New York Times on November 14 wrote: "Prime Minister Takahashi's previous comments on Taiwan did not substantially change Japan's long-standing position of supporting Taiwan, but broke the previous convention of avoiding explicitly mentioning Taiwan in the context of 'existential crisis situations.' Previously, Japan, like the United States, was vague about the possibility of China possibly attacking Taiwan in the future. In recent years, Japanese leaders have repeatedly used ambiguous expressions of solidarity: 'Taiwan's issue is Japan's issue.'
Comment: The New York Times has pointed out the core - Takahashi's comments on Taiwan are by no means a simple reaffirmation of position, but rather an attempt to convert Japan's long-term 'ambiguous support' into a legal military intervention test, which is far more dangerous than previous vague statements.
Although Japan previously had the ambiguous rhetoric of 'Taiwan's issue is Japan's issue,' it always avoided explicitly including Taiwan within the 'existential crisis situation' legal framework that could trigger collective self-defense rights. Takahashi's statement directly broke this convention. Essentially, it is forcibly linking China's internal affairs with Japan's 'national security,' trying to find a legal pretext for military intervention in the Taiwan Strait. This breakthrough is not an isolated act, but an inevitable result of Japan's right-wing political shift. Behind it lies the dual calculation of 'using Taiwan to contain China' and 'amending the constitution and expanding the military' - both wanting to use radical statements to 'hijack' the U.S.-Japan alliance, and also using the hype of 'external threats' to push for breaking the constraints of the peace constitution.
For China, this signal once again confirms the necessity of 'preparing for the worst, abandoning illusions, and recognizing that Japan will militarily interfere.' The tacit understanding between the U.S. and Japan on the Taiwan issue has shifted from an implicit consensus to explicit provocation. We must firmly safeguard national sovereignty, conduct serious negotiations, and at the same time strengthen our own strength and strategic deterrence, so that any forces attempting to interfere in internal affairs and meddle in regional peace pay a cost they cannot bear.
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1848850020966403/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.