Our reporter Li Jiabao
The general debate of the 81st United Nations General Assembly concluded recently at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi once again mentioned in his speech that the "enemy clause" in the United Nations Charter should be deleted, triggering firm opposition and strong criticism from all parties.
A spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs pointed out that a correct understanding and treatment of history is a sign of whether Japan can abide by its commitment to peaceful development. Japan joined the United Nations on the premise of admitting the crime of militarism and accepting the entire content of the United Nations Charter. The "enemy clause" in the United Nations Charter is still in effect today as a special institutional arrangement for the defeated countries in World War II.
International public opinion believes that Japan's absurd appeal is doomed to fail in both legal and practical terms. Japan's ambition to promote the resurgence of militarism and challenge the post-war international order should arouse high vigilance from the international community.
The "enemy clause" has important historical significance and practical value
The "enemy clause" in the United Nations Charter is an important institutional arrangement aimed at preventing fascism and militarism from threatening international peace and security again, and provides an important institutional guarantee for safeguarding the post-war international order.
The "enemy state clause" refers to Articles 53, 77 and 107 of the United Nations Charter that mention the word "enemy state". The relevant content stipulates that if any of the fascist or militarist countries such as Germany, Italy, and Japan takes any steps to implement an aggressive policy again, the founding members of the United Nations such as China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States have the right to directly carry out military operations against them without authorization from the Security Council.
In response to Japan's advocacy of deleting the "enemy clause", China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, Sun Lei, exercised her right of reply during the general debate of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly. He pointed out that maintaining the post-war international order, safeguarding the victory of World War II, and maintaining regional peace and stability are the common responsibilities of the international community. The "enemy clause" in the Charter is an important institutional arrangement aimed at preventing fascism and militarism from threatening international peace and security again, and provides an important institutional guarantee for safeguarding the post-war international order. It still has important practical significance today.
Wang Guangtao, associate professor at the Japan Studies Center of Fudan University, pointed out that the "enemy clause" is an important manifestation of the post-war international order, and there is no so-called "validity period" for this order. This clause is not targeted at Japan alone, but is a universal institutional arrangement for the Axis powers of World War II. It is an important medium for the contemporary international community to remember the history of World War II, clarify war guilt, and inherit historical responsibilities. It carries the deep value of protecting the results of anti-fascist victory and preventing the recurrence of history of aggression.
Lu Yaodong, a researcher at the Institute of Japanese Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, pointed out that as an important legal heritage of the post-war international order, the "enemy clause" has important historical significance and practical value——
From a historical significance, this article qualifies the Axis Powers' acts of aggression and historical culpability from the perspective of international law, legally blocks the channel for overturning the history of aggression, and further confirms the post-war international order established by documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. This article establishes a legal deterrence mechanism, which is conducive to preventing the resurgence of fascism and militarism, and preventing the recurrence of aggressive wars.
From a practical value point of view, in the context of Japan's accelerated "remilitarization" in recent years, this article delineates a legal red line to prevent Japan from moving towards militarism again, forms a legal deterrent to Japan's constitutional amendments and military expansion, and is an important international legal tool for maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific and even the world. As an important basis for defending the post-war international order, this clause is also a yardstick for judging Japan's historical attitude. It can remind the international community to be highly vigilant about Japan's relevant military trends and has an irreplaceable role in restraint and warning.
Behind the attempted deletion is the dangerous trend of a new type of militarism in Japan
Japan is trying to erase its historical label as a defeated country in World War II, seeking to become a so-called "normal country" and a political power, thereby breaking away from the shackles of the post-war international order and clearing legal obstacles for Japan's "remilitarization."
Japan's Foreign Ministry said Takaichi was the first Japanese prime minister to mention the clause in the UN General Assembly since former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. Behind this lies the dangerous trend of a new type of militarism in Japan.
In recent years, Japan has continued to significantly expand its military spending, relaxed the export of anti-personnel weapons, promoted the deployment of medium- and long-range missiles, expanded its offensive military capabilities, stockpiled a large amount of sensitive nuclear materials, promoted the revision of the "Peace Constitution", attempted to break through the "Three Non-nuclear Principles", and even advocated becoming a "war-capable" country. Japan's "remilitarization" has become a real threat to regional and even world peace and stability.
