Japan’s Survival-Threatening Situation: Don’t Play Politics with Serious Issues of National Security

Editorial

14:33 JST, November 13, 2025

If armed conflict erupts around Japan and elsewhere, should the Self-Defense Forces be deployed? If the government reveals its criteria for such decisions and its procedures, laying its cards on the table, it would only benefit an opposing nation.

During deliberations at a House of Representatives Budget Committee meeting, Katsuya Okada of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan questioned the government’s position on a situation threatening Japan’s survival that would allow the nation to exercise the right of collective self-defense in a limited manner.

Mentioning that Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, during last year’s election campaign for president of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, cited a possible Chinese maritime blockade against Taiwan as an example of such a situation, Okada repeatedly asked Takaichi to specify what cases would qualify as that kind of situation.

Takaichi said that if the U.S. military came to support Taiwan to break the blockade, some form of force could be used. She added, “If it involves the use of force, including warships, it could undoubtedly be deemed a survival-threatening situation.”

The concept of a survival-threatening situation was newly established under the security-related laws enacted in 2015. Such a situation is recognized when Japan determines, for example, that an attack on another country with which Japan has close ties threatens Japan’s survival, even if Japan itself is not directly attacked.

During deliberations 10 years ago, the government cited examples such as a contingency on the Korean Peninsula and a crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital crude oil transport route. Takaichi’s response this time, by mentioning Taiwan, gave the impression of the government taking a step deeper into the issue.

Compared to when the security-related laws were enacted, the situation in Taiwan has become more tense. Chinese military aircraft have repeatedly crossed the median line of the Taiwan Strait into Taiwanese airspace, intensifying pressure on Taiwan. China has not ruled out the use of force to achieve unification with Taiwan.

Although the United States maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity regarding its response to a Taiwan contingency, a blockade of the Taiwan Strait would likely impact U.S. security. Takaichi’s perception that a Taiwan contingency could constitute a survival-threatening situation for Japan is understandable.

However, caution likely is needed in her statements regarding future decision-making when Japan faces crises. It can be said to be appropriate that Takaichi subsequently said that “having referred to a specific situation is a point [for me] to reflect on.”

The CDPJ has demanded that Takaichi retract her statements, claiming the party “felt a danger” from her remarks. But it was the CDPJ itself that persistently pressed Takaichi for her views on the matter. What is the purpose in pressing her for a response only to then demand a retraction?

Even if the intent is simply to create ammunition for criticism at all costs, exploiting security policy for political gain is utterly unacceptable.

Regarding Takaichi’s response, the Chinese consul general in Osaka City made a post on social media in which he threatened to “cut off that dirty head.” This is an utterly inappropriate act for a diplomat. It is quite natural that the Japanese government lodged a protest against it.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Nov. 13, 2025)