Tokyo — Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi signaled on Wednesday that Japan could participate in U.S. military operations to evacuate civilians from Taiwan in the event of a crisis, marking the most explicit statement yet from a Japanese leader on potential involvement in a Taiwan contingency.
Speaking to reporters at the Kantei, Takaichi said Japan would "consider all options" for assisting in evacuation operations for Japanese nationals and potentially U.S. citizens in Taiwan if tensions escalate. The remarks, reported by Kyodo News, represent a significant departure from Japan's traditional stance of strategic ambiguity on Taiwan-related operations.
"The safety of our nationals abroad is paramount," Takaichi said. "We have coordination frameworks with the United States, and Taiwan is no exception to our commitment to protect Japanese citizens."
The statement drew immediate condemnation from Beijing. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters that Japan was "playing with fire" and warned that any Japanese military involvement near Taiwan would be met with "resolute countermeasures." Chinese state media characterized Takaichi's comments as evidence of Tokyo's "dangerous shift toward militarism."
Watch what they do, not what they say. In East Asian diplomacy, the subtext is the text.
Takaichi, who took office in December 2025 following a snap election triggered by scandals in the Liberal Democratic Party, has adopted a more assertive posture toward China than her predecessors. A protégé of the late Shinzo Abe, she has emphasized strengthening Japan's defense capabilities and deepening security cooperation with Washington.
The timing of her remarks is significant. They come as U.S.-China tensions over Taiwan remain elevated, with Beijing conducting regular military exercises near the island and Washington maintaining its commitment to Taiwan's defense under the Taiwan Relations Act. Japan has increasingly positioned itself as a critical partner in U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy, particularly regarding Taiwan.
Under Japan's pacifist constitution, Article 9 restricts the use of force to self-defense. However, successive governments have interpreted "collective self-defense" more broadly, particularly after security legislation passed in 2015. Evacuation operations, even if conducted alongside U.S. forces, could theoretically fall within constitutional bounds if framed as protecting Japanese nationals.
Analysts note that approximately 24,000 Japanese nationals reside in Taiwan, along with tens of thousands of American citizens. Any crisis scenario would require coordination between Tokyo, Washington, and Taipei on logistics, airspace access, and military support.
"This is Takaichi making the subtext explicit," said Yuki Tatsumi, senior fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington. "Japan has been quietly planning for Taiwan contingencies for years. What's new is a prime minister saying it out loud."
The statement also reflects Japan's growing recognition that a Taiwan crisis would directly threaten Japanese security. Taiwan sits adjacent to Japan's Ryukyu Islands, and any military conflict would likely disrupt critical sea lanes through which 90% of Japan's energy imports pass.
Beijing's angry response underscores the sensitivity of the issue. China considers Taiwan a breakaway province and views any foreign military involvement near the island as interference in its internal affairs. Japanese participation in evacuation operations, even nominally civilian-focused, would likely be interpreted by Beijing as crossing a red line.
The diplomatic fallout from Takaichi's remarks is already visible. China recently canceled 49 flight routes to Japan, a move analysts interpret as economic pressure tied to deteriorating bilateral relations. Trade delegations have been postponed, and high-level diplomatic exchanges remain frozen.
For Tokyo, the calculus is clear: alignment with Washington on Taiwan comes with economic costs but strategic necessity. For Beijing, Takaichi's words confirm fears that Japan is abandoning its post-war pacifist identity.
The question now is whether words will translate into action — and how China will respond if they do.
