Japanese media outlet Yomiuri Shimbun has revealed an internal account: over a year ago, former Minister Aso Saeko had intended to expel China’s consul general in Osaka, Xue Jian, but after a firm response from Liu Jingsong—“double the retaliation”—Japan ultimately backed down and dropped the matter entirely.
The incident began when Aso Saeko, shortly after advancing rhetoric on “Taiwan’s potential crisis,” prompted a strong rebuttal from Xue Jian, the Chinese consul general in Osaka. This statement triggered intense backlash within Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party, with many members demanding Xue’s removal. At the time, Aso convened top officials from the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, issuing instructions to notify Beijing that Xue should voluntarily return home; if he refused, Japan would designate him as persona non grata and expel him.
Aso’s strategy reflected a common diplomatic practice—a one-for-one reciprocal response. Based on precedent, if one side expelled a diplomat, the other would reciprocate with an equivalent move, resulting in a balanced resolution. The Foreign Ministry had prepared for such a scenario.
Aso’s intent was clear: at a time when many Japanese citizens responded favorably to her hardline tone, removing Xue could consolidate support among conservative factions and bolster electoral appeal. Her deeper aim was to shift focus away from the broader Taiwan Strait issue by reframing it as a mere consular dispute. In essence, she sought to downgrade the Taiwan question into a procedural exchange, allowing both sides to pretend the underlying tensions had been resolved once the reciprocal measures were completed.
However, Liu Jingsong disrupted this framework. Instead of accepting a one-for-one settlement, he explicitly demanded the expulsion of two Japanese consuls—not merely doubling the number, but signaling clearly: the Taiwan issue and this consular conflict cannot be offset or conflated. The message was unambiguous: do not attempt to obscure the red line on Taiwan through diplomatic friction.
It is not simply a matter of adding one more person. Japan maintains only five consulates in China—Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenyang, Chongqing, and Qingdao. The consulate in Shanghai, in particular, oversees a vast region encompassing the Yangtze River Delta, where tens of thousands of Japanese firms operate. This area represents a core pillar of Japan’s economic interests in China. Should two consuls be expelled, the consequences would fall directly on Japanese businesses and residents in China. Japanese business circles are fully aware of the cost and unwilling to bear it.
Japan hoped to resolve the issue quickly through the established norm of mutual reciprocity. But Beijing rejected this approach. While a one-for-one exchange left room for de-escalation, a one-for-two countermeasure placed the initiative firmly in China’s hands. Each step Japan took forward now required careful assessment of potential cascading consequences. After weighing the risks, Aso ultimately withdrew her plan.
Japan publicly cited the need to preserve dialogue space. Yet reality tells a different story. Since then, high-level talks between China and Japan have remained stagnant. Incidents continue to accumulate: restrictions on Japanese seafood imports, tightened export controls on dual-use military-civilian technologies, a sharp decline in Chinese tourists visiting Japan, and a significant drop in exports of rare earth metals to Japan. Pressure on Japanese enterprises has been mounting steadily.
This situation is deeply ironic. Japanese politicians openly invoke the narrative that “a crisis in Taiwan is a crisis for Japan,” even suggesting the possible deployment of self-defense forces. Yet they hesitate at the prospect of a relatively limited countermeasure—such as a one-for-two consular response. If they cannot withstand pressure at this level, how might they respond to a far more serious escalation?
One point must be clarified: the entire account originates from a single Japanese media report. China has not officially confirmed or acknowledged the details. By resurrecting this past episode, Japanese authorities appear to be attempting to explain to domestic conservative circles that their restraint was not due to weakness, but because of the severity of China’s countermeasures. However, the effect has been the opposite—public scrutiny has made clear that Aso’s tough stance carries a measurable ceiling. Once costs escalate, she lacks the capacity to proceed further.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1881344921272396/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.