When asked, before Japans’s parliament, about the circumstances under which the country’s “Self-Defense Forces” could legally take military action, prime minister Sanae Takaichi cited a hypothetical Chinese attack on Taiwan as a “survival-threatening situation” potentially warranting such action.

Beijing’s response to the remark, while a bit more over the top than usual (the Chinese consul-general in Osaka seemingly threatened to cut off Takaichi’s head), hasn’t really varied in form or substance from the People’s Republic’s position of decades.

On November 21, Chinese UN Ambassador Fu Cong wrote to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, citing Takaichi’s words as “a grave violation of international law” and preemptively excusing any such hypothetical attack on Taiwan as “self-defence under the UN Charter” pursuant to defending its “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity.”

At stake in this matter, as in similar past occurrences, is a rotten principle called “strategic ambiguity,” under which the Chinese regime makes false claims and other regimes carefully avoid mentioning that those claims are false.

Here’s the fact which Beijing disputes and other regimes avoid mentioning:

Taiwan is not now, and never has been, part of the People’s Republic of China.

The island hasn’t been ruled from Beijing since 1895, when the Qing dynasty ceded it to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, 54 years before the People’s Republic came into existence.

To put that in historical context, Taiwan has been independent of mainland China since before Cuba became independent of Spain, and since before the US annexed Hawaii. It’s been independent of the mainland through, among other events, two world wars and a multi-decade “Cold War.” And even before any of that, it was only partially and occasionally ruled from Beijing.

Beijing enjoys no “sovereignty” over Taiwan, nor would invading Taiwan constitute “self-defense.”

But whenever any politician on the world stage publicly mentions, or even alludes to, that fact,  Chinese politicians rattle their sabers militarily while threatening, “diplomatically,” to throw themselves on the floor and hold their breath until they turn blue.

To placate Beijing, western regimes have generally adopted policies of “strategic ambiguity.” They conduct friendly relations with Taiwan while not “recognizing” its status as independent, and provide Taiwan with military assistance of various kinds while very carefully NOT openly saying they’d help it defend itself against invasion.

“Strategic ambiguity” is the worst of two worlds when it comes to foreign policy.

As a non-interventionist, I’d prefer to see the United States (and other regimes) mind their own business and avoid trying to “manage” the China-Taiwan relationship in any way.

Pro-Taiwan interventionists want the United States (and other regimes) take the bull by the horns and just tell the People’s Republic “it’s not yours, you can’t have it, and if you try to take it you’ll get smacked down hard.”

Catering to Beijing’s threats and tantrums with “strategic ambiguity” satisfies neither crowd. It makes eventual war more likely while giving “strategically ambiguous” politicians cover to pretend they’re surprised when it arrives.

Hopefully Takaichi will stand her ground. Facts, not dodges, reduce the risk of war.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY