Nine questions about Japan

1. Has Takaichi truly reflected on her erroneous remarks regarding Taiwan?

The erroneous remarks on Taiwan made by Prime Minister Takaichi marked the first time since World War II that a Japanese leader has made a statement containing a threat of force against China. Some have tried to defend her, claiming that she has repeatedly clarified her "misstatement" and attempted to "deescalate" the situation, while China has been "relentless." But is that really the case? Let's take a closer look at her subsequent statements. On the one hand, she claims her remarks align with the government's position and will not be retracted or cancelled. On the other hand, she defends herself by saying it was merely a "hypothetical response" and that she will avoid citing specific scenarios in the future. To put it bluntly, her "reflection" is not about how her remarks violate the spirit of the four political documents between China and Japan or Japan's commitments on the Taiwan question, but rather about being too explicit and specific in describing the "survival-threatening situation." In other words, she doesn't think she "said the wrong thing," only that she "said too much."

Before Japan's House of Representatives election, Prime Minister Takaichi once again brought up the Taiwan question, claiming that Japan and Taiwan are geographically close and that if a crisis occurs in the Taiwan Strait, the U.S. and Japan would jointly evacuate their citizens. She also stated that if the U.S. military was attacked, Japan would not stand idly by. We must ask: What does Taiwan's situation have to do with Japan? Why is she so obsessed with Japan’s role in the so-called "Taiwan contingency" Scenario? And why is she attempting to drag the U.S. in? Her remarks, rather than being a "reflection," reveal her true intentions more clearly with each explanation, exposing the ulterior motives of certain forces that are bent on military intervention in the Taiwan Strait and interference in China's internal affairs, regardless of the cost.

2. Is Japan consistent in its words and deeds on the Taiwan question?

First, it must be made clear that a consensus exists between China and Japan regarding the Taiwan question, and there should be no divergence in understanding. In 1972, when the two countries normalized diplomatic relations, they signed the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement, which explicitly stated in black and white that the Government of Japan recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, fully understands and respects that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China, and firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation. Since then, Japan's foreign ministers and senior officials have repeatedly and publicly stated that the Taiwan question is "essentially China's internal affair." China and Japan have consistently reaffirmed the consensus reached on the Taiwan question in numerous important political documents and leaders' meetings.

However, let’s take a look at what Japan has actually done. In recent years, the rhetoric that "a contingency in Taiwan is a contingency for Japan" has become prevalent in Japanese political circles. Senior government officials, ruling party executives, members of the Diet, and local politicians have frequently made visits to Taiwan. Japan has kept strengthening targeted military deployments in regions near Taiwan. Prime Minister Takaichi claims that the Japanese government’s basic position regarding Taiwan remains unchanged, yet she consistently avoids fully articulating that position and refuses to retract her erroneous remarks hinting at military intervention in the Taiwan Strait. These actions are a clear breach of trust, fundamentally undermining the political foundation of China-Japan relations and creating serious obstacles to the development of bilateral ties.

3. Has the Japanese militarism been thoroughly reckoned with?

After World War II, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East delivered judgments on some Japanese Class-A war criminals, representing the international community's just reckoning with Japanese militarism. However, with the outbreak of the Cold War, the Tribunal was hastily concluded, issuing verdicts on only 25 Class-A war criminals. Japan quickly began its rearmament process, establishing a paramilitary organization—the National Police Reserve—which was later renamed the Self-Defense Forces. Japan signed the so-called Treaty of San Francisco with the United States and a number of other countries, seeking to downplay the historical lessons of its defeat and evade responsibility for the crimes of its militarist aggression.

For a considerable period after the war, Japan persistently sought to whitewash and rehabilitate war criminals. By the end of 1951, out of over 210,000 individuals initially purged—including war criminals, former soldiers, and right-wing leaders—201,507 were exempted from punishment. Subsequently, a large number of militarist elements returned to prominent political positions, steering Japan's political landscape gradually to the right. Class-A war criminal Mamoru Shigemitsu served as Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, and Class-A war criminal suspect Nobusuke Kishi became Prime Minister. In 1978, 14 Class-A war criminals, including Hideki Tojo, were enshrined together at Yasukuni Shrine, becoming the so-called "Eirei" (Heroic Spirits) worshipped by many Japanese politicians.

Japan's failure to make a clean break with militarism has allowed the ideological roots of its war of aggression and the remnants of its wartime politics to continue to haunt the country. Right-wing forces in Japan are intensifying the push for military buildup, challenging the outcomes of World War II and the post-war international order. Faced with the potential revival of Japanese militarism, the international community must jointly oppose and curb this dangerous trend.

