Takaichi and a shift in 'strategic ambiguity' over Taiwan

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi certainly ruffled some feathers when she said on Nov. 7 that a Chinese naval blockade of Taiwan would directly threaten Japan’s survival, allowing the nation to exercise its right to engage in collective self-defense.

The media reported that the new prime minister failed to maintain “strategic ambiguity” over Taiwan and that even Foreign and Defense Ministry officials expressed concern that further defining a Taiwan contingency could “risk revealing Japan's hand.” Beijing predictably reacted with fierce opposition.

That said, however, I do not necessarily agree with these critical views. The gist of Takaichi's testimony regarding a Taiwan contingency is as follows:

Whether any given situation constitutes a “crisis of national existence” (enabling the exercise of collective self-defense) must be comprehensively assessed based on the specific circumstances of each case. If a nation imposed a naval blockade, for instance, a scenario could be imagined where the U.S. military comes in to break the blockade and some form of force is used during a confrontation.

It is extremely important to anticipate every possible worst-case situation. If it involves the use of warships and the exercise of force, it is conceivable that it could be deemed a situation that threatens the nation's security.

A “situation threatening Japan's survival” refers to a scenario in which a nation closely related to Japan is attacked, thereby threatening the country’s survival and posing a clear danger to the lives of Japanese citizens. It is a concept that was introduced in 2015 security legislation under then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's administration. If such a situation is recognized, Japan could exercise its right to collective self-defense and take military action alongside the nation under attack.

It is true that successive Japanese prime ministers have avoided providing a concrete definition of what constitutes a “crisis situation threatening Japan's survival.” Certainly, publicly linking specific examples of such situations to actions taken by the Self-Defense Forces in parliamentary debates could tie the government's hands in its responses and hinder its ability to make decisions appropriate to the situation.

On the other hand, Takaichi's recent remarks did not specifically cite examples of crisis situations threatening the nation's survival or refer to SDF actions therein. I believe the strategic ambiguity over an existential crisis to Japan has been sufficiently preserved. Incidentally, on Monday, while refusing to retract her testimony, Takaichi said: “As a point for reflection, I will refrain from explicitly mentioning specific cases here.” Therefore, this issue is unlikely to reignite.

Criticism that she “revealed her hand” is also being heard in Tokyo. But Takaichi's statement merely pointed out the obvious: That if a conflict over Taiwan involves the use of force, it could become an existential crisis that threatens the nation's survival. If it could never become such a situation, there would be no point in codifying the concept into law in the first place. Moreover, Takaichi's testimony did not mention specific responses or actions by the Self-Defense Forces. The Chinese side should be fully aware of this.

Nevertheless, on Nov. 10, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that “the Japanese leader has publicly made erroneous remarks about Taiwan in the Diet, suggesting the possibility of military intervention in the Taiwan Strait.” This constitutes, it continued, “a gross interference in China's internal affairs and a serious violation of the ‘One China’ principle,” and that “It starkly contradicts the Japanese government's previous political commitments.” China therefore expressed “strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition,” and lodged a “strict demarche and strong protest” with the Japanese side.

This much was expected. What was surprising, however, was the following social media posts by China's consul general in Osaka, making reference to Takaichi. That is “a path of death that only some stupid politicians in Japan would choose” and that “we just need to chop off their dirty heads without a moment of hesitation,” he said. I earnestly hope you regain at least a minimum of rationality and respect for the law, so you never again suffer a national collapse like the defeat in the previous war.

Dear readers, some of you may be diplomats from various countries. Do you consider posting such statements on social media to be well-refined, seasoned and professional diplomacy? I certainly do not.

In fact, there is precedent for Takaichi's testimony. Former U.S. President Joe Biden explicitly stated the United States would "defend Taiwan” numerous times when answering similar questions. Some attributed this to Biden's alleged cognitive decline, but I believe it might have been deliberate. At the very least, compared to Biden's statements, Takaichi's remarks were far more moderate.

Yet both statements share a common background — the reality that former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's artful 1972 “strategy of ambiguity” regarding Taiwan has recently started to erode. Deterrence against China through such ambiguity worked well when the People's Liberation Army was weak. But now that the PLA has grown in capability and is now much stronger, America's strategy risks emboldening the leaders in China instead. Biden likely wanted to strengthen deterrence against China by partially clarifying strategic ambiguity in light of this unpleasant reality.

However, such statements by Takaichi are by no means risk-free. China likely felt that its sense of face was severely damaged by her actions and remarks. Nothing is more dangerous than undermining China’s concept of mianzi (or face). At the same time, no deterrence strategy is more effective than forcing Chinese leaders to confront reality. Takaichi must keep this in mind.

Throughout history, dictators lacking accurate information have tended to make bad decisions. Absolute dictators, in particular, are prone to this.