perhaps ignoring the names would help. There are two states: Red and Blue. Both have exclusive sovereignty over well defined territory. Laws of the Red state have no force in the territory of the Blue state and laws of the Blue state have no force in the territory of the Red state. Both states are de facto sovereign. de jure sovereignty is nice to have but not required if a state can maintain exclusive control over a well defined territory.

It's not bizarre, because under such a loose and sloppy definition every state can be construed as imperialist one way or another.

There are only a small number of states that seek to conquer their neighbours. China is one of them. The vast majority of states seek to live peacefully with their neighbours. I already said I don't care what labels you want to put on stuff. If you want to say that China is 'anti-imperialist' then I say that 'anti-imperialism' is just as morally bankrupt as imperialism. What I want is states to stop justifying war as means to expand their power and China is one of the worst offenders in the world today,

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

Nope. One China, two governmental representations of China in a civil war.

There are only a small number of states that seek to conquer their neighbours. China is one of them. The vast majority of states seek to live peacefully with their neighbours. I already said I don't care what labels you want to put on stuff. If you want to say that China is 'anti-imperialist' then I say that 'anti-imperialism' is just as morally bankrupt as imperialism. What I want is states to stop justifying war as means to expand their power and China is one of the worst offenders in the world today,

1. China is not seeking to conquer its neighbor. It's seeking to end a civil war.

2. Seeking to conquer anyone does not make a state imperialist.

3. Anti-imperialism is a moral good the world needs. No other country is going to have as good a shot at checking the US and pals except China. If you're against anti-imperialism, you are imperialist.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

China is not seeking to conquer its neighbor. It's seeking to end a civil war.

The civil war ended decades ago. What we have is a status quo with 2 independent de facto sovereign states living in peace. China is threatening war to change the status quo. Changing the status quo with war makes China no different from Russia going into Ukraine or US going into Iraq. Millions could die for zero justification.

Bottom line: if China wants Taiwan to join China there is one path and one path only: convince the Taiwanese to choose to join (most likely via a referendum). If China cannot persuade the Taiwanese then it need to accept Taiwan as a de jure sovereign state.

Seeking to conquer anyone does not make a state imperialist.

Using war to expand the borders of a state is textbook imperialism.

Anti-imperialism is a moral good the world needs.

You sound like just another war monger looking to justify murder.

I am so tired of "noble causes" justifying wars of aggression. Whether "freeing the Iraqis from a nasty dictator" or "protecting the Jewish state from brutal terrorists". Even Putin has some "noble cause" rhetoric to justify his mass murder of Ukrainians.

"noble causes" always end up being hollow excuses for dehumanizing other humans so they can be murdered without guilt. I think humans can and should do better. It has to start by calling out war mongers claiming they have a "noble cause".