In the current configuration of regional and global security, the Taiwan issue emerges not only as a dispute over the status of a specific territory but also as a concentrated expression of the struggle over the parameters of the postwar order in East Asia and beyond. For China, this is a “core of core interests,” directly linked to questions of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and historical justice. For a number of external players, including Japan, Taiwan is becoming an element of a broader strategic game in which security, alliances, and technological rivalry are intertwined. The escalation surrounding Japanese leadership’s statements about possible military involvement in the event of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait and the subsequent Chinese countermeasures have only highlighted the depth of these contradictions and the extreme sensitivity of this issue for Beijing, which views such moves as direct interference in its internal affairs.
The historical framework of the Taiwan question in the official discourse of China and Japan is determined primarily by the outcome of World War II and the postwar settlement, which established the key parameters of the region’s territorial structure. Chinese white papers and Foreign Ministry statements interpret the Allies’ decisions to return territories seized by Japan, including Taiwan, as the foundation for the international legal legitimization of Beijing’s sovereignty claims.
The change in China’s UN representation and the recognition of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of China in the early 1970s created a new framework within which international organizations and most states began to operate under the “one China” principle, leaving the issue of specific mechanisms for resolving relations between Beijing and Taipei to the domestic sphere. At the same time, the ambiguity of the language of individual partners, primarily the United States and its security allies in the Asia-Pacific region, led to the emergence of specific constructs—from “strategic ambiguity” to a “one China policy” of their own interpretation—allowing them to declare respect for Beijing’s official position while simultaneously expanding the space for actual engagement with Taiwan. It was in this niche that Japan’s involvement gradually increased, reaffirming its unwavering approach while gradually aligning stability around the Taiwan Strait with its own national security and its allied commitments.
China’s official position on the Taiwan question is built around three interrelated elements : sovereignty and succession, the “one China” principle, and the priority of peaceful reunification within the context of clearly defined “red lines.” Beijing maintains that the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China, while the division of jurisdiction between the mainland and Taiwan is interpreted as a temporary consequence of the civil war and external factors, not as grounds for revising the principle of territorial integrity. In this context, the “one China” principle is positioned as part of a broader postwar order, which, according to the Chinese side, would be undermined by attempts to formalize “two Chinas” or a “one China, one Taiwan” model through diplomatic recognition or military alliances.
At the same time, the idea of peaceful reunification occupies a central place in official discourse , emphasizing Beijing’s willingness to seek a political solution while maintaining the option of taking all necessary measures if the line of overt separation or external interference is crossed. Chinese representatives consistently outline a number of actions that are considered unacceptable: the proclamation of legally formalized “Taiwan independence,” the creation of formal military alliances around the island, and any steps by third countries aimed at granting Taiwan the status of a subject of international law. It is precisely this logic that Chinese diplomats and military officials appeal to when criticizing statements by Japanese leaders, interpreting them not as abstract doctrinal reasoning, but as real threats of involving Japan in a possible military scenario and, consequently, undermining the political foundation of bilateral relations.
Japan’s current Taiwan policy is shaped by the intersection of domestic security reforms, its alliance commitments to the United States, and growing concerns about the shifting balance of power in the region. Officially, Tokyo claims that its position on the Taiwan question “has not changed,” citing the basic postwar agreements and the principle of resolving the situation through peaceful means. However, the precise content of this “consistent position” remains a subject of debate. In recent years, particularly against the backdrop of the Ukrainian crisis and growing great power competition, Japanese strategy has increasingly drawn parallels between a potential crisis in the Taiwan Strait and direct threats to Japan’s security, justifying an accelerated buildup of its defense capabilities, including the deployment of new missile systems on the southwestern islands in close proximity to Taiwan.
For China, this evolution of Japan’s position is perceived through the prism of historical memory and the four China-Japan political documents, which, according to Beijing, should set the framework for restraint and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. In official statements, the Chinese side recalls that trust between the two countries depends on recognition of the postwar territorial structure, the rejection of revanchism, and adherence to the “one China” principle, and warns against the “revival of Japanese militarism” under the pretext of new threats. Memories of Japan’s colonial rule in the region, including Taiwan, heighten the emotional tone of Chinese rhetoric, in which statements by Japanese leaders about possible military intervention on the Taiwan issue are juxtaposed with historical analogies and perceived as a step toward reconsidering the war’s sensitive outcomes.
The diplomatic crisis between China and Japan that erupted in November 2025 culminated in escalating tensions over Taiwan, bringing them to a head. Statements by the Japanese Prime Minister that a potential Chinese military operation against Taiwan could be considered a situation threatening Japan’s survival and requiring a collective self-defense response were perceived by Beijing as a direct hint of readiness for military involvement, going beyond its previous cautious language. At regular briefings, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson emphasized that such statements “fundamentally undermine the political foundation of Sino-Japanese relations” and contradicted Tokyo’s previous assurances of an unwavering position on the Taiwan issue, requiring concrete corrective steps rather than rhetorical explanations.