4. Has Japan truly reflected on its history of aggression?

Japan's external aggression during World War II brought profound suffering to the region and the world, and also inflicted deep wounds on the Japanese people. In the post-war period, the Japanese government has expressed a certain degree of remorse and apology. There are also many peace-loving people in Japan who stand for justice, maintaining a clear understanding of history and showing genuine repentance. However, some right-wing politicians and leaders have persistently refused to face up to history. They have engaged in so-called "reflection" on the war, but their "reflection" is not on Japan’s war crimes, but on "why Japan was defeated." At the same time, they have never stopped trying to change the verdict on this history of aggression, consistently striving to downplay, deny, and even gloss over it. They claim that the International Military Tribunal for the Far East was merely a trial of the vanquished by the victors, using the "history is undetermined" theory to exonerate their crimes. They frequently visit Yasukuni Shrine, paying tribute to Class-A war criminals. They advance the revision of history textbooks and deny historical facts such as the Nanjing Massacre and the forced recruitment of "comfort women." These actions by right-wing Japanese politicians fully reveal their resentment of and dissatisfaction with the just outcomes of WWII.

How can Japan, uttering occasional words of "reflection" while repeatedly acting with hypocrisy, convince its victimized neighbors and the international community of its "remorse"?

History and the future are connected. Denying history is refusing to recognize responsibilities, and forgetting the lessons of the past will lead to a repeat of the same mistakes. When Prime Minister Takaichi declares that "Japan is back," people cannot help but ask: what kind of Japan has returned? Is it the Japan that advocated "Hakkō Ichiu" (the whole world under one roof) and wantonly invaded its neighbors? Is it a Japan that tries to shake off the constraint of the post-war system and go back to the path of military expansion?

5. Where does Japan fall short in post-war reparations compared to Germany?

After World War II, successive German governments have expressed sincere apologies in various forms to the victims of the war. In 1970, then-West German Chancellor Willy Brandt knelt down before the Monument to the Ghetto Heroes in Warsaw —an act that left a deep impression on the world. Germany has earnestly fulfilled its reparation obligations on both legal and moral fronts, enacting a series of specialized laws such as the Federal Compensation Law and establishing special funds to promote extensive state compensation and compensation to individual victims. Germany fully paid off its World War II reparations by 2007, while its World War I reparations—which took 92 years to settle—were finally resolved in 2010.

In contrast, Japan adopted a fundamentally different attitude toward post-war reparation. It sought a one-time settlement through treaties to evade a thorough accounting of its war crimes. Although Japan paid limited compensation to some Southeast Asian countries (largely in the form of services and goods, which significantly reduced the real value), it has consistently evaded its legal and moral responsibilities to individual victims in China, its main victim country, on the grounds that China waived inter-governmental claims. Compensation lawsuits filed in Japan by the victims and their surviving families concerning atrocities such as the forced labor, the forced recruitment of "comfort women," and crimes committed by Unit 731—have almost all ended in defeat.

How a country handles its war reparations responsibilities is a test of its view of history and moral conscience. Right-wing politicians in Japan, disregarding historical justice, have gradually hollowed out the Murayama Statement, which acknowledged colonial rule and aggression. Through the Abe Statement, they promoted the idea that Japan should not "continue to apologize," seeking to write off historical responsibilities including reparations and apologies. In so doing, Japan can never truly win the trust of its Asian neighbors or the international community.

6. Have the issues left over from Japan’s war of aggression been resolved?

More than 80 years have passed since the end of World War II. Yet, numerous issues caused by Japan’s external aggression remain unresolved. These include both practical threats that continue to have serious negative impacts and historical crimes that have never been properly addressed.

After its defeat in the war against China, Japan abandoned and buried a large number of chemical weapons on-site. To this day, these weapons still pose a major danger to the lives and safety of the Chinese people—they are "time-bombs" that could explode at any moment. By 2025, about 400,000 abandoned chemical weapons (ACWs) left by Japan had been found in 18 provinces of China. In accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, Japan should have completed the destruction of these weapons by the end of 2007. However, the relevant process has been repeatedly delayed and missed its deadline four times.

During World War II, more than 200,000 women were brutally forced into long-term sexual slavery by the Japanese military as "comfort women." Tens of millions of workers forcibly recruited by the Japanese military were subjected to hard labor under brutal conditions. Meanwhile, the Japanese forces in China forcibly imposed "military currency" in the occupied areas, wiping out the entire life savings of countless families overnight. After the war, these victims and their bereaved families have filed lawsuits against the Japanese government many times, demanding apologies and compensation, but all have ended in failure. In addition, a large number of precious cultural relics looted by Japan during its invasion of China are still in Japan’s possession. China’s calls for the return of these cultural relics have never received a reasonable response.

No matter how Japan remains silent or distorts textbooks, it cannot cover up the historical truth on these leftover war issues. Nor can it shirk its due responsibilities under the excuse of "wartime acts." Only by facing up to history and taking concrete actions to atone for its crimes of aggression can Japan repair the harm done to the people in victim countries and win the forgiveness of the international community.

