The Global Times editorial titled “Attention to Takaichi’s erroneous words and actions should not lose focus” is a classic example of Chinese state-media propaganda. While the core event it describes — Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s November 7, 2025, Diet statement on a possible Taiwan Strait contingency — is accurate, the article heavily distorts context, employs inflammatory historical analogies, engages in classic “whataboutism” to deflect blame, and uses aggressive framing to rally nationalist sentiment.
What Actually Happened
- Date & Context: On November 7, 2025, during a Japanese Diet (parliament) session, opposition lawmakers asked PM Sanae Takaichi whether a Chinese armed action (e.g., warships) in the Taiwan Strait could qualify as a “situation threatening the survival of Japan” (存立危機事態) under Japan’s 2015 security legislation. This legal term allows limited exercise of collective self-defense if an ally (implicitly the U.S.) is attacked and Japan’s survival is threatened.
- Takaichi’s Exact Position (as reported consistently by Reuters, NYT, BBC, Nikkei, Asahi Shimbun, Taipei Times, etc.):
- She stated that armed actions involving warships in the Taiwan Strait could constitute such a situation (hypothetical).
- She explicitly clarified that non-armed actions (e.g., civilian vessels forming a blockade) would not qualify.
- On November 10–11, she refused to retract the remark, saying it aligned with longstanding government views, but pledged to refrain from further hypothetical discussions in parliament to avoid revealing strategic “cards.”
- This is not a radical departure: Former PMs Shinzo Abe (post-office) and Taro Aso made similar statements. Takaichi’s wording was unusually explicit for a sitting PM, but it remains within Japan’s policy of “strategic ambiguity” on Taiwan contingencies.
Verdict on the core claim: True, but selectively quoted and stripped of nuance (especially the armed vs. non-armed distinction).
Misleading Elements in the Global Times Piece
| Claim in Global Times | Reality | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Takaichi’s remarks “shocked the international community” and are “the root cause of the recent deterioration in bilateral relations” | Strong negative reaction came almost exclusively from Chinese state media and officials. Western/Japanese/Taiwanese coverage treated it as a diplomatic row but not a global shock. Many noted it continues existing Japanese policy. | Gross exaggeration / False |
| Some forces (implying the West/Japan) are “shifting focus” by hyping a Chinese diplomat’s statement to “blame the victim” (China) | The diplomat (Consul-General Xue Jian) posted: “The dirty head that sticks itself in must be cut off” — widely interpreted as a veiled death/beheading threat against Takaichi. This triggered protests from Japan, the U.S. ambassador, and calls for expulsion. Coverage of this was a direct response to an objectively extreme statement, not deflection. | Classic whataboutism & victim reversal |
| Takaichi is “reviving” pre-WWII Japanese militarist slogans (e.g., “Manchuria and Mongolia are Japan’s lifeline”) | Historical analogies are stretched to the point of absurdity. Modern Japan’s concern is geographic/economic reality: Taiwan is ~100 km from Japan’s Yonaguni Island, and 50–70% of Japan’s energy imports pass through nearby sea lanes. | Inflammatory propaganda, not analysis |
| Japan is trying to “break free from the Peace Constitution” and return to “military expansion” | Japan’s defense spending is rising toward 2% GDP (NATO level), but it remains constitutionally constrained, defensively oriented, and far below historical militarist levels. | Standard CCP narrative to portray any Japanese rearmament as revival of imperialism |
- Loaded, emotive language: “Absurdity, heinous nature, malicious intent,” “obscurantists,” “evil witch” (elsewhere in Chinese media), “play with fire → will be burned/self-immolation.”
- Historical trauma weaponization: Repeated WWII analogies (1931 Manchuria invasion, Pearl Harbor) to frame contemporary security policy as inevitable repeat of aggression.
- Victimhood inversion: China is portrayed as the innocent party; Japan is the sole aggressor/provoker, and any Chinese threats (including the consul-general’s post) are downplayed as justified reactions.
- Deflection from Chinese actions: Ignores China’s own military buildup, frequent incursions into Taiwan’s ADIZ, and “wolf warrior” rhetoric, including explicit threats that Japan would face a “crushing defeat” or “grave consequences.”
- Nationalist mobilization: Ends with warnings that Japan “will bear full responsibility” and “the outcome will be tragic” — standard veiled threat to stoke domestic support.
- Factual accuracy of the triggering event: High (the quote is essentially correct).
- Objectivity & balance: Near zero. This is not journalism; it is a coordinated Chinese state-media campaign (identical talking points appear in People’s Daily, CGTN, PLA Daily, etc.).
- Purpose: Reinforce the CCP narrative that any discussion of defending Taiwan is “interference in internal affairs” and proof of Japanese “militarism,” while justifying China’s own threats and deflecting criticism of its diplomats’ violent rhetoric.
The editorial contains no outright fabrications about Takaichi’s words, but it is textbook propaganda — selective quoting, extreme framing, historical distortion, and aggressive deflection designed to rally domestic nationalism and pressure Japan. Independent reporting presents the incident as a serious but manageable diplomatic spat, not the apocalyptic revival of Japanese imperialism portrayed here.
