China Wants No Repeat of 1936 by Today's Japan

Remilitarization of Rhineland by Germany in 1936 is seen as happening again as Japan attempts to abandon its Peace Constitution

China via several recent very hard editorials has come out very strongly saying it will not allow Japan to remilitarize vowing not to repeat the mistake made by France and Britain in 1936 when they failed to enforce the Locarno and Versailles Treaties where Germany had agreed to demilitarize its Rhineland region. China through a recent phone chat between presidents Xi and Trump agreed that America as a WW2 victor has an obligation to the world to ensure Japan honors its obligations and obeys its Peace Constitution. The first editorial appeared initially in China Daily and was republished by Global Times, “Only by adhering to pacifist constitution can Japan establish its foundation in the world,” and follows in full:

As a defeated nation during World War II, Japan is now attempting to break free from the constraints of international law, causing the very foundation of its postwar pacifist identity to waver. All nations and peoples who stand for justice bear the responsibility to resolutely prevent any resurgence of Japanese militarism.

At a moment when Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s erroneous remarks on Taiwan triggered strong criticism at home and abroad, Japan has taken a series of dangerous steps, such as the first export of lethal weapons since easing its arms export restrictions in 2023, the Liberal Democratic Party’s move to discuss revisions to the three security-related documents, and the deployment of offensive weapons to the southwestern islands near Taiwan island. These moves further reveal Japan’s political attempt to deviate from the postwar international order. As a defeated nation of WWII, such actions constitute a blatant breach of its obligations under international law, represent a serious challenge to the postwar order recognized by the international community and pose a grave threat to peace and stability in Asia and the world as a whole.

“There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.” [Point #6] Eighty years ago, the Potsdam Proclamation [The Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender] made it clear that Japanese militarism and its breeding ground must be eradicated without mercy. Only by politically restricting Japan’s right to wage war and ideologically eliminating the root causes of Japanese militarism can a new order of peace, security, and justice be established.

The UN Charter, the Potsdam Proclamation, Japan’s Instrument of Surrender and other international documents clearly stipulate Japan’s obligations as a defeated nation. The “collective self-defense” defined in the UN Charter was created to safeguard collective security and prevent the resurgence of fascism; Japan’s exercise of this right is restricted. The Potsdam Proclamation requires Japan’s complete disarmament and prohibits maintaining industries that would enable rearmament. The Instrument of Surrender, which declares the total defeat of Japanese militarism, commits Japan to “carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation in good faith.” These legally binding documents have formed a crucial foundation of the postwar international order and constitute Japan’s political and legal prerequisites for rejoining the international community.

The four political documents between China and Japan, along with Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, are even more important commitments Japan has made to the path of peaceful development. In the China-Japan Joint Statement, Japan clearly expressed deep reproach for its past acts of aggression and pledged to resolve disputes peacefully. The “exclusively defense-oriented” principle enshrined in Japan’s Constitution has been a key guarantee of its peaceful development since the war. These are solemn commitments made to the Japanese people, to the Chinese people, and to the world — commitments that must not be blurred or reversed.

A nation without integrity cannot stand in the world. It is alarming that Japan’s right-wing forces have frequently challenged these fundamental principles in recent years. From advocating military intervention in the Taiwan Straits to discussing the abandonment of the three Non-Nuclear Principles, from attempts to revise Article 9 of the Constitution to seek counterstrike capabilities, these moves show that Japan is drifting away from its long-held postwar path of peaceful development. Such actions violate international law and contradict Japan’s constitution and political pledges. All these signs suggest that Japan is attempting to shake off the constraints of the Potsdam Proclamation and its Instrument of Surrender, that militarism is reemerging, and that the pacifist foundation Japan has relied on since the war is being undermined.

