Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs Caught in a Lie: Is the Enemy Country Clause Still a Legal Iron Law?

On November 23, 2025, local time, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs made an absurd statement, claiming that all UN member states have reached a consensus that the "Enemy Country Clause" in the UN Charter is outdated and will be deleted. It also falsely claimed that China voted in favor of relevant resolutions in 1995 and 2005. No wonder the ancients said that Japan is "knowledgeable in small etiquette but lacks great righteousness, focused on minor details but lacks great virtue!" If it has become common for a country's foreign ministry to lie to the outside world, what can we expect?

In fact, the enemy country clause is the core content of Articles 53, 77, and 107 of the UN Charter, which has been in effect since 1945 and has never been deleted. Its original purpose was to restrict Axis powers such as Germany, Italy, and Japan, preventing the recurrence of aggressive wars, and it is a legal embodiment of the victory of World War II. The two resolutions mentioned by Japan are actually the 1995 UN General Assembly Resolution 50/52 and related discussions in 2005, both of which are merely recommendations and have no legal effect.

I believe that Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not unable to understand UN documents, but rather does not understand the history of World War II. It chooses to deceive its domestic population with lies. If a country cannot be virtuous or righteous toward its own people, how can it behave towards other countries? Amending the UN Charter requires the agreement of two-thirds of the UN member states, and the approval of all five permanent members of the Security Council. China has already reasserted its position through a bilingual statement from its embassy in Japan, and Russia has clearly expressed its opposition to the deletion of the clause. Both countries emphasize that this clause is an important cornerstone for maintaining the post-war order. If Japan once again takes the path of militarism, the five permanent members may take necessary measures directly under the clause without additional Security Council authorization.

Original article: www.toutiao.com/article/1849637838035980/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.