International community mustn't fail the test: China Daily editorial

At the United Nations, history is never a distant echo. It remains a living yardstick against which today's conduct is measured. When Sun Lei, charge d'affaires of China's Permanent Mission to the UN, urged the international community to prevent Japan from reverting to "the old and pernicious path of militarism", his appeal was rooted not only in painful historical memory, but also in sober concern for the future of international peace and security.

Crimes against humanity are among the gravest offenses under international law. As Sun underscored at the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity on Monday, this concept emerged from the charters of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Trials), embodying the conscience of humankind after World War II. The Tokyo Trials, which began 80 years ago, systematically exposed and adjudicated the crimes of Japanese militarism — from its wars of aggression to the atrocities it inflicted on the people of China, other Asian nations and the wider world.

The Tokyo Trials constitute irrefutable evidence of Japan's wartime aggression and pioneered the development of international criminal law. They are the cornerstone of the law-based postwar international order and not a historical footnote that can be selectively forgotten or reinterpreted. To safeguard the victorious outcomes of World War II, including the Tokyo Trials, is to safeguard the very foundation of today's international system.

Yet safeguarding this historical legacy requires vigilance today. Against a backdrop of global turbulence and recurring regional conflicts, Sun's warning carries particular urgency. The prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity are not merely about reckoning with the past but about ensuring that the lessons of history are internalized and upheld in policy and conduct today.

This concern also lies at the heart of China's clear opposition to Japan's long-standing bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. As China's Permanent Representative to the UN Fu Cong stated at the UN General Assembly plenary meeting on Security Council reform last November, Japan is "totally unqualified" to seek such a position. This is an assessment based not only on past deeds, but also on the recent statements and actions of Tokyo.

With Japan hastily building up its military, the erroneous and dangerous remarks of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in the Diet on Nov 7 — in which she claimed that a so-called "Taiwan contingency" could constitute a "survival-threatening situation" for Japan and hinted at invoking the "right of collective self-defense" to interfere militarily in the Taiwan Strait — have raised great alarm in the region.

History offers a sobering parallel. Japanese militarists repeatedly invoked the pretext of a "survival-threatening situation" to justify their country's historical aggression. When the Takaichi government revives similar rhetoric while advocating a revision of Japan's pacifist Constitution's renunciation-of-war clause, it is legitimate and necessary for the international community to ask whether Japan is preparing to repeat the mistakes of its militarist past.

This question has acquired increased urgency as Takaichi dissolved the House of Representatives on Friday and called a snap general election for Feb 8 in a bid to secure an immediate mandate for a sharper rightward turn in Japan's overall policy direction.

Permanent membership of the UN Security Council is not an honorific title, nor a reward for economic strength. It is a solemn responsibility, reserved for countries with the capacity, willingness and integrity to uphold international peace and security, command broad trust and provide genuine public goods to the international community. A permanent member must embody respect for history, international law and the fundamental norms governing state-to-state relations.

Japan has long sought this position, citing its financial contributions and participation in UN activities. Tokyo's "generosity" in attempting to buy Japan's way into the UN Security Council poses a stark contrast with its parsimony, if not evasion, when it comes to compensating the victims of Japan's war crimes. Before Japan clears its historical debt, both the principal and interest, and apologizes for its history of aggression, it is naive of Tokyo to think it can purchase the trust of the international community.

Preventing the return of militarism, as Sun emphasized, is a collective duty — and upholding the integrity of the most important security body in the UN is a test the international community must not fail.

China's stance reflects the shared concerns of many countries that value the authority and credibility of the UN and the Security Council. At a time when unilateralism, power politics and "might makes right" approaches are already straining the UN Security Council's ability to fulfill its mandate, introducing further historical and geopolitical fault lines would only weaken global governance.