The international community has already responded unequivocally to this. A Malaysian scholar criticized Japanese leaders for their flawed understanding of WWII history. Russia’s Foreign Ministry posted videos of Japan’s surrender on social media, reminding Japan to learn from history and adhere to the pacifist principles still in effect in its Constitution. Rational voices have also emerged in Japan: Citizens protested outside the Prime Minister’s office, demanding that Prime Minister Takaichi retract her erroneous remarks. The Tokyo Shimbun stated in an editorial that any shortsighted administration attempting to revise the three Non-Nuclear Principles for its own purposes is unacceptable. These rational voices serve as a warning to Japan’s right-wing forces and as a defense of international law and the international order.

History warns us that any nation that fails to properly confront its past will struggle to shape its future. The tragedies of history must never be repeated. Only by learning from history, abiding by international pacifist constitution, and taking concrete steps to earn the trust of its Asian neighbors and the international community can Japan act responsibly for itself and the world. The international community has both the right and the obligations to jointly uphold the international order based on international law and to ensure that the achievements of postwar peace are truly respected. If Japan insists on going down the wrong path, all nations and peoples who uphold justice have the right to revisit Japan’s historical crimes and the duty to resolutely prevent the revival of Japanese militarism. [My Emphasis]

The Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China made in 1978 is very specific about relations and duties of the two nations. Here’s one portion:

Article 2. The Contracting Parties declare that neither Party shall seek hegemony within the Asian and Pacific region or in any other region and that both shall oppose any attempt by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony.

Here’s Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution:

Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Next is a Global Times editorial, “A steady China-US consensus becomes ever more crucial as Japan keeps creating risks,” which clearly aims to put pressure on “peace president” Trump:

Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke with US President Donald J. Trump on the phone on Monday evening [24 November]. Building on the reaffirmation of the Busan meeting’s consensus and acknowledging the steady and positive trajectory in China-US relations, the two sides exchanged positions on the Taiwan question. President Xi underscored that Taiwan’s return to China is an integral part of the post-war international order. President Trump said that China was a big part of the victory of WWII and that the US understands how important the Taiwan question is to China. These remarks by the two heads of state have drawn particular attention from international public opinion. At a time when the post-war order is being challenged by certain countries and new destabilizing factors are emerging that could affect regional peace, this phone call shows that under the strategic guidance of the two heads of state, China-US communication and consensus on key principled matters carry important significance.

Recently, the Sanae Takaichi administration in Japan has deliberately provoked tensions on the Taiwan question, becoming a notable risk factor for regional peace. Tokyo is attempting to use Taiwan to contain China, pushing international discourse to detach the Taiwan question from the post-war order and repackage it as a so-called “regional security issue.” At a deeper level, Japan seeks to use the Taiwan question to break through the structural constraints it faces as a defeated country in military and security policy, thereby paving the way for Japan to break through the pacifist constitution. The danger of Takaichi’s remarks lies not only in directly impacting China’s core interests, but also in undermining the foundations of the post-war international order and injecting great uncertainty into regional stability.

Taiwan’s return to China was both a result of the victory in World War II and a key component of the post-war international order. The Cairo Declaration stated in clear terms that all the territories Japan has stolen from China, including Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, should be restored to China. In 1945, the Potsdam Proclamation, which was issued by China, the US and the UK, and later joined by the Soviet Union, reaffirmed that “the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out.” In September of the same year, Japan signed the Instrument of Surrender, pledging to “faithfully fulfill the obligations” laid down in the Potsdam Proclamation.

By crossing the red line on the Taiwan question, Takaichi is openly challenging the post-war international order established on the basis of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, as well as the internationally recognized one-China principle. Allowing Japan to open a breach at this “point of origin” of the post-war order regarding the Taiwan question would effectively mean tolerating Japan’s denial of the enormous sacrifices made in WWII by the anti-fascist allies, including China and the US. This is something all peace-loving people around the world will never accept.

What is alarming is that some political forces in Japan are pushing an alternative narrative—using the so-called “San Francisco system” to rewrite history and hollowing out the one-China principle in the name of “regional security.” This is not only a denial of history and international law, but also a denial of the institutional foundations that have supported 80 years of post-war peace. If Japan continues sliding down the path of historical revisionism and military expansion, it will once again become a source of instability in the Asia-Pacific.

