The Growth of Japanese Militarism Is a Serious Threat to the Post-War International Order: An Interview with Zhang Haipeng, Member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
Reporter: Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi declared in the National Diet that a "contingency in the Taiwan Strait" might constitute a "situation of existential crisis" in which Japan could exercise the right of collective self-defense. This openly interferes in China's internal affairs and constitutes a threat of armed force. What is the actual truth behind Japan's so-called "existential crisis"?
Zhang Haipeng: Looking back at history, raising banners such as the "right to survival," "self-defense," or "existential crisis" has been a customary ruse for Japan to launch external aggression.
As early as the late 16th century, Toyotomi Hideyoshi envisioned entering the Korean Peninsula to invade the Ming Dynasty. During the Meiji Restoration of 1868, the Emperor issued the so-called "Imperial Rescript" [1] to "inherit the great work of the ancestors," "expand the ten thousand miles of waves, and spread the national prestige in all four directions." This reflected Japan’s plot to seize the Ryukyu Islands, Korea, and China’s Taiwan. In the 1890s, Japan, having grown powerful through the Meiji Restoration, finally became an imperialist state, and its aggressive ambitions were no longer concealed. In 1890, Prime Minister Aritomo Yamagata proposed the concepts of the "line of sovereignty" and the "line of interest" at the first session of the National Diet. He argued that Japan's boundaries were the line of sovereignty, while Korea was Japan's line of interest; to secure this line of interest, "advancing into China" became the top priority. At the fourth session of the National Diet, the Japanese Emperor proposed the concept of "unifying the six directions and covering the eight corners" [2], which in reality approved the policy of launching wars of aggression against Korea and China. In 1919, Kita Ikki, the progenitor of Japanese fascism, raised the issue of Japan’s "living space," which became a slogan for many Japanese politicians. In 1927, Prime Minister Giichi Tanaka formed the "Outline of Policy Toward China" through the "Eastern Conference," asserting that "Imperial rights and interests in China" "require the taking of decisive measures for their protection," and arrogantly claimed that "Manchuria and Mongolia"—especially the three provinces of Northeast China—bore a significant stake in Japan’s national defense and the survival of its citizens. Tanaka also stated: "Continental expansion is the primary condition for the survival of the Yamato race." In 1931, Yōsuke Matsuoka declared in the Diet that "the Manchuria-Mongolia issue is a matter concerning our country's existence; it is our country's lifeline." From then on, the claim that "Northeast China is Japan’s lifeline and Japan’s right to survival" became a mantra for many Japanese politicians.
In July 1931, Japanese imperialism maliciously manufactured the Wanpaoshan Incident in Changchun, Jilin. Prime Minister Reijirō Wakatsuki said: "Our country enjoys interests in the Manchuria-Mongolia region that are closely linked to the survival of our citizens. To protect our country's right to survival, we must rise up resolutely, sparing no sacrifice." Following this, the September 18th Incident [3] occurred, leading to the occupation of Northeast China. These so-called lines of interest, lifelines, rights to survival, and rights to self-defense were the shameless "theories" used by Japanese militarism to launch external invasions; they are synonyms for aggression. The launching of the September 18th Incident and the Lugou Bridge Incident [4] were all acts of aggression carried out under the pretext of these terms.
Reporter: By launching wars of aggression under such pretexts, what historical crimes did Japanese militarism commit?
Zhang Haipeng: In 1879, Japan dispatched troops to Naha, kidnapped the King of Ryukyu, destroyed the Ryukyu Kingdom, and converted Ryukyu into Japan’s Okinawa Prefecture. How can words describe such a tragedy of national destruction?
During the First Sino-Japanese War, the Japanese army not only carried out a massacre in Port Arthur (Lüshun), killing over 20,000 peaceful residents and extorting a war indemnity of 230 million taels of silver, but also occupied Taiwan and the Penghu Islands for over 50 years. After that war, Japan also gained control over Korea, eventually announcing its annexation in 1910.
