Has Japan behaved well in the Post-WWII Days? Probably not

Editor's note: Kong Qingjiang, a special commentator for CGTN, is the vice dean of the School of International Law, China University of Political Science and Law. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Japan's post-war compliance record with the Potsdam Declaration is quite controversial. Its adherence to the Potsdam Declaration after World War II has been portrayed as contradictory: while it has superficially fulfilled obligations under some provisions, it has systematically violated the Declaration's core principles, including those concerning territorial sovereignty, demilitarization, and accountability for historical responsibilities. Its actions have severely undermined the legal foundation of the post-war international order.

The compliance record traces its origins to the "Surrender Edict," the document issued by Japan's Emperor on August 14, 1945, announcing the country's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. The Edict was supposed to mark Japan's unconditional surrender in the war, as dictated by the Potsdam Declaration. Despite the Edict symbolizing Japan's unconditional surrender, its language downplays Japan's defeat. Instead of explicitly acknowledging surrender, it was framed as the "End of the War," as if Japan had voluntarily chosen to end the conflict, rather than being forced to disarm. This reveals Japan's reluctance to openly admit its defeat, which is part of its broader strategy of historical revisionism.

Since the war's end, Japan has pursued a strategy of "historical ambiguity" rather than confronting the past directly. Through its media and political discourse, Japan has sought to blur the lines between aggressor and victim, attempting to recast its defeat as a symbol of "peace." Again, by framing itself as a victim of atomic bombs, Japan obscures the fact that it became the target of such bombings because it launched aggressive wars. This is why Japan has never offered a clear apology for its war crimes to countries like China and Korea.

Japan's compliance record is clearly reflected in its concrete implementation of the articles of the Potsdam Declaration.

Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration explicitly limits Japan's sovereignty to "Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and the small islands that we have determined it can possess". It requires implementing the Cairo Declaration's stipulation that "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese" must be restored to the Chinese.

However, regarding the Diaoyu Islands, Japan has breached this restriction. As an affiliated island group of Taiwan, the Diaoyu Islands should have been returned to China with the implementation of the Cairo Declaration. Yet, as the United States arbitrarily included them in the trusteeship of the Ryukyu Islands under the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, from which the People's Republic of China was excluded, and "privately transferred" them to Japan in 1971. Such an arrangement clearly contradicted the Potsdam Declaration's principle that territorial changes require the joint decision of the Allied Powers. In this context, the Chinese government has never recognized this illegal act.

Similarly, the Potsdam Declaration did not include the Ryukyu Islands (then known as Okinawa in Japanese-transliterated English) within Japan's sovereign territory, and, in fact, since Japan's unconditional surrender, Japan has been excluded from exercising administrative authority over the Ryukyus. However, the United States unilaterally, and thus unlawfully, established a trusteeship under the Treaty of San Francisco and ultimately transferred "administrative rights" to Japan. The Chinese government has repeatedly stated that the Allied Powers must jointly determine the sovereignty of the Ryukyu Islands.

Japan has been found in the post-WWII era to engage in substantive breaches of the demilitarization principle embodied in Article 9 of the Potsdam Declaration, which clearly states that "the Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed." Yet Japan has achieved a "circuitous revival" of its military capabilities by covertly and openly expanding and transforming its Self-Defense Forces. Under the guise of "exclusive defense," Japan has built up a large-scale military force. Its 2025 defense budget reached a record 8.7 trillion yen ($55 billion), and it has developed offensive capabilities, including long-range missiles and aircraft carrier modifications. The 2015 New Security Legislation lifted the ban on collective self-defense, allowing overseas military deployment and directly challenging Article 9 of Japan's constitution.

Article 11 of the Potsdam Declaration requires the elimination of industries capable of contributing to war potential, but Japan has exported military technology to conflict zones through the "Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment" and jointly developed advanced weapons with the United States. Moreover, during the Cold War, the United States acquiesced to Japan's rearmament to forge an anti-communist alliance in the Asia-Pacific. The signing of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty enabled Japan to gradually rely on the U.S. security umbrella to overcome military restrictions. This has weakened the binding force of the Potsdam Declaration.