7. Is Japan truly committed to its "Exclusively Defense-Oriented" Principle?

The so-called "exclusively defense-oriented" principle means that Japan may only deploy its Self-Defense Forces after being subjected to an armed attack, and the use of such forces must be limited to the minimum scope necessary for self-defense.

However, the words and deeds of the Japanese government in recent years indicate that the "exclusively defense-oriented" principle exists in name only. In 2015, the Japanese government forced through new security laws in the Diet, which stipulate that if a "country with close ties to Japan" is subjected to an armed attack and such an event is deemed to constitute a "survival-threatening situation," Japan may exercise the right of collective self-defense. At the end of 2022, the Japanese government adopted three security and defense documents, including the new version of the National Security Strategy, which explicitly incorporated the "capability to strike enemy bases" into its national defense strategy and granted the Self-Defense Forces the right to pre-emptive strikes. Immediately after taking office, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi expressed her intention to lift restrictions on weapons exports, and even blatantly hinted at the possibility of military intervention in the Taiwan question.

Japan's hollowing out of the "exclusively defense-oriented" principle means it is breaking free from the post-war system, moving at a faster pace to remove constraints on its military, and going further down the path of military buildup. But the question is this: while Japan keeps invoking the "survival-threatening situation" at every turn, what existential threats is Japan actually facing? More than 80 years ago, it was Japan that posed existential threats to its neighbors. Now 80 years after the end of World War II, the former militaristic country is once again seeking military buildup and the excuses to use it. What will this bring to humanity?

8. Is Japan truly a "peace-loving country"?

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution explicitly stipulates that Japan forever renounces war and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. It further provides that Japan will never maintain land, sea, and air forces, or other war potential, and will never recognize the right of belligerency of the state. This is Japan's solemn commitment to the international community, as well as the political and legal prerequisite for its return to the international community.

In recent years, the Japanese authorities have continuously hollowed out the pacifist core of the Constitution using the salami-slicing tactics—from reinterpreting the Constitution to removing the ban on exercising the right to collective self-defense and then to developing long-range offensive strike capabilities. The ruling party has openly pushed forward the constitutional amendment agenda in an attempt to ultimately abolish Article 9. Prime Minister Takaichi has vowed to explicitly write the Self-Defense Forces into the Constitution to officially recognize them as a military force, thus enabling Japan to establish a "formal military," and to put a permanent end to the "post-war system" in legal terms. Meanwhile, Japan's defense budget has increased for 14 consecutive years, up by about 60 percent in the past five years. In 2025, its per capita defense budget rose to three times that of China. A large share of these funds is being used to develop offensive weapons. A senior official from the Prime Minister's Office even claimed that "Japan should have nuclear weapons."

People cannot help asking the questions: Why does a country that claims to be peace-loving so vehemently reject its pacifist Constitution? And why is it so obsessed with developing offensive capabilities that far exceed its own defense needs?

More than 80 years ago, Japan whitewashed its aggression under the pretext of building a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." Today, it is playing the same trick by pursuing militarist ambitions under the mask of a "peace-loving country." If Japan persists in going down a path that deviates from peace, it will only end up reaping what it sows.

9. Is Japan’s human rights record truly exemplary?

Japan has long styled itself a "champion of human rights" and frequently uses human rights as an excuse to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Yet throughout history, there has been a striking gap between Japan's actual performance and its self-proclaimed image in the field of human rights.

Historically, Japanese militarists perpetrated countless human rights catastrophes, including massacres, human experimentation, bacterial warfare, and the recruitment of "comfort women"—all acts of unimaginable brutality rarely seen in human history.

Japan has also long violated the rights of ethnic minorities such as the Ainu and Ryukyuan people, subjecting them to bullying, plunder, forced assimilation, as well as discriminatory and unequal treatment. In the course of Japan’s post-war development, basic human rights have also been repeatedly disregarded. Following the outbreak of pollution-related health disasters including Minamata Disease, Itai-Itai Disease and Yokkaichi Asthma, relevant enterprises and government departments covered up the truth and delayed response measures, leaving indelible pain on the public.

Beneath the veneer of economic prosperity, the problems of poverty and discrimination cannot be ignored. Japan's relative poverty rate stood at 15.4 percent, with roughly one-sixth of its population living far below the general standard of living. One in every seven children faces the plight of food shortage and nutritional imbalance. Gender inequality remains deeply entrenched: the average annual income of women is only 56 percent of that of men, and women account for around 70 percent of all informal employment positions in Japan.

Japan’s judicial authorities, the supposed last line of defense for social equity, have been repeatedly exposed to have misconduct including coerced confessions and evidence fabrication, which have led to sensational wrongful convictions such as the Ashikaga Case and the Fukawa Case. Residents living around U.S. military bases in Japan have long suffered from safety accidents, criminal offenses, noise pollution and environmental contamination. The Japanese government turns a deaf ear to public protests, and has even used police to suppress them. A government that cannot even safeguard the rights of its own citizens has no right to point fingers at other countries.

The author is a commentator on China-Japan relations.