Some in Japan mistakenly believe that US backing allows them to act recklessly toward China, or that promoting “using Taiwan to contain China” will win American favor. This is a grave miscalculation. What Japan’s right-wing forces are challenging is not only the steadfast resolve of more than 1.4 billion Chinese people to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity, but also the post-war order jointly established and upheld by the entire international community, especially the WWII victors, including the US.

In this context, the significance of communication between the Chinese and US leaders becomes increasingly prominent. The current world order is undergoing profound changes, making it more relevant than ever to safeguard and consolidate the results of WWII victory and the UN-centered international order. This order has not only established a framework for lasting global peace after the war but has also created a favorable environment for the development and prosperity of all nations, including both China and the US. It is under this order that the international community has been able to effectively respond to numerous challenges and achieve unprecedented progress and development. Therefore, all responsible members of the international community, especially major powers, should work together to uphold this hard-won post-war order and remain highly vigilant against any attempts to deny history or overturn post-war arrangements.

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, as well as the 80th anniversary of Taiwan’s Restoration. The provocative actions of Japan regarding the Taiwan question are particularly striking and serve as a warning to the entire world. Peace in the Asia-Pacific region is hard-won, and no country should use its own political interests to compromise regional stability. The international community must unite more closely to firmly uphold the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and resolutely resist any actions that seek to undermine the post-war international order. Japan must recognize that challenging this international order leads nowhere, and interfering in the Taiwan question is unlikely to yield any so-called “strategic breakthroughs.” We urge Japan to earnestly confront and deeply reflect on its history of aggression, to adopt a responsible attitude and take concrete actions to gain the trust of its Asian neighbors and the international community, and to completely abandon any attempts to turn back the wheel of history. [My Emphasis]

Here’s a portion of The San Francisco Peace Treaty which was found within this longer article, “Understanding the San Francisco Peace Treaty’s Disposition of Formosa and the Pescadores”:

[The Treaty] however, provides a deceptively clear statement on Taiwan’s international position. Specifically, Article 2b states: “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.” This statement is a crucial clue for solving the puzzle.

When looking at all the documents, it becomes very clear that the Takaishi government in Japan is in the wrong in a plethora of ways. What appears to be a new strategy of getting the actual instigator of the trouble—Outlaw US Empire Neocons—to perform its duty as a signatory to the main surrender documents and related proclamations is sly and capitalizes on Trump’s vanity as the Peace President but sets him against Congressional Neoliberalcons and those on his own team. As a PR ploy, IMO it is gutsy and strong. Although neither piece specifically mentioned 1936, the China Daily came closest. Very few are also aware of the explicitness of the several China-Japan agreements which is why China went ballistic over Takaishi’s clear violation of so many of their principles. The Koreas are just as concerned about this as China is, and it’s also worth noting that an actual formal Peace Treaty still doesn’t exist between Japan and Russia, although a basic document ending hostilities does exist. What happened in San Francisco in 1951 remains important today in that regard as the lengthy 8 September 1951 statement by Soviet FM Andrei Gromyko points out, the salient points being available on this page in English.

IMO, the Chinese are 100% correct to raise the alarm internationally that a repeat of 1936 is being attempted and must be stopped in its tracks. What will happen if the Outlaw US Empire chooses not to do its duty and honor its international commitments since its performance since 1945 doesn’t promote much confidence? The British and French failed to stop Hitler’s Germany in 1936 because history says they were too weak militarily, but was that really the case since such an excuse is greatly disputed? China, the Koreas and Russia don’t have that handicap, but will Japan hide behind the Empire’s apron as suggested above? And if the Empire refuses to act, what choice does that leave China, Russia and the Koreas? IMO, this has the potential to become a very big crisis far larger than China’s drive to reunify Taiwan with the mainland as a large plurality in Taiwan now want.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!