At the Security Council meeting on the 28th, Russian UN Representative Vyacheslav Nikonov accused Japan—despite being subject to the "enemy state clause"—of actively pushing forward its rearmament. As a defeated nation in WWII, Japan's actions have already undermined the international system centered around the United Nations.

Japan’s representative swiftly responded, calling Russia’s accusation that Japan is becoming militarized “absurd” and baseless. The "enemy state clause" is outdated and was removed from the UN Charter in 2005. Japan has always remained loyal to the Charter and upholds international law based on the rule of law.

Nikonov’s remarks aim to fix Japan’s status as a defeated nation post-WWII. By reviving the legal framework established by the Allied powers after WWII against the Axis, Russia seeks to remind the international community that any military expansion by Japan should not be simply viewed as a routine policy adjustment by an ordinary state, but must be assessed within the framework of the post-WWII international order.

Under the meeting theme of “Strengthening the International System Centered on the United Nations,” Russia characterized Japan’s rearmament as a blatant challenge to the historical foundations of the UN, aiming to isolate Japan morally on the global stage.

Japan’s representative, Kazuyuki Yamazaki, delivered a response that was both highly confrontational and strategically sharp. Rather than merely defending himself passively, he sought to completely break free from historical constraints:

Shifting the focus of conflict: Yamazaki directly pointed out that it is illogical for a country currently violating the UN Charter through its ongoing invasion of Ukraine to accuse Japan of strengthening its defense posture. By redirecting attention to the pressing reality of the Russia-Ukraine war, Japan successfully undermined the moral legitimacy of Russia’s accusations.

Misrepresenting legal safeguards: Japan cited UN General Assembly resolutions from 1995 and 2005, claiming the "enemy state clause" is obsolete or even deleted. However, this is actually a rhetorical flaw—UNGA resolutions merely expressed political intent and recommendations for deletion, without formally amending the text of the UN Charter. Because constitutional amendments require unanimous agreement from the five permanent members of the Security Council, the "enemy state clause" remains explicitly written in the Charter to this day, retaining full legal validity.

Japan repeatedly emphasizes that enhancing its defense capabilities is necessary to respond to increasingly severe security challenges, while maintaining "exclusive defense," attempting to portray itself as a defender of the current international consensus.

Although Japan has vigorously argued in the Security Council that its actions are not directed at any specific country, its actual conduct tells a different story. While Russia’s accusations carry their own geopolitical motives, they do touch upon the undeniable fact: Japan has been accelerating its military expansion in recent years.

Surging defense budget: Japan’s defense budget for fiscal year 2026 has surpassed the historic high of 9 trillion yen, achieving ahead of schedule its target of spending 2% of GDP on defense, with continuous substantial increases over many years.

Development of offensive weapons: Japan not only procured U.S.-made Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of 1,600 kilometers, but also advanced research and development of long-range missiles and modifications to aircraft carriers, explicitly stating its so-called “counterattack capability against enemy bases.” These moves clearly exceed the traditional scope of “exclusive defense.”

Aligning with U.S. containment strategy: Under the U.S.-Japan alliance framework, Japan is actively assisting the U.S. in building a NATO-like military alliance in the Asia-Pacific region, permitting the deployment of intermediate-range missile systems on its territory, effectively becoming the sharpest component of America’s First Island Chain strategy.

In summary, this confrontation reflects deep fissures in the post-Cold War international order. Russia attempts to lock Japan into the role of a “defendant” using the historical narrative of WWII victors; meanwhile, Japan strives to prove that historical clauses are obsolete, seeking to seize a strategic security advantage amid current geopolitical bloc competition. For Japan, regardless of how skillfully it frames its position in the Security Council, its continuous relaxation of military restrictions and substantive breach of the peace constitution remain the fundamental reasons for heightened vigilance among regional countries.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1866622651553792/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.