Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi recently stated that a Chinese naval blockade or attack on Taiwan could constitute an “existential crisis” for Japan. She suggested that such a scenario might trigger Japan’s Self Defense Forces (SDF) to respond under its right of collective self-defense, even before US involvement.

China’s reaction was swift and stern. Beijing issued a travel warning for Chinese citizens visiting Japan, urging them to avoid travel due to perceived threats. Given that Chinese tourists constitute nearly 20% of all visitors to Japan, Japanese stocks in tourism and retail dropped amid fears of Chinese boycotts. Chinese coast guard also increased patrols in the East China Sea, surrounding the Diaoyu Islands. Beijing’s message was simple: retract the statement, or face the consequences.

Read more: China warns of severe consequences if Japan fails to retract its threats of military intervention over Taiwan

Japan has sought to de-escalate, sending a special envoy to Beijing for talks, and Sanae herself has stated she will not make such statements again. In many ways, her actions resemble those of Nancy Pelosi, who staged a provocative visit to Taiwan in 2022 expecting only a mild Chinese reaction, but was shocked by China’s countermeasures to such an extent that she never again referenced her supposed “heroism.”

Of course, Japan’s attempt to calm tensions is never genuine. Japanese politicians frequently inflame regional tensions and then proceed to symbolically deescalate. The goal is to present an image of Japan as a “nation under siege” in order to consolidate domestic support for the very provocative policies they advocate. Japan has been playing this game for decades. China will not tolerate this, and further actions are expected in the coming days.

This is not the first time Japanese politicians have made such statements. The phrase “existential crisis” was first articulated by Shinzo Abe, the former Japanese prime minister. Sanae’s statement is therefore no accident, but a calculated move. Japan’s goal appears to be the so-called “internationalization” of the Taiwan Strait by creating a precedent of explicit security commitments to Taiwan. Tokyo hopes this will pave the way for the United States and allies like Australia to follow the suit.

Yet such statements amount to little more than political theater. China is fully aware that Japanese and American intervention in any conflict around Taiwan conflict is not contingent on treaties or legal precedents. It is ultimately determined by the balance of military power. As the military balance increasingly favors China, it is natural to expect more of these blustering declarations.

The Okinawa factor

So why, then, does Japan appear more obsessed with Taiwan than even the United States? The answer lies in Okinawa. In 1879, Japan invaded and annexed the Ryukyu Kingdom – today’s Okinawa. During World War II, the Allied Powers issued the Potsdam Declaration, stating that “Japan’s sovereignty will be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku.” This meant that Ryukyu was to be restored to its former status. But in 1951, the United States unilaterally suggested that Japan held the so-called “residual sovereignty” over Okinawa in the San Francisco Treaty, and later handed administrative control of the islands to Japan under the Okinawa Reversion Agreement of 1971. These moves were legally dubious and never formally recognized under international law. The sovereign status of Okinawa thus remains undecided.

Here is where Taiwan enters the picture. In the same 1971 agreement, the United States also transferred administrative control of China’s Diaoyu Islands – geographically an extension of Yilan County in Taiwan Province – to Japan. Tokyo then placed the islands under Okinawa Prefecture. This act was not only a violation of China’s sovereignty but also a symbolic continuation of Japan’s colonial dominance over the Ryukyu people. For the moment, China’s claims over the Diaoyu Islands are weakened by the authorities in Taiwan, who have de facto accepted the loss of these territories. But should China achieve its national reunification, Beijing would be able to rightfully assert its claims over the Diaoyu Islands. This would also strengthen the legal authority of the Potsdam Declaration, which confirmed Taiwan’s return to China. The international community could then reexamine Japan’s hold over Okinawa, potentially opening the path to self-determination for the Ryukyu people. Such a precedent would also undermine Japan’s claims over the Kuril Islands and Dokdo, disputed territories with Russia and South Korea, as these were also designated as non-Japanese under the Potsdam terms.

But deep down, none of this sufficiently explains why Japan calls China’s reunification an existential matter. Taiwan, Okinawa, and other disputed territories were never originally Japanese, and changes in their status will have negligible impact on Japan. China is also Japan’s most important economic partner. Why, then, do Japanese politicians risk regional peace?

