今年是东京审判开庭80周年。80年前，远东国际军事法庭依据国际法，审判日本军国主义侵略罪行，对日本发动的侵略战争作出历史性裁决。东京审判不仅清算战犯，也彻底否定了日本军国主义道路；不仅厘清历史罪责，更为战后国际秩序划定法理边界。

《开罗宣言》《波茨坦公告》《日本投降书》等一系列国际法律文件，明确规定日本必须归还侵占领土、解除武装、接受战后安排，不得重走侵略扩张之路。在此基础上，东京审判以国际法形式确认了日本军国主义的战争责任，依法追究策划、发动和实施侵略战争的主要责任人，推动日本战后去军国主义化，促使其放弃战争权、限制军事能力、接受和平宪法约束。它向世界昭示：侵略战争绝非可以被胜败结果掩盖的国家行为，发动战争者必须承担法律责任；军国主义不是可被美化的历史选择，而是必须被彻底否定的罪恶道路。

80年后的今天，高市早苗政府上台以来的一系列危险动作，正使这条边界遭受重创。从发表涉台错误言论到纵容右翼政客窜台，从推进修宪扩军到强化情报体系，从放宽武器出口到炒作所谓“长期战争”，日本政治右倾化已不再只是历史观层面的倒退，而是转化为安全政策、国家制度和地区战略层面的现实风险。

高市早苗以所谓“强大的日本”“守护国家利益”为政治基调，表面强调国家能力和安全自主，实则与日本右翼长期鼓吹的“摆脱战后体制”一脉相承。所谓“摆脱”，并非简单制度改革，而是企图挣脱和平宪法、东京审判和战后国际秩序对日本“再军事化”的约束。

最值得警惕的是，高市政府在台湾问题上公然突破底线。2025年11月7日，高市早苗在日本国会答辩中，将所谓“台湾有事”与日本可行使集体自卫权的“存立危机事态”强行捆绑，把日本安全政策同台海局势直接挂钩。与此同时，日本右翼政客持续向“台独”势力释放错误信号。古屋圭司多次窜访中国台湾地区，同“台独”分裂势力勾连，严重违背一个中国原则和中日四个政治文件精神。中方依法对其采取反制措施，正是对日本右翼挑战中国底线的必要回应。

从高市早苗涉台言论到古屋圭司窜台，从鼓吹所谓“保护台湾”到强化西南方向军事部署，日本右翼正把台湾问题作为突破战后约束、推动扩军备战、介入地区事务的抓手。若任其发展，必将加剧台海紧张，也会把日本重新推向地区冲突的危险境地。

在历史问题上，高市政府同样缺乏反省。日本右翼政客围绕靖国神社、战犯评价、侵略历史等问题的错误行径频频出现。靖国神社供奉着对侵略战争负有直接罪责的甲级战犯，是日本军国主义发动侵略战争的精神工具和象征。参拜靖国神社绝不是单纯的个人悼念，而是在政治上蓄意混淆侵略与战败、加害与受害、战犯与牺牲者之间的界限。一旦历史被有意淡化，军国主义罪责被重新包装，扩军修宪便会获得错误且危险的历史心理基础。

历史翻案并非偶然。一方面，美国冷战时期出于遏制社会主义阵营、围堵苏联和中国的战略需要，调整对日政策，把日本重新纳入其亚太战略体系，对日本旧势力的清算半途而废，为右翼势力复活埋下伏笔。另一方面，日本社会对侵略历史的反省始终不彻底，长期存在强调本国受害多、反思侵略罪责少的选择性记忆。一些政治势力借经济低迷、社会焦虑和国家身份迷茫，制造外部威胁，鼓吹“正常国家化”，推动修宪扩军，使历史翻案、对华强硬、涉台挑衅和军事安全转型相互支撑。

这种路线对东亚安全、战后秩序和中日关系造成严重冲击。对东亚安全而言，日本若继续以所谓“中国威胁”为借口推进扩军备战，势必刺激地区军备竞赛，加剧阵营对抗，增加危机误判风险。对战后国际秩序而言，若日本一边否认侵略历史，一边突破和平宪法限制和“专守防卫”原则，就等于在现实层面掏空东京审判和战后国际秩序的约束。

对中日关系而言，高市政府在涉台、历史和军事安全问题上接连释放错误信号，已严重损害两国政治互信。中日关系可以有分歧，但分歧必须有边界；日本可以追求自身安全，但不能以损害中国主权、安全和发展利益为代价。