In 1931, Japan deliberately instigated the September 18th Incident, initiating a 14-year war of aggression against China. In 1937, it launched the Lugou Bridge Incident, successively occupying major transport arteries and large-to-medium cities in North, East, Central, and South China, including Beiping (Beijing), Tianjin, Baoding, Jinan, Qingdao, Shanghai, Nanjing, Wuhan, Changsha, Nanchang, and Guangzhou. Japanese forces invaded more than half of China and established several puppet regimes on Chinese territory, such as "Manchukuo," the Wang Jingwei puppet regime in Nanjing, and the puppet organizations in Beiping, implementing Japanese-style colonial rule there. The war of aggression caused more than 35 million casualties among Chinese military and civilians, with direct economic losses exceeding 100 billion USD. Countless peaceful residents fled the flames of war, ending up dead in ditches. The Nanjing Massacre resulted in the tragic deaths of 300,000 peaceful residents and soldiers who had laid down their arms. Hundreds of "ten-thousand-man pits" (mass graves) scattered across the country still reveal bleached bones today. The "Three Alls" Policy [5]—burn all, kill all, loot all—along with rape and plunder, left an indelible memory of pain for the Chinese people. The forced recruitment of "comfort women," the Unit 731 bacterial warfare division, and the so-called "death projects" and "human flesh projects" constructed using Chinese labor throughout the Northeast caused millions of Chinese to suffer extreme humiliation or unnatural deaths. It is estimated that millions of gas shells abandoned in China continue to threaten the lives and safety of the Chinese people to this day.
In December 1941, Japan launched the Pearl Harbor Incident, attacking the U.S. Pacific Fleet and initiating the Pacific War. Subsequently, Japanese troops invaded Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma (Myanmar), Thailand, and other countries, and occupied Hong Kong. Japanese militarists ran rampant for a time, attempting to establish the so-called "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" to achieve Hakko Ichiu ("eight corners of the world under one roof"). This "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" and Hakko Ichiu meant having Japan as the supreme master and the various Asian countries as its colonies, allowing Japan to demand whatever it desired and arbitrarily exploit the peoples of Asia.
Japan’s war of aggression brought profound disasters to the people of China and other Asian nations. People everywhere, especially the Chinese people, rose up to resist Japanese aggression, forming the main eastern battlefield of the Second World War. After the Pacific War began, China, the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union formed a strategic alliance against Japan. The world’s anti-fascist forces united to achieve victory in the anti-fascist war and rebuilt the post-war peaceful international order.
Reporter: From a domestic Japanese perspective, Sanae Takaichi’s erroneous words and actions reflect a clear rightward shift in Japan's political ecosystem. Does this mean that the trend of Japanese militarism is undergoing a resurgence?
Zhang Haipeng: As Prime Minister of Japan, Sanae Takaichi openly and formally declared during a Diet interpellation that a "contingency in the Taiwan Strait" might constitute a so-called "situation of existential crisis" and that Japan could exercise the right of collective self-defense. This is a formal articulation of what former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe did not dare to say so overtly during his tenure—statements like "a contingency in Taiwan is a contingency for Japan." This is open warmongering. This is the first time since the normalization of diplomatic relations between China and Japan in 1972 that a Japanese Prime Minister has openly interfered in China’s internal affairs, flagrantly ignoring international law, Japan's domestic "Peace Constitution," the spirit of the four political documents between China and Japan, and the basic norms governing international relations.
In fact, right-wing forces within Japan have been active and attempting to influence Japanese politicians. Since the mid-1980s, some Japanese politicians began visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, the Ministry of Education began revising history textbooks, and certain right-wing politicians denied the Nanjing Massacre. Right-wing organizations such as the "Bereaved Families Association," the "Great East Asia War Research Society," the "Liberal View of History Study Group," and the "Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform" have continuously manufactured public opinion denying the history of aggression. These facts repeatedly prove that a trend of rightward shift in Japanese society is taking shape. On August 15, 1995, the 50th anniversary of Japan’s unconditional surrender, then-Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama issued a statement expressing deep remorse for the tremendous damage and suffering Japan caused to many countries, especially the people of Asian nations, through colonial rule and aggression. This was a correct statement consistent with the development of China-Japan relations. In 1998, the third political document between China and Japan was issued, in which both sides confirmed that mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-aggression, non-interference in internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, peaceful coexistence, and the principles of the UN Charter are the basic norms for handling relations between states. Both sides maintained that facing the past and correctly understanding history are important foundations for developing China-Japan relations. These played an important role in checking the rightward shift of Japanese society. However, after the Junichiro Koizumi cabinet was established in 2001, he visited the Yasukuni Shrine multiple times. The 2012 "island purchase" farce [6], Shinzo Abe’s collective visit to the Yasukuni Shrine after taking office, attempts to revise the "Peace Constitution," and the revision of history textbooks all posed a serious threat to peace in Asia. These acts attempt to subvert the post-war international order and indicate that the Japanese government views war guilt very lightly, with no intention of repenting for the mistakes of launching the war, and is heading toward the revival of militarism.
