What happens if Japan joins the war in Taiwan

A special military operation will turn into a total war with no guardrail

Sanae Takaichi, the newly minted prime minister of Japan, addressed to the Japanese parliament in November that a conflict in Taiwan constituted a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan, implying Japan will directly and proactively involve itself in a fight with China.

The remark came shortly after the big meeting between President Xi and Trump in South Korea at the end of October to reset trade ties. The question of Taiwan was explicitly shelved by both during the meeting.

To say such a remark was provocative was like calling Tiger Woods “a good golfer”.

A rough and imperfect analogy would be for Mark Carney to declare Canada will attack the US if Alaska secedes from the US because any US action to reunite Alaska will represent an existential threat to Canada.

You can imagine the US reactions to such an assertion – and Canada has no historical baggage of crimes committed against the US or Alaska.

What Takaichi is asserting is that in a scenario where the secessionist government in Taiwan declares de jure independence and Beijing prepares for a military action, Japan could preemptively launch an attack on China without China first attacking Japanese forces or territories.

The phrase “survival threatening situation” is not a casual slip of tongue. It has a specific and deadly meaning in Japanese official lingo.

Imperial Japan invoked the same exact phrase to justify its aggressions prior to the 1931 invasion of Manchuria in Northeast China, and again prior to the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

In the Japanese post-war constitution, its defense force is only allowed to activate for a foreign war in a “survival-threatening situation”.

Over the Taiwan issue, even the US has long pursued the so called “strategic ambiguity” to avoid directly crossing China’s red line. It recognizes a One China policy while rejecting any change of the status quo.

Washington has chosen to be deliberately vague about its reactions to any potential Chinese reunification by force.

While there is little doubt Washington has discussed Taiwan war scenarios with its regional vassals behind closed doors, overt strategic clarity is considered dangerous.

No sitting Japanese prime minister before Takaichi in post WW2 history ever voiced any “survival threatening” argument regarding Taiwan in official public setting, whatever their private thoughts.

Even Shinzo Abe, the right-wing politician and Takaichi’s mentor, only hinted at this after he stepped down as prime minister.

He argued “a Taiwan contingency would be a Japan contingency”.

While the essence is the same, the language is much vaguer. In the highly sensitized China Japan relationship over Taiwan, the word games Takaichi played are exceptionally dangerous.

This remark is immediately condemned by Beijing who considers this as a direct challenge by a defeated country against a victor country and a complete violation of the international order established in the aftermath of WW2.

Beijing has launched a series of diplomatic, economic and cultural counter actions.

More importantly, China has made formal representations to the United Nations and an official citation of the “Enemy States Clauses,” according to Articles 53, 77, and 107 of the United Nations Charter.

These clauses were established for the Fascist or militaristic countries that were defeated in WW2 (i.e. Japan and Germany), aiming to prevent these nations from initiating wars of aggression again.

They are intended to create exceptions to the Charter’s general rules against the use of force, specifically targeting the WW2 Axis powers.

The clauses define an “Enemy State” as any state that, during World War II, was an enemy of any signatory of the UN Charter.

Article 107 lays out the Core Provision: “Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action”.

This article grandfathers actions taken by the Allied Powers against the defeated states (like occupation, war crimes trials, etc.) and stated that these post-war measures are legally valid and do not require Security Council approval.

Article 53 provides for Enemy State Exception for measures directed “against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state” (an enemy state), pursuant to Article 107.

This means a former Allied power could take enforcement action against a former enemy state, without prior Security Council authorization, if that state resumes an aggressive policy.

Chinese officials and media have explicitly stated that if Japan were to take action on the Taiwan issue, particularly military intervention, it could activate the “Enemy States Clauses” in the UN Charter.

This would permit China and other founding UN members to take pre-emptive military action against such enemy state (former Axis powers) in full legal compliance of the UN Charter.

Furthermore, legal scholars in China are advocating the invocation of UN Article 77 on Trusteeship to negate any Japanese sovereignty over Ryukyu Islands, of which Okinawa is a part.

Japan annexed the Ryukyu Kingdom in 1879, establishing it as Okinawa Prefecture. China has never officially recognized the Ryukyu as part of Japan.

Furthermore, both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration at the end of the WW2 ruled Japan’s legal territory is limited to its four main islands. Its territorial expansion beyond these is considered legally voided.

UN Charter Article 77 concludes “territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War” as categories of territories that could be placed under the UN trusteeship system.

Current Okinawa is administered under US Trusteeship.

These clauses provide a legal basis for action if Japan were to abandon its post-war pacifist stance and resume an “aggressive policy,” particularly in connection with the Taiwan issue or territorial disputes.

Since the crisis broke out, Beijing has consulted with Russia. Both countries, as victor nations of WW2, have agreed the Japanese prime minister’s remarks constitute a direct challenge to post WW2 order.

Russia has also aligned itself with China’s citation of the “Enemy State” clause when Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Sergei Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, and Sergei Shoigu, the Russian Security Council Secretary, on December 2.

In the press release after the meeting, they jointly announced “the two countries agreed to firmly uphold the victory of WWII and resolutely oppose any attempts to change the verdict on the history of colonization and aggression”.

The sheer madness and stupidity of Takaichi is beyond comprehension.

No Chinese leader or political party will retain legitimacy in the eyes of the population if there is any softness towards resurgent militarism in Japan.

From military readiness, economic power, to sheer size and resources, Japan stands zero chance to win a military contest against China. In a fully-fledged war, Japan will be decimated.

Many Chinese are secretly gleeful when Takaichi crossed the absolute “red line” with Beijing. She just provided the perfect own goal for China to settle the score with Japan for its crimes and atrocities from 1895 to 1945.