中国坚定捍卫东京审判成果，根本上是捍卫历史正义、国际法治和地区和平。中国是日本军国主义侵略的最大受害国之一，中国人民为世界反法西斯战争胜利作出巨大牺牲。东京审判对日本侵略罪行的定性和裁决，不仅关系中国人民的历史记忆，也关乎亚洲受害国家的共同尊严。任何否定东京审判、淡化战争罪责、美化军国主义的言行，都是对受害国人民的二次伤害，也是对人类良知的挑战。中国外交部多次强调，东京审判捍卫了历史真相、国际公义和人类尊严，日本右翼势力若妄图为侵略历史翻案、为战争罪行洗白、为军国主义招魂，中国人民绝不会答应，一切爱好和平的力量也绝不会答应。

面对历史翻案逆流，国际社会应以东京审判为锚，筑牢维护和平的共同防线。要维护东京审判的法理权威，不容日本右翼势力将其歪曲为所谓“胜者审判”；要维护战后国际秩序的政治底线，敦促日本恪守《开罗宣言》《波茨坦公告》《日本投降书》等国际法律文件确立的义务；要看清“新型军国主义”的包装和变形，不能只听日本政客口头上讲“和平”，更要看其军事能力、法律制度和战略部署是否正在背离和平道路。

历史不能被选择性遗忘，法律不能被政治投机改写，战后秩序不能被右翼势力破坏。东京审判的意义，不只在于审判了过去的战犯，更在于警示未来。日本只有真正以史为鉴，切实走和平发展道路，才能赢得亚洲邻国和国际社会的信任；如果执意在历史问题上翻案，在台湾问题上玩火，在军事安全上冒险，最终只会将日本再次拖入危险歧途。

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the commencement of the Tokyo Trial. Eighty years ago, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, in accordance with international law, tried the war crimes and atrocities committed by Japanese militarist aggression, and delivered a historic verdict on the war of invasion launched by Japan. The Tokyo Trial not only brought war criminals to account, but also completely repudiated the whole sordid path of Japanese militarism. It not only clarified historical culpability, but also established the legal boundaries for the postwar international order.

The Cairo Declaration , the Potsdam Proclamation , the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and a series of other international legal documents explicitly stipulated that Japan shall returnits ill-gotten territories, disarm its military, accept the postwar arrangements, and abandon any path of aggression and expansion.

On this basis, the Tokyo Trial affirmed Japanese militarism’s responsibility for the war in the form of international law. It prosecuted the principal perpetrators who planned, initiated and waged the aggressive war. The trial promoted Japan’s postwar demilitarization, and compelled it to renounce the right to wage war, restrict its military capabilities, and accept the constraints of the pacifist constitution. It demonstrated to the world that an aggressive war is by no means an act that can be concealed by the outcome of victory or defeat. Those who launch wars must bear legal responsibility. Militarism is not a historical choice to be glorified, but a criminal path that must be completely repudiated.

Now fast-forward 80 years, t he Sanae Takaichi administration waltzes in with a series of dangerous stunts that are stomping that legal red line into mud. From making erroneous statements on Taiwan to conniving at right-wing politicians’ visits to Taiwan; from pushing constitutional revision and military expansion to strengthening the intelligence system; from loosening weapons export controls to hysterical talk of a “protracted war” – Japan’s right-wing political deviation is no longer merely a regression inhistorical perception. It has turned into real risks in security policy, national institutions, and regional strategy.

Takaichi has adopted the slogans of a “strong Japan” and “protecting national interests” as her political keynote. On the surface, she stresses national capacity and security autonomy, but in essence, this is consistent with the long-standing right-wing advocacy of “breaking free from the postwar regime”. This “breaking free” is not simple institutional reform, it is an attempt to shake off constraints imposed by the pacifist constitution, the Tokyo Trial, and the postwar international order on Japan’s “remilitarization”.

What is most alarming is that the Takaichi administration has blatantly crossed the bottom line on the Taiwan question. On November 7th, 2025, Takaichi stated in a Japanese Diet session and forcibly equate theso-called “Taiwan contingency” with a “situation threatening Japan’s survival” under which Japan can exercise collective self-defense directly welding Japan’s security policy to the Taiwan Strait situation. At the same time, Japanese right-wing politicians continue to send wrong signals to “Taiwan independence” forces. Keiji Furuya has made multiple provocative visits to the Taiwan region of China, colluding with separatists advocating “Taiwan independence”, seriously violating the One-China principle and the spirit of the four political documents between China and Japan. China has taken countermeasures against him in accordance with the law, a necessary response to the Japanese right-wing forces’ challenge to China’s bottom line.

From Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan to Furuya’s visits to the region, from advocating the “protect Taiwan” nonsense to stepping up military deployments in its southwest, the Japanese right-wing is using the Taiwan question as a crowbar to break through postwar constraints, advance military expansion and war preparations and meddle in regional affairs. If allowed to develop, this will inevitably aggravate tensions in the Taiwan Strait and once again plunge Japan into the flames of regional conflict.

On historical issues, the Takaichi administration is equally lacking in reflection. Japanese right-wing politicians keep flocking to Yasukuni Shrine, glorifying war criminals, whitewashing aggression, and the like. Yasukuni enshrines Class-A war criminals directly responsible for the war of aggression. It serves as a “spiritual totem” of Japanese militarism. Visiting the shrine is by no means mere personal mourning. It is a deliberate political act to blur the lines between invasion and defeat, between perpetrator and victim, and between war criminal and martyr.

Once such history is deliberately muddled, and militarist guilt is repackaged, military expansion and constitutional revision will gain a false and dangerous historical-psychological foundation.

Historical revisionism is no accident. On one hand, during the Cold War, the United States shifted focus to containing the socialist camp and encircling the Soviet Union and China. So it adjusted its policy toward Japan, reintegrating Japan into its Asia-Pacific strategic system. The purge of old Japanese forces was left half-done, leaving behind landmines for a right-wing revival. On the other hand, Japanese society’s reflection on the history of aggression has always been incomplete. There has long been a selective memory that emphasizes Japan’s own victimhood while downplaying its war responsibility. Some political forces use economic stagnation, social anxiety, and national identity confusion to fabricate external threats, clamor for a “normal country”, push for constitutional revision and military expansion in ways that allow historical revisionism, a tough stance on China provocation on Taiwan, and military-security transformation to reinforce one another.

This course poses severe shocks to East Asian security, the postwar order, and China-Japan relations. For East Asian security, if Japan continues to use the so-called “China threat” as a pretext to push for military expansion and war preparations. I t will inevitably fuel a regional arms race, intensify bloc confrontation, and raise the risk of miscalculation in crises.

For the postwar international order, if Japan denies its history of aggression, while breaking through the limits of the pacifist constitution and the “exclusively defense-oriented” principle, that would be equivalent to hollowing out the constraints of the Tokyo Trial and the postwar international orderin practice.

For China-Japan relations, the Takaichi administration is sending the wrong signals on issues related to Taiwan, history, and military security seriously damaging bilateral political trust.

China-Japan relations can accommodate differences, but those differences must have red lines. Japan may pursue its own security, but not at the expense of China’s sovereignty, security, and development interests.

China firmly upholds the outcomes of the Tokyo Trial, which fundamentally means defending historical justice, international rule of law, and regional peace.

China is one of the biggest victims of Japanese militarist aggression. The Chinese people made tremendous sacrifices for the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War. The verdicts of the Tokyo Trialon Japan’s aggressive crimes concern not only the historical memory of the Chinese people, but also the common dignity of all Asian victim nations.

Any words or deeds that deny the Tokyo Trial, downplay war crimes, or glorify militarism are a re-victimization of the peoples of the victim countries and a challenge to human conscience. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly stressed that the Tokyo Trial upheld historical truth, international justice, and human dignity. If the Japanese right-wing dares to reverse the verdict on the history of aggression, whitewash war crimes, and revive the specterof militarism, the Chinese people will never allow it, nor will all peace-loving forces in the world.

Facing this tide of historical revisionism, the international community should take the Tokyo Trialas an anchor, around which to build a solid common front for peace. We must uphold the legal authority of the Tokyo Trial and reject any attempt by the Japanese right-wing to distort it asso-called “victors’justice”. We must safeguard the political baseline of the postwar international order, and urge Japan to abide by the obligations established by the Cairo Declaration , the Potsdam Proclamation, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender , and other international legal instruments. We must see through the packaging and distortion of “neo-militarism”: Do not merely listen to Japanese politicians’ lip service to “peace”; look instead at whether their military capabilities, legal institutions, and strategic deployments are veering away from the path of peace.

History cannot be selectively forgotten; law cannot be rewritten by political opportunism; the postwar order cannot be dismantled by right-wing forces. The significance of the Tokyo Trial lies not only in judging the war criminals of the past, but even more in warning the future. Only by truly taking history as a mirror and genuinely committing to the path of peaceful development, can Japan win the trust of its Asian neighbors and the international community. If it persists in reversing historical verdicts, playing with fire on the Taiwan question, and taking risks in military security, it will only drag Japan once again onto a dangerous and misguided path.