Japan has also been found to do little to settle its historical responsibilities. Article 6 of the Potsdam Declaration demands the "permanent elimination of the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the Japanese people into embarking on world conquest." Unfortunately, Japan has experienced systematic regression by downplaying its war crimes by revising textbooks ⁠–⁠ for example, replacing the term "aggression" with "advance and retreat" ⁠–⁠ and evading core issues such as the Nanjing Massacre and "comfort women."

Politicians, including Shinzo Abe and Sanae Takaichi , have repeatedly visited the Yasukuni Shrine, which enshrines the spirits of Class-A war criminals. Groups within the Liberal Democratic Party, such as the "Committee for the Verification of Historical Facts," have publicly questioned the Tokyo Trials and advocated for "overcoming the post-war system." The Japanese authorities tolerate and even encourage the infiltration of right-wing forces. All these have led to collective amnesia in Japanese society regarding war responsibilities, running counter to the Potsdam Declaration's requirement to eradicate militarist ideology.

Ironically, Japan has often boasted of its contributions to economic cooperation in the post-WWII period and has attempted to repair its international image through development assistance. As a matter of fact, Japan's development assistance must be understood in the context of its war reparations. Japan's official position maintains that all war reparations were resolved through post-war treaties, and development assistance is entirely separate from any remaining war obligations. The reality, however, is that Japan has been characterized since 1951 by half-hearted reparations and strategic assistance with ulterior motives.

Under U.S. protection, the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco adopted a reparations approach in favor of Japan. While it recognized Japan's obligation to compensate the Allied Powers for war damage, it acknowledged Japan's limited economic capacity. As a result, Japan's reparations were limited to its financial capacity, despite the invaluable losses suffered by war victims, states, or individuals; the reparations focused on industrial equipment and labor services, with no cash payments that would "harm Japan's balance of payments." With this apparently biased framework, Japan initially used reparations to discharge war liabilities.

In the face of grievances about inadequate war reparations, Japan's official development assistance was introduced at the request of the first. Later, as official development assistance greatly promoted Japan's foreign trade, foreign investment, and economic growth, the "offer-based" approach, which replaced the traditional "request-based" model, was introduced, giving Japan more leverage to normalize relations with Southeast Asian nations and other countries.

For nations that waived formal claims, Japan's development assistance emerged directly from the reparations framework, initially serving as "quasi-reparations" to them.

From the perspective of recipient countries, Japan's development assistance has played a timely role for them in their initial development stage. For Japan, however, providing official development assistance to China and other wartime victims is not an act of doing good without expecting anything in return. The most notable, if not the underlying expected benefit, is to maintain normal relations with China and other war-inflicted nations, which have ample reasons to hold hostility toward Japan. After all, a stable surrounding environment is what is needed by Japan's post-war economic development.  

Former Japanese Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira once stated: "If China and Japan are in a hostile relationship, Japan's security cannot be guaranteed." From this perspective, the official development assistance was "no less valuable than hundreds of trillions of yen in ensuring Japan's security."

Unfortunately, its post-war compliance record with the Potsdam Declaration has backfired. It is a typical case of "selective fulfillment": while it has acted contrary to the Declaration's spirit in core areas such as territorial sovereignty, military affairs, and historical accountability, it has only superficially fulfilled its obligations in non-sensitive fields like economic cooperation. Japan has so far treated the Declaration merely as an "expedient measure" after its defeat.

The Potsdam Declaration serves as the legal cornerstone of the post-war international order, and its legal effect has not diminished over time. This is one of the important historical roots of the unstable situation in East Asia. Article 4 of the Potsdam Declaration warned that "The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason."

If Japan continues to break its commitments, which will not only undermine regional peace and stability but also violate the basic principles of international law that a sovereign state should abide by, Article 6 of the Potsdam Declaration has already uttered the determination of the Allied Powers and dictated the destiny for Japan:

"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."

Today, Japanese right-wing forces are attempting to break through the post-war order through constitutional revisions, rearmament, and historical whitewashing. The warning should sound the alarm again.

On the other hand, the international community should strengthen oversight through multilateral mechanisms to safeguard the legal authority of the Potsdam Declaration and prevent the recurrence of historical tragedies.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow@thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)