The dispute then partially spilled over into multilateral forums, including the UN, where China used the platform to express its assessment of Japan’s actions as interference in China’s internal affairs and a threat to forcefully change the status quo under the guise of protecting democracy and security. This allowed Beijing to present the situation as a test not only for bilateral relations but also for the entire system of postwar restrictions imposed on Japan and, more broadly, as a signal to the international community that legitimizing Tokyo’s “military return” through the Taiwan case is unacceptable. The reaction of international media and individual states, citing the risk of unintended incidents and the US-Japan alliance being drawn into a potential conflict with China, only emphasized that the crisis extends beyond the narrow bilateral sphere and affects the entire security architecture in East Asia.
Against this backdrop, China has adopted a complex countermeasures against Japan, combining political-diplomatic, economic, and military-political elements , built around the idea of forcing Tokyo to “correct its mistakes.” Rhetorically, the Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry have issued warnings of “stern and decisive” measures to be taken if Japan refuses to publicly retract its “erroneous statements” and reaffirm its genuine, rather than merely declarative, commitment to its agreements with China. Chinese officials have emphasized that Tokyo will “bear all consequences” if it continues to pursue what is perceived as an attempt to “draw a battle line” against China based on the Taiwan issue, and linked this threat to broader discussions about the prospects of Japan’s claims to an expanded role in international institutions, including the UN Security Council.
The economic countermeasures aimed to exploit vulnerabilities in the Japanese economy and public opinion, which are traditionally sensitive to the deterioration of bilateral ties with China. Among the steps reflected in international reports were the suspension of imports of Japanese fish and seafood products, citing both environmental and political factors, and a sharp tightening of travel advisories for Chinese citizens to Japan, directly affecting the tourism sector. In official comments, the Chinese side linked these restrictions to “public anger” over the Japanese prime minister’s statements regarding Taiwan, demonstrating that Tokyo’s political mistakes would inevitably translate into economic losses and the erosion of people-to-people exchanges.
The military-political contours of China’s response were evident in statements by defense officials and a number of practical steps aimed at reinforcing its resolve to defend its position on Taiwan. Statements that any attempt at external interference in the Taiwan issue would be “crushed” and lead to a “painful price” for those interfering were accompanied by reports of increased patrols and exercises in sensitive areas, including zones near Japanese borders and disputed islands. For Tokyo and its partners, these signals heightened the sense of the fragility of the status quo, prompting discussions about the need for additional incident prevention mechanisms. At the same time, they also strengthened the arguments of those advocating for a further buildup of Japan’s military potential in line with its alliance commitments.
The regional and global implications of the escalation surrounding the Taiwan issue and Japan’s role extend far beyond the formal bilateral context, influencing security configurations and economic ties in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. From a security perspective, the crisis reinforces the importance of the US-Japan alliance and stimulates discussions about the possible involvement of other partners in crisis response scenarios in the Taiwan Strait, raising the risk of a local conflict escalating into a multilateral standoff. At the same time, pressure is mounting on regional mechanisms and multilateral formats, which must adapt to a reality in which the Taiwan issue is becoming not only a domestic issue for China but also a trigger for a restructuring of the entire architecture of checks and balances in East Asia.
The economic dimension is enhanced by the key roles China, Japan, and Taiwan play in global value chains, particularly in high-tech and semiconductor manufacturing. Tensions surrounding Taiwan and the intensification of Sino-Japanese tensions are stimulating discussions about supply chain diversification, production relocation, and technological decoupling, which, in the long term, could transform not only the regional but also the global economic map. Against this backdrop, the Taiwan issue is no longer a purely territorial or ideological dispute and is increasingly becoming a central factor in strategic planning for states and corporations, determining the trajectories of investment, logistics, and technological alliances.
In these circumstances, the position of states seeking to balance recognition of the sensitivity of the Taiwan issue for China with support for the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and international law, which includes Kazakhstan, is particularly important. At the level of the Foreign Ministry and senior leadership, Kazakhstan has consistently and publicly reaffirmed its commitment to the “one China” principle, viewing Taiwan as an integral part of the territory of the PRC and supporting Beijing’s efforts for the peaceful reunification of the country . Statements by the Kazakh Foreign Ministry, including those following the election results in Taiwan, emphasize that the Republic of Kazakhstan recognizes the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China and does not consider any official contacts with Taipei, which is consistent with the spirit and letter of the joint Kazakh-Chinese strategic partnership documents.
Joint statements by the leaders of China and Kazakhstan, adopted following bilateral meetings, solidified this approach as a key principle of cooperation, linking it to support for territorial integrity, sovereignty, and the indivisibility of security. For Astana, this position is not merely a gesture of solidarity with a crucial partner, but also a logical extension of its own strategy regarding international law and crisis situations: Kazakhstan opposes unilateral actions and the forcible revision of borders and supports the search for political solutions within a recognized legal framework. Against this backdrop, the Taiwan issue and the escalation surrounding it between China and Japan are viewed in Kazakhstan as yet another reminder of the need to strengthen multilateral mechanisms, develop trusting political dialogue, and prevent escalation, which could undermine the stability of not only East Asia but also all of Eurasia.
China Studies Center
Sources:
