Today, Takayama Sanae called during her speech at the United Nations General Assembly for the removal of the “enemy state clause” in the UN Charter, boldly asserting that Japan has made significant contributions to the United Nations over the past seven decades.

This is nothing short of delusional. The establishment of the United Nations and the inclusion of the enemy state clause in its founding charter represent one of the outcomes of the Allied victory in World War II—a victory achieved at the cost of hundreds of millions of lives. Such a provision cannot be unilaterally erased by Japan, nor can it be overridden through financial payments.

When Takayama refers to Japan’s important contributions to the United Nations, she likely means Japan’s payment of dues. Indeed, since joining the UN, Japan has ranked among the top contributors in terms of assessed contributions, a reflection of its economic scale rather than moral or political merit.

The postwar admission of Japan into the UN was predicated on its acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration: recognition of the outcome of World War II, acknowledgment of its wartime aggression, and sincere reflection and apology for its actions. Yet, as it stands, none of these commitments have been fully honored. Even Japan’s formal unconditional surrender—announced by the Emperor and government—has not been internally acknowledged by Japan’s leadership or right-wing factions. No official apology has ever been issued to victimized nations or peoples. In Japan’s view, admitting aggression constitutes self-humiliation; once perpetrators are dead, their crimes are deemed buried and erased. This is a profoundly absurd and indefensible rationale.

Since assuming office, Takayama has accelerated military buildup, with defense spending exceeding 2% of GDP—surpassing China’s share—and deployed offensive long-range missiles on Japanese soil, heightening tensions with neighboring countries. She denies past aggression, refuses to apologize, threatens military intervention in the Taiwan Strait, promotes arms exports, and calls for nuclear weapons development.

A nation such as this has no legitimate basis to demand the removal of the “enemy state clause.” Even its closest ally, the United States, would likely oppose such a move. The clause remains a symbolic but enduring deterrent against the resurgence of Japanese militarism—a legacy that continues to serve as a check on former aggressor states.

Japan’s financial contributions to the UN are simply part of its responsibilities as a member state. A country may choose not to join, or not to pay—but it cannot use fiscal obligations to offset or obscure its historical accountability for war crimes. To equate financial contributions with moral redemption is a fundamental inversion of principle, and deeply hypocritical. In truth, not everything in international affairs can be bought.

Japanese media report that Takayama will deliver her first address at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday. She will argue that although the UN unanimously adopted a resolution in 2005 calling for the deletion of the clause in the Charter referring to Axis powers as “enemy states,” the language remains in effect.

“According to this resolution, these provisions should be removed immediately,” Takayama stated in a speech draft provided by the Japanese government. “I emphasize this point firmly, as I take pride and respect in Japan’s substantial contributions to the work of the United Nations over the past 70 years.”

The more insistently Takayama and Japan seek to erase the clause, the more clearly it underscores the clause’s continued relevance to global security. Amending the UN Charter requires unanimous consent from the five permanent members of the Security Council. We would not agree—neither would the international community—because a rearmament-minded Japan remains a threat to global peace and stability.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1877081154994185/

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