In the midst of an intensifying spat with China over her remarks on Japan’s involvement in a Taiwan contingency, Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae has now offended another neighbour. On 9 December, during a budget committee meeting, Takaichi said that a group of islets known as Takeshima in Japan and claimed as Dokdo by South Korea (and internationally known as the Liancourt Rocks) is Japan’s national territory. She condemned what she described as Korea’s illegal occupation of the islets.
Ultimately, rhetorical mobilisation cannot substitute for tangible policy outcomes.
Given the recent warming of Korea–Japan relations, the timing of this remark – undeniably inflammatory – is puzzling. Korea’s President Lee Jae-myung and Takaichi have maintained a notably cordial and cooperative relationship despite initial concerns over their political differences. They held a successful meeting at APEC and exchanged warm greetings at other international conferences.
Both leaders agreed to resume shuttle diplomacy and are reportedly planning a summit early next year in Takaichi’s hometown of Nara. Moreover, Lee has avoided actions that previously strained bilateral ties, such as former president Lee Myung-bak’s visit to Dokdo or Moon Jae-in’s dissolution of the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation established to compensate Korean victims of Japanese wartime sex slavery.
So far, Seoul’s response has been firm but restrained. Korea’s Presidential Office denied the existence of any territorial dispute over Dokdo and reaffirmed Korea’s right and control of the territory but has refrained from escalation. Lee has remarked that it would be best to ignore the comments to preserve the bilateral relationship.
This restraint only heightens the risks associated with Takaichi’s statement. At a time of mounting Japan–China tensions, Korea is an indispensable partner in resisting China’s increasingly assertive behavior. Moreover, any unnecessary provocation risks undermining the already fragile trilateral relationship among Korea, Japan, and the United States.
Unlike her earlier Taiwan contingency remarks, which were made in response to an opposition lawmaker, this statement was prompted by a request from Takami Yasuhiro, a Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) politician representing Shimane Prefecture, which claims jurisdiction over Takeshima. The domestic political context of Takaichi and Takami’s exchange is difficult to overlook. As Shimane’s already small population faces rapid demographic transition, the LDP and its coalition partner Nippon Ishin have agreed to reduce lower house Diet seats by 10 per cent. This could decrease Shimane’s representation in national government. Considering Shimane governor Maruyama Tatsuya’s public opposition to the seat reduction plan, Takami’s exchange with Takaichi could be interpreted as a tactic to maintain Shimane’s relevance on the national agenda.
Takaichi’s recent statements seem to derive from political incentives rather than policy calculation. Takaichi’s initial approval rating was higher than both Abe administrations, and it rose further following her Taiwan-related comments. Her support base – largely composed of conservatives and nationalists – celebrates her blunt, unfiltered rhetoric and hardline posture toward China and foreigners. Such rhetoric, however, tends to channel public frustration outward, hindering examination of Japan’s domestic challenges and policy trade-offs.
Approval ratings capture only a snapshot of public sentiment. They are neither an objective measure of policy competence nor a reliable indicator of governing effectiveness, and they do not necessarily translate into party-wide support. Indeed, despite Takaichi’s high personal approval ratings, the LDP’s overall support remains largely stagnant. Her attentiveness to public opinion is, to some extent, understandable. Unlike many of her predecessors, Takaichi does not benefit from the institutional advantages of a political dynasty or an inherited constituency. Public approval thus functions as a substitute for more traditional support networks.
Any unnecessary provocation risks undermining the already fragile trilateral relationship among Korea, Japan, and the United States.
The central issue, however, is whether Takaichi’s statement should have been made at all. One of the defining tests of leadership is the ability to moderate personal convictions and exercise pragmatism when circumstances require it. Shinzo Abe’s December 2013 visit to Yasukuni Shrine – his first and last as prime minister after it provoked widespread criticism – offers a telling example. Even Ishiba Shigeru, who asserted Japan’s claim to Takeshima as a lawmaker, adopted more diplomatic language upon becoming prime minister.
Ultimately, rhetorical mobilisation cannot substitute for tangible policy outcomes. If Takaichi fails to address pressing economic challenges such as inflation and cost-of-living pressures, her strategy of energizing her base through provocative statements is unlikely to take her very far.
AloJapan.com