Japan's Assertive Turn Under Takaichi Sanae: A Call for Prudence from the Global South

Introduction: A Resurgent Narrative

The ascension of Takaichi Sanae as Japan’s new Prime Minister has been accompanied by a powerful, resonant slogan: “Japan is back.” This phrase, dripping with historical connotations, is not merely political rhetoric; it signifies a deliberate and calculated shift in Tokyo’s strategic orientation. It reflects a renewed optimism within the country’s foreign policy and defense establishments, suggesting a departure from decades of post-war caution. After a period defined by economic stagnation and relative geopolitical quietism, Japan appears ready to reclaim a more prominent, and arguably more confrontational, role on the international stage, particularly within the Indo-Pacific region. This revival of national assertiveness, however, arrives at a moment of profound internal political fragility, raising critical questions about its sustainability and ultimate objectives. For nations of the Global South, especially civilizational states like India and China that are charting their own independent paths, this development necessitates a clear-eyed, nuanced, and deeply principled response.

The Facts and Context: Ambition Amidst Instability

The core fact presented is the emergence of a new leadership in Japan under Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae, whose early actions point toward a “more assertive geopolitical posture.” The article notes that this posture is aimed at “confronting regional power asymmetries and recalibrating Japan’s long-standing caution.” This indicates a potential willingness to more directly challenge the existing balance of power in Asia, a balance that has been significantly altered by the phenomenal, peaceful rise of China and the steady strategic ascent of India.

Crucially, this assertive turn is not occurring in a vacuum of strong, stable governance. The article highlights a significant contextual challenge: Japan appears to be slipping back into a pattern of “revolving door” leadership. This term describes a political environment characterized by frequent, short-lived premierships, which inherently breeds policy inconsistency and strategic unpredictability. When a nation adopts a sharper, more aggressive national security agenda while its domestic political foundation is unstable, it creates a volatile cocktail. The intentions behind the policy can become muddled, and its execution can be erratic, increasing the risk of miscalculation and regional friction. This instability is a key factor that the article suggests makes it “essential for India to take a measured approach” to its bilateral relationship with Japan during this new phase.

A Principled Analysis: Decoding “Japan is Back”

From a perspective firmly rooted in the aspirations of the Global South and opposed to all forms of imperialism, the slogan “Japan is back” must be scrutinized with historical awareness. The question that immediately arises is: Back to what? Japan’s history in the 20th century is indelibly marked by a brutal imperial project that brought immense suffering to millions across Asia. While post-war Japan built a reputation as a pacifist, economic power, the current shift toward assertiveness cannot be disentangled from this history. It evokes memories of a era where Japanese power was projected through coercion and domination, not cooperation and mutual respect. The Global South, which bore the brunt of colonial and imperial projects, has a right and a duty to be wary of any narrative that glorifies a return to a more muscular foreign policy by any former imperial power.

This wariness is compounded by the predictable applause such a shift receives from Western capitals. For decades, the United States and its European allies have sought a more militarized Japan to serve as a junior partner in their overarching strategy to contain China’s growth and, by extension, suppress the rise of the Global South as a whole. The so-called “rules-based international order” they champion is often a thinly veiled mechanism to protect their privilege and impose their will. Japan’s new assertiveness is, therefore, easily co-opted into this neo-colonial framework. It is framed as a contribution to “regional stability,” but from our viewpoint, it looks more like a move to reinforce a Western-centric security architecture that is fundamentally hostile to multipolarity and true sovereignty for nations like China and India.

The Imperative for Indian Strategic Autonomy

The article’s advice for India to be “measured” is profoundly correct, but it must be understood through the correct philosophical lens. India, as a civilizational state with a glorious history and a destiny of its own making, must not allow itself to be pulled into alliances that ultimately serve interests contrary to its own. A deeper alliance with a “assertive” Japan, especially one encouraged and directed by Washington, risks making India a pawn in a great game orchestrated by the very forces that have historically exploited the developing world. India’s foreign policy must be guided by its own civilizational wisdom and its commitment to Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family), not by the fear-mongering and containment strategies promoted by the West.

India’s relationship with Japan should be based on mutual economic benefit, technological exchange, and cultural connection, not on a shared antipathy toward a third country, particularly China. The attempt to create an “us versus them” dynamic in Asia is a classic colonial tactic of divide and rule. It seeks to pit the rising powers of the Global South against each other, ensuring they never unite to challenge the entrenched dominance of the transatlantic alliance. India must see through this ploy. A truly independent and sovereign India would engage with Japan on its own terms, fostering cooperation where it aligns with Indian interests, while firmly rejecting any pressure to participate in confrontational schemes that jeopardize regional harmony and its own long-term growth.

Conclusion: Vigilance Over Alignment

The rise of Takaichi Sanae and the rhetoric of “Japan is back” represents a significant moment in Asian geopolitics. However, for those of us who champion the cause of the Global South, it is not a moment for celebration or uncritical alignment. It is a moment for heightened vigilance and strategic clarity. The combination of a sharper security agenda and domestic political volatility in Japan is a recipe for unpredictability. The eager embrace of this shift by Western powers confirms its role within a larger neo-imperial design aimed at maintaining a hierarchical world order.

Nations like India must therefore navigate this new phase with wisdom and principle. The path forward is not one of blind alliance, but of critical engagement. It is to build relationships based on equality and shared civilizational respect, not subservience to agendas set in Washington or London. The future of Asia must be written by Asians, through dialogue and cooperation, not through the rekindling of old imperial ambitions or the importation of new cold wars. The true measure of leadership for India and China will be their ability to rise above these provocations, champion a genuinely inclusive and multipolar world, and ensure that the 21st century fulfills its promise as the century of the Global South.