Japan, still harboring a criminal intent, once again requests the removal of the "Enemy States Clause" from the United Nations Charter.
On September 22 local time, Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi Yoko delivered a speech at the United Nations General Assembly, publicly calling for the "prompt removal" of the "enemy countries clauses" in the charter that apply to Japan and other defeated nations.
She claimed that Japan, as a "peaceful nation," adheres to the policy of "defensive exclusivity," and has made "great contributions" to the work of the United Nations over the past 70 years. Eliminating the "enemy state clause" is related to Japan's "honor and dignity."
Last November, after Takashi Kogure made provocative remarks regarding Taiwan, the Chinese Embassy in Japan cited the "enemy state clause" to criticize Japan. A spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs also mentioned this clause multiple times recently. Therefore, Kogure's choice to propose the "deletion clause" in his first speech at the United Nations has raised concerns among the international community.
High City's speech at the University of Lianda was a carefully planned political show, according to military affairs expert Zhang Junchen, who spoke to Observer Network on September 23rd. The core purpose of High City's remarks is to help Japan escape the burden of war defeat, achieve so-called "normalisation" and provide a media cover for loosening its military ties.
Zhang Junshe emphasized that Japan's avoidance of its aggressive history, as well as its current military expansion and re-militarization efforts, precisely demonstrate the practical necessity of maintaining historical warnings regarding 'enemy state provisions' for Japan.
September 22nd, New York, USA. Japanese Prime Minister Yukie Akamine delivered a speech at the United Nations General Assembly. Visual China
This year marks the 81st anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations, as well as the 80th anniversary of the Tokyo Trial. Back then, Japan joined the United Nations on the condition that it acknowledged the crimes of militarism and accepted all the contents of the United Nations Charter.
Specifically, the 'Enemy States Clause' is established in Article 53, Article 77, and Article 107 of the United Nations Charter. Its core principle states that if any fascist or militarist nation such as Germany, Italy, or Japan takes any steps to resume aggressive policies, the founding members of the United Nations, including China, France, the Soviet Union, Britain, and the United States, have the right to carry out military action against such nations without the authorization of the Security Council.
On the 23rd, at a press conference held by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, spokesperson Guo Jiaqun stated that the "enemy state clause" is an important institutional arrangement aimed at preventing fascism and militarism from posing a threat to international peace and security. It provides an important institutional guarantee for defending the post-war international order. To this day, it still holds significant practical significance.
Guo Jiaqun pointed out that Japan's concept of being a 'peaceful country' after the war was based on a deep reflection on history and a complete severance from militarism. However, in reality, the current Japanese government not only denies its aggressive history and whitewashes war crimes, but also continues to strengthen its military forces, accelerate militarization, and attempts to abandon the 'Three Non-Nuclear Principles'. It also seeks to modify the 'peaceful constitution' and openly challenge the post-war international order. Japan has become a prominent factor that threatens regional peace and stability.
In short, Japan's rhetoric about peace simply does not correspond to its own militarization efforts.
Therefore, the call for deleting the 'enemy state clause' is purely a pipe dream, with no real basis in reality.
Moreover, amending the United Nations Charter is extremely difficult. It requires a vote by two-thirds of the United Nations membership, and unanimous agreement from all permanent members.
Zhang Junshi observed that, at present, Japan's request has not received widespread acceptance from the international community, and has even triggered widespread concerns among Asian countries.
According to his analysis, Japan's so-called calls reflect, to some extent, its desire to shed the legacy of being a defeated nation during World War II and redefine its post-war international status. The essence is to use Japan's alleged ‘contributions’ to the United Nations in order to offset its history as a defeated nation and erase the label of a defeated country, thereby seeking legitimacy for the so-called ‘national normalization’.
At the same time, Japan attempts to create public opinion by removing the "enemy state clause", in conjunction with the narrative of "contributing to international peace", in order to conceal its intention to break through the post-war system and develop offensive military forces. This is done in order to gain more influence on the international stage, especially in order to create conditions for obtaining a seat as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
It is necessary to be vigilant that while Yasukazu Menesque loudly promotes Japan's so-called 'peaceful nation' image at the United Nations, Japan is continuing to advance 'new types of militarism', posing a significant threat to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and worldwide.
Zhang Junshi said that this contrast reveals a contradictory mentality in Japan: 'They want to enjoy the benefits of the post-war international order, yet they also wish to overthrow the constraints imposed by the post-war international order on themselves. In essence, they are trying to break free from the constraints of the post-war system and follow the old path of military expansion. This actually constitutes a challenge to the post-war international order.'
As Japan falls into the path of "new-type militarism," on August 19th, September 2nd, and September 8th this year, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokespersons emphasized the importance of the "enemy state clause" three times.
China and Russia have also voiced their common stance on this issue.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said in August, "We hope that Japan will fully and seriously study the United Nations Charter, including Article 107, which is known as the 'Enemy Country Clause'. If Japan's leadership attempts to override its national constitution and rewrite international law in order to avoid historical responsibilities, it will certainly cause serious concerns."
The Chinese side subsequently clarified that it agrees with the statements made by Foreign Minister Lavrov.
In fact, the purpose of establishing the ‘Enemy State Clause’ is not to permanently label defeated countries with a stigma of shame, but rather to put a ‘tight hoop’ on the specters of fascism and militarism.
As both defeated nations, Germany and Italy were also bound by the "enemy state clause". However, due to their far stronger introspection towards history compared to Japan, they are no longer considered a major security threat by the international community.
Zhang Junshe emphasized that Governor Gao's speech at the United Nations is an attempt to create an image of Japan as a country that has thoroughly reflected on its past and become a defender of international order. This is done in order to conceal the truth of his non-remorseful attitude towards history and his attempts to find excuses to get rid of historical burdens.
Guo Jiaqun's latest response is even more worthy of deep consideration by the Japanese government and society: 'Compared to what Japan says, the international community is more concerned about how Japan actually acts... We urge Japan to take history as a lesson, reflect deeply, and take actions that will earn the trust of Asian neighbors and the international community.'
Those who are pure, will purify themselves; those who are impure, will remain impure. Listen to their words, yet observe their actions.
The more Japan tries to argue that the "enemy state clause" should not continue to exist, the more it proves the necessity of keeping this clause in place.
Currently, Japan has strained relations with almost all neighboring countries. The "actual actions" emphasized by China are exactly what the Japanese government should be doing.
In Japan through a series of actual actions, they have shown that it has completely reflected on its historical aggression and severed all ties with militarism. It is therefore increasingly loud in advocating for the removal of "enemy nation clauses," which should be emphasized more by countries around the world that love peace.
It is essential to fully comply with the United Nations Charter and reaffirm the “Enemy State Clause”!
