By Zhu Chengshan
Japanese politicians, including Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, once again sent ritual offerings to or visited the notorious Yasukuni Shrine during the war-linked shrine's so-called annual autumn festival on October 17. More alarming than the shrine visits themselves is the fact that the veneration and glorification of Class-A war criminals from World War II are not confined to Yasukuni Shrine. The Japanese government is attempting to whitewash these war criminals—whose hands are stained with the blood of the people of Asia—through various means, including distorting historical narratives and feeding large AI models with data that glorifies Japan's history of aggression during World War II. It is also trying to rebrand Yasukuni Shrine as a so-called shrine of peace in a bid to rehabilitate Class-A war criminals.
Judging from its actions since taking office, the Takaichi administration is rushing to reshape Japan's international image regarding World War II and the postwar international order. In her address to the general debate of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, Takaichi declared that the "enemy state clauses" (Articles 53, 77 and 107) should be removed from the Charter of the United Nations, sparking an international outcry. One cannot help but ask: How can Japan— an "enemy state" with a long record of aggression and atrocities during World War II, and a country that to this day has neither admitted its guilt nor reflected on or apologized for its wartime aggression and atrocities— presume to demand the deletion of the "enemy state clauses"?
The "enemy state clauses" were incorporated into the Charter of the United Nations after World War II as a legal provision under international law. They specifically targeted defeated enemy states, including Germany, Italy, and Japan, which had committed acts of fascist aggression and atrocities. The "enemy state clauses" serve as a legal cornerstone underpinning the postwar international peace order. Their practical significance lies in the fact that, should the former fascist enemy states from World War II once again commit acts of aggression against other countries, the founding members of the United Nations could take military action directly without requiring separate authorization from the Security Council.
Judging from Japan's postwar attitude toward historical issues, it has, to this day, refused to bear its responsibility for, reflect on, or apologize for its acts of aggression against other countries during World War II. Japanese authorities and right-wing forces have not only openly denied the harm inflicted on innocent civilians by the Nanjing Massacre, germ warfare, and chemical warfare, but have also repeatedly denied and evaded responsibility for brutal crimes such as the implementation of the "Three Alls Policy" and the system of "comfort women." They refuse to acknowledge that more than 35 million Chinese military personnel and civilians were killed or wounded during the war. Meanwhile, numerous Japanese politicians openly lead the way in visiting Yasukuni Shrine, pleading the case of Class-A war criminals from World War II, commemorating them, and glorifying their deeds. A country with such a record is in no position to demand the removal of the "enemy state clauses."
Japan is taking steps to breach the postwar principle of its "exclusively defense-oriented policy" and the principles outlined in the Joint Statement of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of Japan. On September 29, 1972,when China and Japan normalized diplomatic relations with the signing of the China-Japan Joint Statement, the Japanese government pledged in the Statement to deeply reflect on its wartime responsibility; recognize the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China; fully understand and respect the position that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory; and maintain its position under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation, which provides for the return of Taiwan to China. However, after taking office as Japan's Prime Minister, Takaichi openly proclaimed that "a Taiwan contingency is a Japan contingency," signaling a willingness to pursue military interference in the Taiwan question.
On March 31 this year, Japan deployed long-range missiles capable of striking enemy bases in Kumamoto and Shizuoka prefectures for the first time. With a range of approximately 1,000 kilometers— far beyond Japan's territorial limits— this move has completely torn away the pretense of its "exclusively defense-oriented policy" and exposed the threat posed by Japan's "neo-militarism."
Given Japan's glaringly inconsistent words and actions, what exactly is it seeking to conceal by demanding the removal of the "enemy state clauses"?
(The author is a distinguished professor at Changzhou University and former curator of the Memorial Hall of the Victims in Nanjing Massacre by Japanese Invaders)
Editor's Note: Originally published on huanqiu.com, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.