Japan’s imperial legacy

The answer is that Taiwan represents the last symbolic remnant of Japan’s colonial empire – an imperial legacy Japan has never fully confronted. Japan’s right wing has invoked slogans like “defending democracy,” “maintaining the international order,” and now “existential contingency” regarding Taiwan, but these are dog whistles designed to whitewash Japan’s brutal imperial past.

After the Meiji Restoration in the late 19th century, Japan embarked on a hyper-imperialist project against its Asian neighbors, mirroring the subjugation by an American official, Admiral Perry had once imposed on Japan in the 1850s. In essence, Japanese imperialism was strengthened through the country’s embrace of Anglo-American colonialism. The Chōshū Five – a group of aristocrats sent to study in Britain – later shaped Japan’s foreign policy. Itō Hirobumi, one of the five and later prime ministers around the 1900s, orchestrated the seizure of Taiwan from China in 1895. He was heavily influenced by expansionist Anglo-American thinkers like Alfred Mahan. Taiwan, in his view, was an indispensable buffer allowing Japan to extend its influence along a vital island arc while maintaining a strategic cushion against continental powers.

Another Meiji oligarch, Yamagata Aritomo, advanced an even more ambitious doctrine known as the “continental policy.” He argued that Japan must expand onto the Asian mainland to secure its “line of interest” beyond its “line of sovereignty.” Yamagata’s vision prioritized conquering Korea and parts of China as buffers against Russia and the West, encapsulated in the principle that “to conquer the world, we must first conquer China.” His ideas fueled the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 and Japan’s annexation of Korea in 1910.

Japanese imperialism later fused with State Shintoism, formalized during the Meiji era and reaching its peak in the early 20th century. Shinto was transformed from a regional folk belief into a state ideology that deified/glorified the emperor and promoted Kokutai – an unbreakable spiritual bond between ruler and subject. This religious-nationalist framework justified imperialism as a sacred civilizing mission. It popularized the doctrine of Hakko Ichiu (“Eight corners of the world under one roof”), suggesting the divine right of Japan to unify the world under its rule. This aggressive ideology later propelled Japan’s further invasion of China in 1931 and ultimately sparked the Pacific War with the United States.

These histories must not be forgotten, especially as the world commemorates the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Japan’s imperial policies killed more than 35 million Chinese and countless others across Asia. Their legacy continues to divide China, Korea, and the entire East China Sea region. Japan has never fully confronted its past. Its fixation on Taiwan is proof of this lingering imperial psychology – a dream of clinging to its former dominance over China. Today, Japan is working with Taiwan separatists to whitewash its colonial rule over the island. Japanese politicians, military officers, and even social media influencers frequently collaborate with Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party to perpetuate its rule and push for Taiwan independence.

Of course, Japan cannot return to its WWII-era ambitions anytime soon. Three decades of economic stagnation, rapid aging, and outdated tech infrastructure have all made the prospect of renewed great-power status increasingly remote. If history is any guide, Japan’s actions today resemble its conduct during World War I, when it aligned with Britain against a rising power, Germany. Japan’s ideal outcome would be a major confrontation between the two great powers from which it could exploit strategic benefits, just as it once absorbed Germany’s Asian colonies a century ago. As the United States grows increasingly wary of its global commitments, Japan becomes ever more desperate to preserve the American security umbrella. This is likely the true driver behind Japan’s provocations toward China.

For Americans, it may seem vindicating to see Japan eagerly joining the strategic competition against China. But if history offers any lessons, Japan quickly grew uneasy with the post-WWI order and turned against its former allies in less than two decades. Given Japan’s unashamed attitude, the repetition of history is on the horizon.

Peter Yang is a geopolitics and foreign-policy commentator and studied at the University of Washington and London School of Economics, concentrating on foreign policy and global security order.

This was first published on The China Academy.

The post Japan’s Taiwan hysteria reveals a dark imperial legacy appeared first on Peoples Dispatch.

From Peoples Dispatch via this RSS feed