Why China brought its criticism of Japan to the UN twice but avoided raising it at the G20
China’s recent diplomatic moves have drawn attention after its ambassador to the United Nations publicly criticised Japan twice within four days over comments related to Taiwan. Analysts say Beijing’s choice to use the UN as its main platform reflects a strategic calculation about where its message will have the greatest impact, while avoiding confrontation at the G20 where the priority is maintaining broad economic cooperation.
During a UN Security Council reform debate last Tuesday, China’s envoy Fu Cong sharply criticised Japan, saying Tokyo was “totally unqualified” to pursue a permanent seat on the council. His comments were linked to remarks made by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on November 7, when she suggested that Japan could deploy military forces if a conflict were to break out in the Taiwan Strait. It was the first time a sitting Japanese leader had openly referenced such a possibility, drawing immediate attention from regional observers.
Fu described Takaichi’s comments as “brazen” and “provocative”, signalling Beijing’s strong opposition to any suggestion of Japanese involvement in Taiwan related security matters. A few days later, the Chinese envoy repeated similar criticisms in another UN setting, emphasising again that Japan’s position on Taiwan was inconsistent with its past commitments and regional realities. By raising the issue twice in the same international forum, China highlighted its determination to signal disapproval to a global audience.
Analysts say the decision to bring the matter to the UN, rather than the G20, reflects Beijing’s preference for a platform that provides wider diplomatic reach. The UN, with its global membership and established procedures, allows China to present its stance as part of a broader international dialogue. Experts argue that Beijing sees the UN as a place to “anchor” its long standing position on Taiwan, where it can frame the issue within the context of international law and historical agreements.
In contrast, the G20 is primarily focused on economic and financial issues, and Beijing likely wanted to avoid overshadowing discussions on trade, global growth and development priorities. Analysts say China may also have sought to prevent the Taiwan issue from turning into a point of contention among G20 participants at a time when it is working to stabilise economic relations with major economies, including Japan.
Bringing the criticism to the UN also allows China to respond directly to security related remarks from Japanese leaders without disrupting multilateral economic cooperation. It reflects a broader strategy where Beijing responds firmly on sovereignty matters while preserving flexibility in diplomatic and economic engagements with neighbouring countries.
As regional tensions continue to evolve, analysts expect China to keep using international forums selectively, tailoring its messaging depending on the audience and strategic context. For now, Beijing’s decision to separate its diplomatic channels underscores the careful balance it seeks to maintain between security priorities and international economic cooperation.
