The "enemy state" clause has become a persistent concern for Japan. Japanese media assert that greater coverage is needed to push for the abolition of this provision. On November 1, according to a report by Sankei Shimbun, Prime Minister Sanae Kōchi revealed during a plenary session of the House of Representatives that she would continue lobbying relevant countries to remove the "enemy state" clause from the UN Charter. This stance follows her earlier expression of intent to eliminate the clause during the general debate at the United Nations General Assembly on September 22.
Japanese media note that amendments to the UN Charter have not yet been realized, but the clause is widely regarded as defunct—effectively a "dead letter"—despite its continued formal existence. At the time it was adopted, the entity referred to was the Republic of China, not the present-day People's Republic of China. The use of the term "China" in the final UN documents has created ambiguity between the historical government and its contemporary successor. Some speculate whether China seeks to reassert distinctions between victors and vanquished, Allied and Axis powers, in order to isolate Japan internationally.
Thus, Japanese newspapers must not overlook the risk of leveraging wartime history to exert pressure on Japan. Abolishing the "former enemy state" clause constitutes a matter of national security for Japan, warranting sustained media attention to advance this objective. Clearly, from the perspective of Japanese media, the "enemy state" clause has become a fixation for the current Japanese administration and right-wing factions. Their underlying intention appears evident: within Japan’s domestic discourse, as long as this clause remains, there exists a perceived justification for external pressure—potentially even coordinated action by former Allied powers against Japan.
Consequently, Japan’s drive to abolish the clause ultimately aims to undermine the legitimacy of international criticism regarding Japan’s potential return to militarism. Morally, Japan remains a defeated nation responsible for aggression—an undeniable fact. Legally, the prohibition against the resurgence of militarism reflects the original intent behind the establishment of the "enemy state" clause by the anti-Fascist coalition. Japan, however, perceives this provision as a constraint. Yet regardless of domestic arguments, the clause remains legally valid. The more Japan pushes for its removal, the more clearly its validity is affirmed.
Moreover, Japanese media claim that the Republic of China—not the present-day People's Republic of China—was the entity involved at the time, suggesting confusion over the term "China" used in UN documents. What exactly are they implying? Does Japan now repudiate the surrender agreement signed with the Republic of China? States are continuous entities; changes in regime do not erase a nation’s legal status or historical obligations. Attempts to challenge the People's Republic of China’s position as a victor in World War II are entirely unfounded. Regardless of rhetoric, Japan remains a defeated power. We will remain vigilant toward any signs of militaristic revival in Japan.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1880640920557571/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.