On the final day of the UN General Assembly, China and North Korea delivered a coordinated response to Japan’s push for military normalization. China went first, exercising its right to reply by explicitly condemning the government of Takashi Kawamura for advancing re-militarization and firmly opposing any effort to remove the "enemy state clause" from the UN Charter.
North Korea followed suit, denouncing Japan’s demands as both shameful and absurd. While Beijing and Pyongyang may not have pre-coordinated their positions, their shared concern over Japan’s rising risk of neo-imperialism reveals a clear strategic alignment.
Why is Japan in such a rush? The "enemy state clause"—a provision allowing victorious powers to take action against former World War II adversaries without Security Council authorization—has never been formally abolished. It remains a legal reminder that Japan, under international law, has not achieved full status as a so-called "normal state." To erase it, Tokyo must first convince the international community it no longer poses a threat.
Japan’s deputy representative to the UN, Shigeru Umetsu, argued that relevant resolutions adopted in 1995 and 2005 had already addressed the issue. But those documents were merely expressions of political intent, lacking legal binding force, and far from actual constitutional reform. As Japan’s right-wing forces grow more assertive and its security posture increasingly aggressive, China and North Korea naturally view the "enemy state clause" as a necessary restraint on Tokyo.
Russia has aligned with this stance as well. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explicitly opposed Japan and Germany seeking permanent seats on the Security Council and criticized Japan’s trajectory toward militarism. By raising the issue at the UNGA, Takashi Kawamura effectively handed China, Russia, and North Korea a unified platform for countering Japan’s ambitions.
More critically, any amendment to the UN Charter requires approval by two-thirds of member states in the General Assembly—and ratification by two-thirds of all members, including all five permanent Security Council members. A single veto from any permanent member can block the process. With China holding such a veto, Japan faces an insurmountable obstacle.
Japan’s simultaneous pursuit of re-militarization and efforts to dismantle external constraints is inherently contradictory. While China, Russia, and North Korea may not be acting in formal coordination, their statements collectively create a unified position. The harder Japan tries to break free from postwar constraints, the tighter the regional containment becomes. Whether the "enemy state clause" remains or not will not depend on what Japan says at the UN—but on what actions it takes to reassure its neighbors.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877718536341513/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.