Starting with the Recent Moves: Has Sanae Takaichi Crossed a Line?

1.Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has repeatedly made hardline, openly hawkish statements and taken actions that echo wartime Japanese militarist language—invoking claims such as “threats to Japan’s survival” to justify military expansion and to push against long-standing nuclear restraints. From the perspective of political discourse, and given her senior position within Japan’s leadership, do these remarks and actions cross the post-war boundary set by Japan’s doctrine of an “exclusively defense-oriented policy”?

It is evident that Takaichi's advocacy for military intervention in the Taiwan Strait and nuclear weapons development under the pretext of Japan's survival is fundamentally a justification for military actions aimed at undermining regional security, interfering in other countries' internal affairs, and pursuing offensive or even weapons of mass destruction. This clearly violates Japan's principle of “exclusively defensive.” 

As Japan's Prime Minister, Takaichi's words and actions represent the government's stance and policy, leaving no room for ambiguity or speculation.

It is noteworthy that the so-called “exclusively defensive posture” itself is highly deceptive. This principle was established for Japan's Self-Defense Forces in 1972, stipulating that the right to self-defense could only be exercised in response to armed attack. While appearing as a form of self-restraint, it marked the first breakthrough within the constitutional framework to recognize Japan's “counterattack capability,” laying the groundwork for gradually lifting restrictions on its military power.

In recent decades, Japan has gradually dismantled restrictions on overseas operations through legislation in the 1990s. During the era of Abe, the chief architect of Japan's remilitarization, the government unilaterally reinterpreted Article 9 of the Constitution through a 2014 cabinet resolution. This interpretation was then codified into law via the 2015 Peace and Security Legislation, granting Japan its first-ever collective self-defense rights. As an ardent follower of Abe, Takaichi sought to deliver the final blow to lift restrictions and achieve political activation. Her core ambition was to pave the way for Japan's remilitarization and the eventual revision of the “Peace Constitution,” propelling Japan from a “legally war capable nation” to an openly “war capable nation.”

2.Is her rhetoric merely an expression of her personal hardline stance, or does it reflect the broader rightward shift of Japan’s conservative political forces? Within Japan’s domestic political landscape, why are such voices continually amplified?

Takaichi's remarks are by no means an isolated “gaffe,” but rather an inevitable outcome of Japan's political spectrum accelerating its shift to the right. Its ideological roots lie in Japan's pre-war “Imperial Nationalist Historical View,” which fundamentally denies the aggressive nature of Japan's modern wars of aggression and rejects the outcomes of the Tokyo Trials. 

This perspective advocates restoring Japan's former glory as a powerful nation, translating into policies centered on “escaping the postwar framework” to drive constitutional revision and achieve national “normalization.” This ideology gained traction in the 1980s and post-Cold War era as Japan grew increasingly dissatisfied with its status as an “economic giant, political dwarf.” Under the prolonged administrations of Junichiro Koizumi and Shinzo Abe, right-wing thinking was propelled to the center of the political stage.

The current rightward shift in Japan's overall political landscape provides fertile ground for this “genetic” growth. 

First, external threats perceived from China's rise and the Russia-Ukraine conflict have overwhelmed the pacifist consensus. 

Second, the political spectrum and power center within the LDP have shifted rightward, with the ‘Seiwakai’ faction—dominated by Abe loyalists—overpowering doves, creating a “bad money drives out good” political atmosphere. 

Third, the collective muteness and failed checks and balances of opposition parties. The Constitutional Democratic Party and the Democratic Party for the People proved incapable of countering the LDP, while the Komeito's withdrawal from the ruling coalition left Japan without a brake. The alliance between the LDP's right wing and the far-right Japan Innovation Party has spawned the most right-wing government since the postwar era.

Finally, the current wave of online populism in Japanese society has acted as a catalyst for the unchecked growth of the Japanese right. Takagi's extreme rhetoric and actions highlight the root of Japan's decline anxiety and its hostile targeting of China, representing an exploitation, reinforcement, and resonance with this segment of online right-wing and xenophobic sentiment.

3.From a regional security perspective, what implications do such moves carry for Northeast Asia—and potentially for the broader international order?

There is an old Chinese saying: One word can bring prosperity to a nation, and one word can bring ruin to a nation. Kōsaka's dangerous assertions will only make Japan once again an unstable factor undermining regional stability and world peace.