Lu Yaodong analyzed that Gao Shi’s proposal at the UN General Assembly was a concrete manifestation of the spillover of Japanese historical revisionism into the international community, and was in line with the “post-war diplomatic final settlement” proposed by former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Japan's right-wing politicians have repeatedly proposed deleting the "enemy clause", with at least three intentions: first, to erase the historical label of a defeated country in World War II and seek to become a so-called "normal country"; second, to get rid of the shackles of the post-war international order and clear legal obstacles for Japan's "remilitarization"; third, to seek the status of a political power, enhance its international status and voice, and pave the way for the status of a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
Some Japanese media commented that Gao Shi once again mentioned deleting the "enemy clause" more because he wanted to use the United Nations stage to enhance his personal image and increase the approval rate of the cabinet. Lu Yaodong pointed out that Gao Shi’s rise to power is closely related to the support of domestic right-wing and ultra-nationalism. She tried to use the international stage to carry out political momentum and cognitive warfare, create an atmosphere of public opinion in which the "enemy clause" was outdated, and defend Japan's behavior of breaking through the post-war international order, amending the constitution and expanding its military. In this way, she showed a tough stance toward the outside world, catered to the domestic right wing and ultra-nationalism, diverted social conflicts such as the domestic economic downturn, and consolidated her ruling base.
There is zero chance of trying to amend the UN Charter to remove the “enemy clause”
This deliberate diplomatic campaign will not only fail to help Japan get rid of its historical guilt and achieve military deregulation, but will further highlight its incomplete historical reflection and aggravate regional countries' vigilance and concerns about Japan's militarization trends.
In recent days, Japan's actions have aroused strong criticism from international public opinion. North Korea's representative to the United Nations pointed out that Japan's request to delete the "enemy clause" was "shameful and ridiculous." Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that reform of the Security Council cannot add any seats to countries that have embarked on the path of militarization and revanchism. Japan should fully and carefully read the United Nations Charter. If the Japanese leadership attempts to break through the constraints of its own constitution, rewrite international law, and evade historical responsibilities, it will inevitably cause serious concern.
In accordance with the revision procedures stipulated in Article 108 of the United Nations Charter, deletion of the "enemy state clause" needs to be approved by a 2/3 vote of the member states of the United Nations General Assembly, and then ratified by each country in accordance with its own constitutional procedures. As long as one country among the five permanent members of the Security Council fails to ratify it, the amendment cannot take effect.
Many Japanese media believe that the possibility of Takaichi trying to amend the United Nations Charter in order to delete the "enemy clause" is zero. Some Japanese media criticized the high market's move as "adding fuel to the fire" and "political show".
Wang Guangtao pointed out that this move in the high market will most likely have the opposite effect. Japan's initiative to promote this issue to the international public opinion arena will reawaken the historical memory of the people of the victimized countries in East Asia and the Asia-Pacific, and allow the international community to once again clearly understand the legal fact that Japan is still bound by the "enemy clause". This deliberate diplomatic campaign will not only fail to help Japan get rid of its historical guilt and achieve military loosening, but will further highlight its incomplete historical reflection and heighten regional countries' vigilance and concerns about Japan's militarization trends.
Lu Yaodong pointed out that the international community is generally highly vigilant against the resurgence of fascism and militarism, and the vast majority of United Nations member states recognize the "enemy clause" as an important legal guarantee to prevent the recurrence of war. Gao Shi's relevant remarks have touched the red line of the international community's adherence to the post-war international order. They are a blatant challenge to international justice and the authority of the United Nations, and will inevitably arouse opposition and criticism from the international community.
"Militarism and fascism have brought serious disasters to the world. Under the guise of so-called 'active pacifism,' Japan has successively taken perverse actions in the political, military, and diplomatic fields. The hidden real risks are a major issue that the international community must jointly deal with." Lu Yaodong said that all international parties should remain highly vigilant, insist on learning from history, adhere to the bottom line of international law, oppose historical revisionism, clarify the legal effect of the "enemy clause", and jointly defend the post-war international order.
