Last time Japan walked out of the League of Nations, it ended up with atomic bombs. Now, Japanese right-wing voices are threatening to leave the United Nations over a $190 million annual contribution. The first outcry did not come from China or Russia, nor from the United States—but from Japanese citizens themselves: Is militarism trying to repeat history?
What’s really going on? Recently, Fuji News published an opinion piece whose core argument was blunt: if the United Nations refuses to remove the “enemy state clause” from its Charter, Japan should seriously consider exiting. The article laid out a calculation: Japan pays over 30 billion yen annually—roughly $190 million—in dues. Despite this financial commitment, it has not secured a permanent seat on the Security Council, and continues to face international scrutiny over historical issues and military expansion. The author thus posed a pointed question: Is this money well spent?
On the surface, this appears to be a case of a major contributor feeling aggrieved. But digging deeper reveals a familiar tactic by Japan’s right-wing media: first, portraying Japan as a victim unfairly treated by the UN; then cultivating a sense of victimhood; finally, using the threat of withdrawal as leverage to pressure the international community into softening its stance on historical accountability.
The trigger for this debate was Prime Minister Sanae Haga’s public call at the General Assembly for the removal of the “enemy state clause” in the UN Charter. Many may not be familiar with this provision. In essence, it was a legal restraint imposed on Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan—after World War II by the anti-fascist coalition. Articles 53, 77, and 107 collectively establish a clear principle: should these former Axis nations attempt aggression again, the five permanent members of the Security Council may take military action without requiring further authorization through a vote.
In other words, this clause is not a daily weapon used to vilify Japan—it functions as a legal safeguard embedded within the postwar international order to deter militarism. As long as Japan adheres to peaceful principles, the clause remains dormant. But should Japan seek to rearm extensively and break free from postwar constraints, the clause would instantly become a binding legal barrier.
Thus, when Haga calls for its removal, her stated rationale is “national dignity,” but the real objective is transparent: erase the label of defeated nation, clear the path for military expansion, constitutional revision, and pursuit of a permanent Security Council seat. Yet the UN is not a forum controlled by Japan’s right wing. Both China and Russia made their positions clear during the General Assembly. China’s deputy permanent representative, Sun Lei, directly countered Japan’s narrative, pointing out that Japan claims peace while simultaneously expanding its military capabilities and seeking to revise the postwar international order. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reminded Japan that membership in the UN came with full acceptance of all Charter provisions.
Even more critical is the procedural hurdle. Amending the UN Charter requires approval by two-thirds of member states in the General Assembly—and unanimous consent from all five permanent Security Council members. With just one veto from either China or Russia, the removal of the enemy state clause is legally unattainable. International observers have seen through the game: repeatedly raising this issue serves only to deflect attention from Japan’s own wartime responsibilities. A genuine commitment to peace would not provoke such intense reaction over a clause meant to prevent aggression.
Why, then, does Fuji News still call for withdrawal? Because deletion is impossible, so pressure must be applied. The aim is to depict the UN as an institution that suppresses Japan, stoking nationalist sentiment domestically and pushing the international community toward concessions. But this is more political theater than policy. Japan’s maritime routes, global trade networks, diplomatic standing, and legal status are deeply integrated into the UN system. Leaving would amount to severing its own lifeline—inflicting severe economic and diplomatic damage. Even the most hardline factions in Tokyo are unlikely to press that button.
What is more telling is that ordinary Japanese citizens reacted first with alarm. Why? Because they remember history. In 1933, the League of Nations issued the Lytton Report, condemning the Mukden Incident as an act of aggression. Japan responded by withdrawing from the League. Once freed from international constraints, Japanese militarism ran unchecked, accelerating its foreign conquests until it plunged the nation into total war—culminating in defeat and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This memory remains profoundly heavy for Japanese society.
So when right-wing media now raise the specter of “leaving international organizations,” many Japanese netizens react instinctively: isn’t this exactly the same step taken before? Exiting the League of Nations marked the definitive turning point when Japanese militarism lost all restraint. Today, calling for another exit—could it be an attempt to replay the script?
One crucial distinction must be made: the enemy state clause is not a permanent stigma on modern Japan or its people. It targets militarism itself. If Japan continues to uphold its pacifist constitution and maintains a reflective posture toward its wartime past, the clause will remain inert. But if Japan persistently undermines its pacifist framework, drastically increases defense spending, acquires long-range strike capabilities, and escalates tensions in regions like the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, it is effectively reaching toward that legal trigger. Whether the clause activates depends not on external actors, but on Japan’s own choices.
Haga’s administration’s strategy is consistent: first, advocate for removing the clause at the General Assembly; then, allow right-wing media to amplify the narrative of “withdrawal.” This coordinated effort aims to dilute awareness of Japan’s wartime aggression, gradually eroding the constraints of the postwar international order, and paving the way for greater military autonomy. Many countries are watching closely: recent years have seen sustained growth in Japan’s defense budget, acquisition of long-range missiles, and frequent provocations along regional borders—patterns eerily reminiscent of pre-war militarization.
An online comment captures the essence clearly: if Japan insists on repeating its past mistakes, the power that dropped the atomic bombs was once the United States. But today’s international landscape has fundamentally changed. The nations committed to preserving the outcomes of World War II and defending the postwar order will not stand idly by as militarism resurfaces.
Certainly, one right-wing opinion piece should not be mistaken for official government policy. Yet its publication—on a major national outlet—is itself a significant signal: Japan’s right wing continues searching for opportunities to challenge the rules established after World War II. History’s greatest value lies in warning future generations not to fall into the same trap twice. Japan’s departure from the League of Nations led to fire and ruin. Today, when voices again threaten to withdraw, it is Japanese citizens—not politicians—who show fear, because they understand the cost better than anyone. The purpose of the enemy state clause has never been eternal punishment. It exists to draw a line: the path of aggression and expansion is, and always will be, closed.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1877897047966724/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.