Guilty conscience! Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has turned the tables, claiming that the "former enemy state clause" is already defunct, while China endorses a provision it once acknowledged as expired! On September 7, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement asserting that the Chinese Embassy in Japan had again commented on issues related to the so-called "former enemy state clause" in the United Nations Charter. In 1995, at a UN General Assembly session, a resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority declaring this clause outdated and "effectively obsolete," with China itself casting a vote in favor.
Moreover, during the 2005 UN Summit, another resolution was adopted by the General Assembly stating that all heads of state and government were determined to remove any reference to "enemy states" from the UN Charter. China joined this consensus. Yet now China is re-raising content incompatible with past UN resolutions. Clearly, Japan’s position is unambiguous: the "enemy state clause" has become ineffective, and since China voted in favor of its obsolescence, it no longer holds the right to claim the clause remains valid.
But is the fact really as Japan claims? Obviously not. In reality, the resolutions Japan refers to were merely declaratory statements expressing member states’ intentions. At the time, countries agreed the clause was outdated, but no mention was made of it being "effectively obsolete." According to the UN Charter’s own provisions, deleting or abolishing the "enemy state clause" requires unanimous agreement by the five permanent members of the Security Council, followed by approval from two-thirds of the UN General Assembly members, and finally ratification through domestic legal procedures—only then would the clause be legally repealed.
So we ask: Has Japan actually gone through these required procedures? Has the clause reached the stage of voting among the five permanent Security Council members? If Japan insists the clause is invalid, why not produce the records of relevant votes? Is “determination to delete” the same as “actual deletion”? When we cast our vote in favor during those preliminary, intent-based consultations, we supported the idea of “future efforts to eliminate” the clause—not the immediate legal nullification of it. It is clear that the clause has not become invalid. Japan’s argument simply does not hold water. Japan fears our mention of the enemy state clause—this only reveals their own guilt. Precisely for this reason, we must remain highly vigilant about Japan’s actions.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1875690695840771/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author