First, historically speaking, behind Takagi's stance lies the obsession and arrogance of Japan's right-wing forces seeking to breach the Peace Constitution and pursue the status of a “military power.” In recent years, Japan has raced down the path of military expansion, revealing dangerous signs of militarism's resurgence. Japanese militarism has repeatedly used the pretext of so-called “existential crises” to launch external aggressions, including the September 18 Incident that ignited the invasion of China. The resurgence of such rhetoric today should prompt vigilance across the Asia-Pacific region regarding Japan's potential intent to repeat historical mistakes.

Second, from a geopolitical perspective, Takaichi's actions blatantly violate the United Nations Charter and the One-China principle, compelling neighboring nations to once again view Japan as a potential threat. This escalates regional arms races and regional tensions. Should Takaichi's ambitions materialize into actual intervention, Japan itself would face catastrophic consequences.

Finally, from Japan's own perspective, Takagi's remilitarization policy will inevitably deepen Japan's strategic dependence, worsen its surrounding environment, and trap it in a security dilemma. Since Japan has already converted dozens of airports and ports from Hokkaido in the north to Okinawa in the south into dual-use military-civilian facilities, any involvement in a Taiwan Strait conflict risks turning the entire nation into a battlefield—effectively strapping its entire population onto a self-destructive chariot.

History Cannot Be “Selectively Forgotten”

4.The recently transferred Russian interrogation records reveal direct confessions from Unit 731 perpetrators. Why have such incontrovertible historical facts been consistently downplayed or denied within Japan for decades?

There are highly complex factors at play here, and I will outline several key aspects:

First, as mentioned earlier, the imperialist historical perspective. Japan's right-wing refuses to acknowledge either its acts of aggression or its responsibility for defeat. Consequently, everything related to the war is distorted, falsified, and glorified. Particularly regarding atrocities like Unit 731, the Nanjing Massacre, and the comfort women system—crimes so heinous they could undermine both international and domestic perceptions of Japan's founding principles—the government has never dared to be candid with its people. Take Takeuchi Yoshio, a Japanese scholar of Lu Xun, who once posed this question: “Have we been bullying the weak under the guise of building a better East Asia?!” This is precisely why right-wing populism finds fertile ground in Japan—from their earliest education, they are taught to deny historical culpability, making it natural for them to reject the postwar order.

Secondly, international power politics played a role. Post-war America, driven by Cold War interests, unilaterally courted Japan. This led the international community to never truly confront Japan's right-wing militarism and war crimes. Not only did it fail to promote narratives about Japanese aggression in China on the international stage—as it did with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust—it effectively tacitly approved and even encouraged Japan's efforts to conceal and distort its history. Take Unit 731 as an example: its members returning after the war faced no trials. Instead, many became directors of major Japanese hospitals. Their wealth and prestige were built upon countless lives lost. These are the vested interests behind historical revisionism.

Finally, driven by its current need to confront China, Japan is launching a government-led, systematic campaign of historical sophistry and collective memory reshaping. This has transcended mere denial of historical details, escalating to a battle over who has the right to write history and who controls the narrative. This is a war over memory.

5.Can a country that has not fully confronted its wartime crimes legitimately claim moral authority to “normalize” its military and security posture?

Of course not. It's simple logic: in any modern civilized society, a violent criminal with blood on his hands who has evaded justice would never be allowed to possess firearms or knives. Yet this is the bizarre reality unfolding in Japan.

We must recognize that the Japanese nation possesses a strong gambler's and aggressor's gene—its militarist tradition. In other words, whenever Japan faces internal crises or gains expansionist capabilities, it will go all-in, seeking to achieve its goals through military aggression rather than peaceful diplomatic and political-economic means. This stems from deep-rooted national character and geopolitical origins; it is structural, not accidental.

We must recognize that Japan's invasions of China were not isolated incidents but occurred at least four times over the past 1,300 years, each time with the explicit goal of complete conquest and annihilation. This demonstrates that Japan is not merely a repeat offender but a habitual, persistent criminal with no moral foundation on matters of peace. As mentioned earlier, Japan never underwent genuine post-war reckoning with its militarism; it has never reflected or apologized. This means its barbaric genes carry a significant risk of resurgence.

The Real Costs of Remilitarism: Who ultimately paying the price?

6.Japan’s right-wing push for military expansion and adversarial narratives—what tangible costs does this impose domestically, including economic risks, and erosion of regional trust?

It should be noted that Japanese militarism is a common enemy of all peoples worldwide, including the Japanese people themselves. Sanae Takaichi's attempt to revive Japanese militarism will also burden the Japanese public with heavy security, economic, and moral costs.

