cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/51028841
[...]
Last November, Takaichi publicly referenced contingency planning related to Taiwan, stating that ‘peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait are directly linked to Japan’s security’ and that Tokyo ‘cannot rule out preparing for contingencies that affect our national survival’. Beijing treated the remarks as a direct violation of its red lines under its one-China principle.
What followed was a highly visible pressure campaign deploying the same mix of coercive tactics that Beijing has used against Japan, Taiwan and other countries for years.
[...]
This escalation was not an isolated reaction. Rather, it reflects a broader surge in Beijing’s public criticism of foreign governments over Taiwan. Coercion data compiled throughout 2025 for ASPI’s State of the Strait—a weekly newsletter tracking Beijing’s coercion of Taiwan—shows that China publicly criticised other countries 197 times for engaging with Taiwan-related issues, up from just 50 incidents in 2024. The United States remained the primary target, but Japan’s rise was dramatic. Tokyo went from just one public criticism in 2024 to 53 in 2025—a 5,200 percent increase—making it the second most criticised country.
The shift is most evident in how aggressively Beijing invoked the one-China principle. In 2025, alleged violations of the principle accounted for 143 public criticism incidents, up from just 24 in 2024—Japan alone accounted for 46 of these. While criticism over meetings with Taiwanese officials (32, up from 11) and arms sales (13, up from 3) also rose, they were dwarfed by the surge in one-China allegations. The data suggests Beijing is applying the principle more expansively, using it as a catch-all justification to police a widening range of foreign rhetoric and engagement related to Taiwan.
[...]
In the case of Japan, Beijing’s denunciation quickly shifted to economic coercion. It issued travel advisories, disrupted trade flows through informal restrictions and suspended bilateral exchanges. The measures were calibrated to be visible but deniable—classic boycott-style coercion designed to impose short-term pain without triggering formal trade disputes.
[...]
That retreat never came. Japanese officials declined to retract Takaichi’s remarks. Instead, they reiterated that contingency planning regarding Taiwan is consistent with Japan’s constitutional and security framework. There was no apology, no reframing and no policy concession.
[...]