Opinion polls on Chinese social media now show virtually 100% Chinese citizens support the government to take military actions against Japan if it threatens China again.

To understand Chinese animosity against Japan, you have to multiply the hatred born by the Americans against the Muslims after 9/11 by 1,000.

3,000 lives were lost on 9/11. In comparison, 300,000 Chinese were killed by the Japanese during the Rape of Nanjing. 17 to 20 million Chinese were killed in the 8 years of war with Japan from 1937 to 1945.

Unlike Germany after WW2, Japan has never fully repented or atoned for its crimes against China and other peoples of Asia.

It has never paid compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Comfort Women.

It has not atoned for its crimes against Southeast Asia where it massacred over 20,000 in one day on the beach of Changi after the fall of Singapore, or the “march of death” of English and Australian POWs.

Its political leaders pay regular visit to the Yasukuni Shrine founded to honor Japanese war dead, including Class A war criminals who were hanged after the war.

An act akin to German politicians going to pay annual respect to a monument to Nazi German soldiers as well as Hitler, Himmler, Goering, and Goebbels.

A Chinese military takeover of Taiwan, in the event of a formal secession, is most likely conducted as a Special Military Operation with special care not to inflict unnecessary civilian casualties.

Precision strikes and avoidance of collateral damage will be paramount parameters of the conflict.

Beijing will NOT take the first shot at the US even if the US declares it will come to Taiwan’s defense. Beijing will let the US fire the first shot before retaliating.

However, if Japan proactively joins in the fight, there will be no guardrail with the Japanese and its home territory.

It will be a total war that will be taken to Tokyo and Osaka and Japan’s home islands.

For those Taiwanese who side with the Japanese, they will be dealt with as Japanese collaborators without mercy.

Their one protection – being Chinese – will disappear and turn into the biggest liability – being quasi-Japanese.

Given the transparent aggressiveness of her remarks and the entirely predictable Chinese reactions, one wonders what is the motivation for such assertion of the leader of a defeated nation – is it pure madness or a calculated move to step forward as a willing proxy in the US cold war with China?

Takaichi’s remark was made shortly after Trump’s visit to Asia. Before meeting Xi, Trump met with the new Japanese prime minister. One wonders what Trump told her.

If Takaichi made the remarks purely on her own without consulting the Americans, is she expecting the US to come to Japan’s aid when Tokyo provokes a war with China?

Is she expecting the American public to willingly fight and die for Japan, a mere vassal, in a war with a nuclear peer 7,000 miles from US homeland?

Any rational analysis will tell you the escalation dominance clearly lies with Beijing in a US-China confrontation over either Taiwan or Japan.

If the US doesn’t come to her aid, does she expect Japan to prevail in a war with China? Doesn’t she know it is a suicidal mission that will reduce her country to ruins far worse than Ukraine?

A far more likely scenario is Takaichi made the remark as a probe to test China’s red line at the bequest of Washington.

She wouldn’t have dared to make such provocative remark without the blessing of Washington, which is its official occupier and the real commander of the Japanese military and political structure.

She is a lap dog, no more no less.

The US itself is unwilling to shed its “strategic ambiguity” as it knows this is the best policy choice to preserve its flexibility, including “doing an art of the deal” with China over Taiwan.

But a disposable pawn like Japan can be used to test Beijing’s resolve.

If China is adamant on the red line as expected, then Washington is not directly exposed. After all, Trump still needs Beijing to relax its critical minerals ban and buy US farm products. He doesn’t want to burn the bridges.

If Beijing punishes Japan for the provocation, Tokyo will be paying the price, a non-concern for Washington which has every incentive to encourage maximum bad blood between China and Japan.

In Trump’s eyes, Japan is as guilty as China in “taking advantage of the US” and worse – Beijing at least doesn’t freeride on the US coattail for protection.

In Trump’s calculation, the more Japan depends on the US for its survival, the better to extract more weapon sales, US-bound investment and industrial relocation from it.

In the US National Security Strategy published in early December, the US has spelt out its intention to “outsource” securities to its “allies and partners” in both Europe and Asia.

The goal is clear – just like Europe is asked to take on the burden for Ukraine, Japan is being asked to take on the burden for Taiwan, maybe with Australia and the Philippines, the other two junior partners in west Pacific.

Of course, the latter two are minor minions with negligible capabilities that will prove more liability than asset in a real showdown.

But Japan has the size and wealth that can be remilitarized as a guard dog for US interests in Asia.

Perhaps a docile South Korea as well, though the new President there seems a lot more intelligent than Takaichi.

The explicit US goal in the National Security Strategy is to turn these “allies” into frontline battlefields like Ukraine against US geostrategic adversaries while Washington moves the chess pieces from the security of “western hemisphere”.

What the Japanese have not realized is in this case, Taiwan won’t be the Ukraine, but Japan itself will be the Ukraine.

Taiwan is the equivalent of the Donbass region as a historical part of China and will be preserved and reconstructed after the war.

Japan will be west Ukraine that is being bombarded into a wasteland and will stay a rump state for the foreseeable future.

If a war breaks out between China and Japan, the result will be Japan again demilitarized, its Yasukuni Shrine demolished, and the Ryukyu Islands will revert back to independence.

Japan will live under permanent threat of blockade and sanctions by China, like the kind that the US has imposed upon Cuba since 1963.

Japan will never become a major power in Asia and will lose the protection of its American daddy forever.

As Kissinger shrewdly observed, being US’s enemies is dangerous but being its “friends” is fatal.