The Prime Ministers who held office after 2012 belong to the generation born after the war. Some among them cater to Japanese right-wing ideological trends, challenging historical understanding and the Taiwan issue, while pushing for the revision of Article 9 of the "Peace Constitution" to militarize the Self-Defense Forces. They have become dangerous variables challenging the post-war landscape. Sanae Takaichi has inherited Shinzo Abe’s erroneous position and attempted to go a step further. This change in the Japanese political arena is extremely dangerous and requires the focused attention of the international community.
Reporter: The erroneous remarks by Japanese politicians disregard historical facts and violate legal principles and the basic norms of international relations. In your view, what overt challenges do Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s erroneous remarks pose to the post-war international order?
Zhang Haipeng: The Cairo Declaration explicitly stipulates that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the First World War in 1914; and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as the four provinces of the Northeast (Manchuria), Taiwan, and the Penghu Islands, shall be restored to China; and that Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The Potsdam Proclamation clearly defined Japan's sovereign territory as being limited to the four main islands and such minor islands as the Allies determined; the Diaoyu Islands and the Ryukyu Islands were not included within Japan’s territorial scope. The proclamation mandated Japan’s unconditional surrender, stipulated that the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out, and required the destruction of Japan's militaristic state and war machinery. Japan was to be occupied by Allied forces, its military completely disarmed, and its war criminals brought to justice. The industrial system for maintaining Japan’s economy could be maintained, but military industries could not be retained. The Japanese Instrument of Surrender announced the acceptance of the Potsdam Proclamation and its eighth article, ensuring the Cairo Declaration would be implemented.
In 1972, China and Japan signed a Joint Statement in which the Japanese government recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China. The PRC government reaffirmed that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the PRC, and the Japanese government fully understands and respects this position and adheres to its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.
As Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi’s proclamations in the Diet regarding a "contingency in the Taiwan Strait" completely violate the aforementioned international treaties. She is entirely unaware that Japan remains pegged to the "enemy state" clauses [7] [in the UN Charter]. Taiwan was long ago legally and legitimately returned to China in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation; it is an inalienable part of China's sacred territory, with an unbreakable foundation in international law. As the head of government of a signatory state to the UN Charter, she should realize that Japan does not possess the right to collective self-defense. As the head of the Japanese government, which once occupied Taiwan for 50 years, she should have at least some sense of guilt and shame. She should understand how to base her position on the 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender and recognize the importance of maintaining the post-war landscape for the international community, including Japan itself.
Sanae Takaichi’s so-called "situation of existential crisis" is shocking. This was a synonym for Japan's past aggression against other countries. If the Japanese side persists in this position, do they intend to relive the fascist "old dream" of Japanese militarism? If the Japanese government disregards historical lessons and dares to take risks, it will surely wind up with a broken head and spilled blood!
Reporter: Facing the challenge and threat of the "resurrection" of Japanese militarism, how should the international community strike back to jointly safeguard the fruits of the victory of World War II and the peaceful world order?
Zhang Haipeng: The Chinese government and the international community have already issued many severe condemnations and criticisms of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's erroneous remarks. To effectively guard against and resolutely block these challenges from Takaichi, the international community must return to the positions of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the UN Charter.
The purpose of the UN Charter is to "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace." Articles 53, 77, and 107 of the Charter involve provisions regarding "enemy states." According to Article 53, Paragraph 2, "enemy state" refers to any state which during the Second World War was an enemy of any signatory to the Charter. Paragraph 1 of that article stipulates that measures against any ernegy state to prevent further aggression do not require the prior authorization of the UN Security Council. The content of Article 107 is substantially the same as Article 53, Paragraph 1.
As the country that resisted Japanese aggression the longest and most resolutely during WWII, suffering the greatest loss of life and property, and as a direct party to the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, as well as a founding member of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council, China has the right to issue international warnings against the erroneous words and actions of the Japanese government head, who is challenging the post-war international order as a representative of a "enemy state" recognized by the UN Charter. The international community, including Japan, should focus on monitoring and scrutinizing the following aspects: first, whether the Japanese government adheres to the position declared in the 1945 Instrument of Surrender; second, whether the Japanese government adheres to the "Peace Constitution" and whether it has any intention or action to break through Article 9 of the Constitution; third, whether the composition of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, its defense budget, military industry, and strategic goals comply with the UN Charter; and fourth, whether the Japanese government implements the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation regarding Japan's territorial scope, and so on. The international community should work together to thoroughly combat the erroneous remarks and illegal challenges of the Japanese government head, eliminate obstacles hindering the post-war international order, and jointly safeguard world peace.
(Reporter for Guangming Daily: Zhao Fan) Source: Guangming Daily (January 5, 2026) Web Editor: Huihui