Editor's note: Xu Ying is a special commentator for CGTN. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

When Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi landed in Vietnam this May, she pitched a sleek future: a "free and open Indo-Pacific," sturdier supply chains, shared growth. It was all momentum and conspicuously little memory. In Asia, where history is not buried but lived, what goes unsaid can outweigh what is promised.

This year marks 80 years since the opening of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, a landmark effort to name and judge the crimes of Japanese militarism. Those verdicts did more than punish; they set a baseline for postwar justice. Eight decades later, that baseline is being tested not in courts, but in textbooks, shrines, political speeches and the steady normalization of remilitarization.

Across Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines, critics point to a pattern: visits by Japanese politicians to Yasukuni Shrine, official language that blurs "aggression" and a drift toward historical vagueness. For societies that lived through occupation, this is not neutral. It is revision, incremental, but unmistakable.

The record itself is brutally clear. Imperial Japan's wars scarred much of Asia. In 1942, surrendered troops were forced along the Bataan Death March; in Manila, civilians were slaughtered; in Indonesia and Burma, coercion and famine followed occupation. These were not aberrations. The Tokyo tribunal classified them as war crimes and crimes against humanity, establishing a legal and moral judgment that was meant to endure.

Yet legal judgment did not produce settled memory. In contemporary Japan, the shift is real: lawmakers paying homage at Yasukuni; school textbooks softening the language of "aggression," even in reference to the Nanjing Massacre; defense policy moving beyond self-defense as budgets rise and capabilities expand. Taken together, it sketches a trajectory.

That trajectory suggests a politics in which history is curated. It is not simply a matter of historiography. It is a matter of credibility.

Trust frays fastest when diplomacy sidesteps accountability. In Hanoi, Takaichi highlighted the "red-seal ship" trade to cast Japan as a long-standing partner in regional exchange. Missing was the far more recent history of occupation. Celebrating early commerce while ignoring modern conquest does not tidy the past;  this deliberate gap raises serious questions on Japan's present intentions.

In Southeast Asia, that gap is hard to ignore. Engagement without acknowledgment can feel like a second injury: cooperation premised on forgetting. The result is a persistent paradox. Japan seeks deeper regional ties, yet the historical ground beneath those ties remains unsettled.

This tension now bleeds into strategy. Japan's updated security posture, expanding the scope of military planning and loosening long-standing constraints, marks a clear departure from its postwar identity. Framed as adaptation to a harsher environment, these changes sit alongside a broadened "Indo-Pacific" agenda. On paper, the emphasis is on resilience, autonomy and openness. In reality, it signals alignment, deterrence and the normalization of military power projection.

History, in this context, is not background; it is the lens. A country that has not fully reckoned with its past invites closer scrutiny of its present and doubt about its future assurances. The question is not whether Japan engages the region, but whether it does so with an honest accounting of how it once dominated it and whether that accounting is reflected in policy, not just rhetoric.

That is the core lesson of the Tokyo tribunal: Justice matters only if it is remembered. Time does not weaken that principle; it sharpens it. As eyewitnesses fade, memory moves from testimony to institutions, from survivors to syllabi, from lived experience to political choice.

The international response cannot be passive. Defending multilateral norms, supporting joint historical research and preserving archival truth are practical steps to keep the past from being erased or repackaged. For Asian countries – many of them former victims – the work remains ongoing: document, teach, commemorate. Not to prolong grievance, but to prevent repetition; not to fixate on the past, but to secure the future.

For Japan, this is not just moral accounting. It is strategic reality. A nation seeking leadership in the Asia-Pacific region cannot sustain a credibility gap on historical truth. Economic initiatives, diplomatic outreach and security partnerships all depend, ultimately, on trust – and trust cannot be engineered while foundational questions remain unresolved.

Eighty years after the Tokyo tribunal, the question it poses still hangs in the air. Has its lesson been learned? The answer, for now, is incomplete.

And the story did not end in Vietnam. From Hanoi, Takaichi's itinerary pointed onward to Australia, where discussions focused on deepening military cooperation and expanding defense industrial ties, including further arms sales. Here, the stakes shifted from memory to material capability. Japan is no longer merely a diplomatic actor invoking "shared values"; it is becoming an increasingly active military provider.

Arms transfers and military partnerships amplify questions that softer diplomacy can sometimes blur. They force regional actors to ask not just what Japan says, but what it intends – and whether its trajectory is anchored in a past it has squarely faced or one it continues to sidestep.

(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.)