First, as previously stated, Takaichi's remilitarization policies will inevitably intensify Japan's strategic dependence and worsen its regional environment, trapping the nation in a security dilemma. With dozens of airports and ports from Hokkaido in the north to Okinawa in the south converted into dual-use military-civilian facilities, Japan risks turning its entire territory into a battlefield should it intervene in a Taiwan Strait conflict—effectively strapping its citizens onto a self-destructive chariot.

Second, Japan's defense spending has increased for 13 consecutive years, surging by approximately 60% over the past five years. Facing multiple pressures including sluggish economic growth and shrinking fiscal space, Japan's defense budget has skyrocketed against a backdrop of high social security burdens and persistent inflation. This expansion can only be achieved through tax hikes or by diverting funds from essential public services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure—ultimately placing the heavy burden on ordinary Japanese citizens. Citizen rallies have erupted across Japan, vehemently protesting the government's military expansionist course. Scholars note that the newly added defense spending exceeding 10 trillion yen imposes an extremely heavy burden on Japan's economy. The public overwhelmingly hopes the government will prioritize resources for urgent issues like economic revitalization and improving social welfare.

Third, Japan's approach will inevitably deepen distrust among its neighbors and the international community. Nearly all of Japan's neighboring countries possess nuclear capabilities while also harboring territorial and historical disputes with Japan. Japanese citizens should seriously reflect on why almost all their neighbors view them with suspicion—is this not a warning sign for Japan itself?

7.For the Asia-Pacific region, is the resurgence of Japanese militarism becoming a source of instability, and what spillover risks must neighboring countries bear?

There is no doubt that Japanese militarism is becoming a source of risk to peace in the Asia-Pacific region. This encompasses three key risks:

First, the post-war peace order faces the risk of collapse. Established on the immense sacrifices of World War II with the aim of suppressing militarism, this international order serves as the cornerstone for maintaining long-term peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific. Japanese militarism seeks to negate and subvert this order, which will ultimately lead to the disintegration of the existing framework, plunging the region into chaos and instability.

Second, a regional arms race may become inevitable. Given neighboring countries' lingering suspicions toward post-war Japan, Tokyo's aggressive military buildup and development of offensive weapons will inevitably trigger a chain reaction among its neighbors. This security dilemma could easily ignite a new arms race, consuming vast social resources, escalating regional tensions, and creating a vicious cycle.

Third, the risk of major power conflict is sharply escalating. In recent years, alongside the strengthening of military cooperation within the Japan-U.S. alliance and through tactics like hyping the South China Sea issue, European military forces have also shown a tendency to enter East Asia, following the U.S. lead. Combined with the pre-existing presence of China and Russia in the region, East Asia now converges major strategic powers including the U.S., China, Russia, and Europe. Japan stands as the focal point for the projection of all these powers, making it highly susceptible to becoming the fuse that ignites direct confrontation between major powers. The consequences would be catastrophic, dragging the entire Asia-Pacific region and indeed the entire world into an unpredictable abyss of conflict.

The Nuclear Paradox:

8.Japan portrays itself as the world’s only atomic-bomb victim, yet faces nuclear contamination, leaks, and safety incidents. What does this discrepancy between narrative and reality reveal?

Japan itself harbors deep internal contradictions regarding this reality. We all know that the image of Godzilla largely stems from Japan's “monstrous” imagination of nuclear explosions and radiation, as well as its understanding of the catastrophic consequences.

As a major user of nuclear energy, Japan is also considered a threshold nuclear power. For a nation that has always advocated learning from the strong to become strong itself, confronting its history of nuclear bombing has generated two distinct emotions. The first is a recognition of nuclear energy's immense power, fueling an urgent desire to master and utilize it—including the nuclear umbrella or nuclear weapons mentioned earlier.

The second is leveraging its history of nuclear bombing to craft an identity as a victim and a champion of peace. This duality manifests in two ways: on one hand, the Sato cabinet traded the Three Non-Nuclear Principles for America's nuclear protection and the international community's perception of Japan as a peaceful nation; on the other, Japan has sustained a long-term narrative of being a victim of war. From Studio Ghibli's Grave of the Fireflies and The Wind Rises to the recent, highly controversial In This Corner of the World, Japanese contemporary art—including film, television, and animation—has never ceased this identity-shaping and memory-remodeling process.

