2024-01-16

The following is from Masayuki Takayama’s latest book, Henken Jizai: Who Buried Shinzo Abe?
This book is the latest in a series of bound editions of his celebrated columns in Shukan Shincho, but the original text has been polished even further, making it still easier to read.
For this book alone, he deserves the Nobel Prize in Literature.
It is a must-read not only for the Japanese people but also for people throughout the world.
Rogue States Threatening Japan with the “Former Enemy Clauses”
Some time ago, Beatrice Fihn, the head of an NGO that received the Nobel Peace Prize for advocating the abolition of nuclear weapons, visited Japan.
One might have expected her to sympathize with Japan, the only country to have suffered atomic bombings, but she was remarkably hostile.
Japan had rejected the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that she advocated.
She did not like that.
The reason is obvious.
Under the MacArthur Constitution, Japan can possess neither nuclear weapons nor a proper military.
Japan needs the American nuclear umbrella to defend itself, but if it joins the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, it must also withdraw from that American nuclear umbrella.
Another reason for not ratifying the treaty is Japan’s right as the only country to have suffered atomic bombings.
Japan has the right, before any other country, to possess nuclear weapons in order to protect itself from the threat of nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, Japan continues to reserve the right to retaliate against the United States with two nuclear weapons for dropping its inhumane atomic bombs.
Of the 200,000 people killed by Truman’s atomic bombs, 80 percent were women and children—in other words, noncombatants under international law.
In addition, the United States has acknowledged that it conducted a “plutonium experiment on human beings” in Nagasaki (U.S. Department of Energy).
The United States has still not apologized for this barbaric act.
At that time, the Japanese people vowed to avenge the war.
There is no reason why the Japanese people should abandon that vow.
Without understanding the circumstances, Fihn flew into a rage, declaring that she would not tolerate such discourtesy that caused her to lose face, and her parting shot was appalling.
“After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan will be hit a third time.”
If she has no sense of racial discrimination, she should not waste her time in Japan but should immediately fly to Moscow and direct her feelings at Vladimir Putin, who has been hinting at the use of nuclear weapons.
She is a superficial and cynical woman, but the words “Japan will be hit a third time” are by no means preposterous in themselves.
The grounds for them lie in the “Former Enemy Clauses” of the United Nations Charter.
The former enemy states are countries such as Germany, Hungary, Finland, and Japan that fought against the Allied powers in the last war.
If you want to understand the gravity of these clauses, which sound like something from an old tale, you need only look at Article 53 of the United Nations Charter.
It stipulates that “armed sanctions” may be imposed upon countries that fought against the Allied powers.
Take, for example, Russia, which is now invading Ukraine.
That country once invaded Japan after Japan had surrendered and, just as it is doing in Ukraine today, raped, plundered, and murdered the residents at will.
On top of that, it seized Japanese territory extending from southern Sakhalin to the four Northern Islands.
Russia did not hesitate to fire upon the citizens of Eastern European countries that rejected communism or to run them over and kill them with tanks.
Article 53 of the United Nations Charter stipulates that when “military sanctions are imposed” upon such an evil country, the nations are to cooperate and need only obtain the approval of the Security Council to carry out those sanctions.
That is what should have happened this time.
It did not happen, however, because Russia exercised its veto as a permanent member of the Security Council.
But Article 53 contains a second clause.
If the country is a former enemy state such as Japan or Germany, a nation that considers it a threat may “impose armed sanctions without the approval of the Security Council.”
A former enemy state is branded from birth as a rogue state.
Imagine a country resembling Russia and North Korea divided into two.
It says that if such a country commits another evil act, it may be subjected unilaterally to a lynching in the name of justice.
Suppose, for example, that Japan deploys missiles for attacking enemy bases.
If China or North Korea regards that as a sign of the revival of the Japanese Empire, it may rain nuclear weapons down upon Japan.
Moreover, that would be regarded as a legitimate act authorized by the United Nations Charter.
Some people say, “No, no—the Former Enemy Clauses were abolished by the United Nations General Assembly 30 years ago and are now obsolete.”
But the Security Council has still not resolved to abolish them.
On the contrary, regarding the Senkaku Islands, China’s Yang Jiechi has even shown a willingness to invoke the Former Enemy Clauses, saying, “Although you are a former enemy of China, you are attempting to seize Chinese territory.”
The same applies to North Korea.
For such rogue states, the Former Enemy Clauses constitute a “blade of justice.”
Yet in Japan, the prime minister rejects nuclear retaliation by saying, “Because we have the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, we will not even discuss nuclear weapons,” while the opposition parties foolishly declare that attacking enemy bases is out of the question.
If Japan has no intention of retaliating even after being hit by a third nuclear weapon, neither China nor North Korea will hesitate.
Does this kind of madness not unquestionably come from the other side of the Sea of Japan?
(Issue of June 9, 2022)