Editor's note: Liu Jianxi, a special commentator for CGTN, is a Beijing-based analyst of political and international relations. With 10 years of experience in media, she writes on topics pertaining to the U.S., the EU and the Middle East. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In recent days, a senior Japanese official brazenly claimed that "Japan should possess nuclear weapons," and left open the possibility of Japan reviewing its non-nuclear principles in the future. This is not just a blatant provocation against historical memory, but also a grave departure from the international legal obligations that Japan has long since undertaken.

Such remarks are more than merely irresponsible; they are a real and dangerous signal that warrants serious vigilance from regional countries and the broader international community. Regional powers are entitled, within the framework of the United Nations Charter's provisions on self-defense and collective security, to take all necessary measures to safeguard their own and regional security. 

The postwar international legal order cannot be challenged

Whether Japan can go nuclear is, first and foremost, not a technical issue, nor is it a matter of simple domestic political choice. It is a legal question that bears directly on international law and the postwar international order.

From the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan's formal signing of the Instrument of Surrender, the approach to Japan has, from the outset, pointed clearly to one goal: a thorough rejection of its militarism, complete disarmament, and its return to a path of peaceful development. 

The Potsdam Proclamation noted that allied nations to "prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist," claimed that "the Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives," and called upon "the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

The requirement of complete disarmament has never meant a temporary "laying down of arms," but rather the long-term, structural restriction of Japan's war-making capacity through its constitution, institutions, and international arrangements. Whatever banner it may fly –"self-defense," "deterrence," or "sharing" – any form of "Japan going nuclear" flies in the face of the disarmament framework the international community imposed on Japan at the time, and amounts to a distortion and rejection of postwar international law. 

These postwar documents are not merely historical declarations; they constitute binding international legal obligations that Japan must fulfill. Certain forces in today's Japanese political arena are attempting to water down these constraints, which, in effect, undermine the legal foundations of the postwar security architecture in East Asia and send a dangerous signal to the world that "Japan can reinterpret, or even break free from, postwar constraints."

If those postwar instruments laid down the overall framework that Japan must never again rearm itself as an aggressive power, then the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) defines Japan's legal status as a non-nuclear-weapon state. As such, Japan must strictly abide by the provisions that it shall not receive, manufacture, acquire, or transfer nuclear weapons.

This means that, for Japan, there is no so-called grey zone on the nuclear question. Any attempt to use word games to open a back door for going nuclear is, in essence, an evasion and violation of the treaty. 

Today, when some senior Japanese officials left open the possibility of Japan reviewing its non-nuclear principles, they are in fact openly challenging the authority and effectiveness of the NPT. Once Japan embarks on a path of "ambiguity" and "reversibility" on the nuclear issue, it will inevitably undermine the collective efforts of all countries to safeguard the international nuclear non-proliferation mechanism and damage the hard-won peace and prosperity achieved since the victory of World War II. 

International opinion cannot be ignored

Japanese officials' remarks on the nuclear issue quickly provoked strong reactions from neighboring countries and the international media – this, in itself, is a collective assessment of how dangerous such discourse is. Under tense regional security conditions, any exploratory move by Japan toward nuclear weapons will be seen as a major threat to regional security, not simply as a "defensive measure." 

On Sunday, the Korean Central News Agency carried remarks by the director of the Institute for Japan Studies under DPRK's Foreign Ministry, stating that people who love peace must resolutely put a stop to the dangerous military delusions of Japan, this war‑criminal state. On Saturday, TASS, citing Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko, reported that Russia is "unequivocally negative" on Japan's nuclear weapon discussions, and that in Russia's view, Japan's "militarization" will heighten tensions in Northeast Asia and prompt the countries concerned to take countermeasures in response. 

Civil society groups in Japan have all stated that the government should strictly adhere to the three non‑nuclear principles. According to a report by Kyodo News on Monday, the Hiroshima prefectural assembly unanimously adopted an opinion statement, citing local concerns about reviewing the three non‑nuclear principles. The statement noted that "the disaster brought upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago should never be repeated," and it calls on the Japanese government to fully understand local residents' hopes for a peaceful world free of nuclear weapons.

Political figures such as Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ) leader Yoshihiko Noda and Japanese Communist Party and House of Councillors member Taku Yamazoe have also publicly demanded the withdrawal of Japan's nuclear-related remarks and the dismissal of the officials concerned.

What is especially noteworthy is the clarity of the United States' official stance. A U.S. State Department spokesperson has publicly emphasized that Japan is a global leader in promoting nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear arms control and an important partner of the United States in these areas.

The underlying meaning of this statement requires little elaboration: Washington does not support Japan embarking on its own path to "go nuclear," but instead hopes that Japan will continue to obey non-nuclear principles.

When the U.S., as one of Japan's most critical allies, openly pours cold water, some in Japan still try to package "going nuclear" as a matter of "realistic security needs" or an "upgrade of the alliance framework." Their political motives become all the more questionable. From doubling defense budgets and breaking through the confines of "exclusive defense," to clamoring for long-range strike capabilities and now tentatively bringing nuclear weapons into the discussion, the remilitarization trajectory of Japan's right-wing forces has become unmistakably clear. 

For neighboring countries, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Japan will never be viewed as an isolated defensive act. Instead, it will naturally be linked with historical memories of wars of aggression, colonial rule, and militarist expansion. This means that any wrong step Japan takes on the nuclear question will trigger a chain of security dilemmas, including a nuclear arms race, escalated missile deployments, and higher-intensity military confrontations. 

If Japanese right-wing forces insist on staking so-called "national security" on nuclear deterrence and military expansion, their course of action will inevitably compel other major powers in the region to adopt tougher strategic and military postures, dragging the entire Asia-Pacific into an even more perilous security predicament.

Regional powers are entitled, within the framework of the United Nations Charter's provisions on self-defense and collective security, to take all necessary measures to safeguard their own and regional security, including strengthening strategic deterrent capabilities and carrying out joint readiness operations. 

Should Japan persist in playing with fire on the nuclear issue, it will, in objective terms, lower the threshold for crisis decision-making and response among major countries in its neighborhood. Japanese right-wing forces must recognize that so-called "nuclear self-protection" will not bring "security"; it will only push Japan to the front line of security rivalry with major powers. This is a dangerous road leading toward self-destruction.

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