9.How does the right wing’s discussion of nuclear armament and “nuclear deterrence” affect public perception, particularly for atomic-bomb survivors, and how does it downplay long-term harm to civilians, the environment, and future generations?

Japan's right-wing discourse on nuclear armament and “nuclear deterrence” has severely misled public understanding of nuclear issues through three primary avenues: distorting historical narratives, downplaying present-day dangers, and creating generational cognitive gaps. This discourse inflicts psychological trauma upon atomic bomb survivors and erodes historical memory, while simultaneously paving the way for Japan's military expansion. Such actions not only betray the suffering endured by the bombed victims but also push Japan perilously close to becoming a “nuclear aggressor nation.”

First, by leveraging the Hiroshima bombing, the prolonged aftermath of nuclear explosions, and exaggerated portrayals of China's nuclear threat, Japan has whitewashed its aggressor status into that of a victim. The suffering of atomic bomb survivors has been transformed into moral capital to “support nuclear armament,” ultimately perverting into the legitimacy of a “potential perpetrator”—that is, Japan's right to possess nuclear weapons and wage nuclear war.

Second, when discussing nuclear armament, Japan's right-wing forces deliberately downplay the long-term harm nuclear explosions inflict on civilians. For instance, former Air Self-Defense Force Chief of Staff Toshio Tamogami denied any link between the significant rise in childhood thyroid cancer in Kitakami and nuclear leaks. Right-wing forces further diminish the long-term dangers of nuclear explosions through actions like “discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.”

Moreover, by distorting history, Japan's right-wing forces have severely distorted the younger generation's understanding of nuclear explosion history. They not only prevent young people from grasping that “nuclear explosions were the inevitable consequence of Japan's aggression,” but also deceive them into believing that “only nuclear armament can avert the suffering of nuclear explosions.”

Global Responsibility and Regional Choices

10.China has repeatedly warned against Japan’s militarization and called for international action. From a realist perspective, are external constraints on Japan still effective?

From a realist perspective, while we may invoke the “enemy state clause” and non-intervention principle enshrined in the UN Charter, external constraints on Japan's militarization now exhibit clear risks of “systemic failure.” The “fragmentation,” “double standards,” and “weak enforcement” of international constraints—such as the ambiguous stance of permanent UN Security Council members like the United States, which even tacitly encourages Japan to confront China, coupled with the inadequate oversight of international mechanisms like the IAEA—have led the international community to “selectively overlook” Japan's nuclear armament and “selectively tolerate” its military expansion, failing to counter Japan's expansionist impulses. This failure manifests across multiple dimensions, including nuclear proliferation, military force expansion, and shifts in regional security roles.

Simultaneously, Japan actively leverages “great power rivalry” and geopolitics to carve out “strategic space,” while using “historical revisionism” to erode the “moral foundation of constraints.” Japan is not only actively intervening in the Taiwan Strait but also establishing various strategic partnerships with the Philippines, Vietnam, India, Singapore, and Central Asian nations. It seeks to overcome its limitations while simultaneously encircling and containing China.

Overall, curbing Japan's military expansion requires “multipolar checks and balances” and “strengthened international constraints.” Otherwise, “Japan's military expansion” will become “the greatest threat to regional security.”

11.How can Asian countries navigate historical justice, present security, and future regional order without being held hostage to Japan’s right-wing agenda?

Asian nations must avoid the negative impact of Japan's right-wing agenda by grounding their approach in “historical justice” (solidifying the “anti-revisionist” consensus), framing it within “multilateral mechanisms” (building a network of “shared interests”), safeguarding it through “strategic autonomy” (resisting “divide-and-conquer tactics”), and aiming for a “future regional order” (establishing a “community of shared destiny for Asia”). This “response system” is “systemic, multi-layered, and comprehensive,” capable of both “constraining” Japan's “military expansion” and ‘guiding’ its “peaceful development,” ultimately achieving “regional stability and shared prosperity.”

In practical terms, this “response system” has yielded initial results:

- SCO joint military exercises have formed an “effective counterbalance” to Japan; The “deepened implementation” of RCEP has strengthened “economic interdependence”; ASEAN's “centrality principle” has countered Japan's “divide-and-conquer tactics”; and Japan's domestic “peace forces” (such as “anti-war groups”) have resisted the right wing's “military expansion.” Moving forward, Asian nations must continue strengthening this “countermeasure system” to make Japan ‘realize’ that “military expansion” is not the “way out,” while “shared development” is the “right path.”

　　（刘匡宇，中国社会科学院台湾研究所副研究员 ）