This year marks the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II — an occasion that should have been a moment for humility, introspection, and regional healing. Instead, Asia now faces renewed tension because of one irresponsible, reckless public pronouncement.

When Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi egregiously suggested in the Japanese parliament that Japan could militarily intervene should China militarily pursue national reunification with its Taiwan island, she did not merely commit a gross diplomatic misstep — she reopened deep wounds that never fully healed, and reawakened old memories that Asia hoped would never again be stirred. For Japan to be regarded as a stable and responsible regional power, Takaichi must formally and unequivocally retract her remarks — not as a polite gesture, but as an act of moral responsibility, historical consciousness, and respect for peace.

Taiwan island is not a hypothetical geopolitical issue, it is a matter deeply tied to China’s national identity, history, and sovereignty. Taiwan’s current temporary separation from the mainland is the product of specific historical disruptions: civil war, Cold War intervention, and foreign military presence in the region. It is not, and could never be, a permanent constitutional reality. The internationally recognized one-China principle — acknowledged by the United Nations and the overwhelming majority of the world — establishes that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and the matter is internal. Thus, even a speculative foreign military statement is perceived not as flippant commentary, but as interference, provocation, and insult. The memory of Japan’s annexation of Taiwan after the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895, as well as its massive invasion in the Asia-Pacific region in the first half of the 20th century, remains a painful symbol of Japan’s imperial aggression, not nostalgia.

History’s unfinished reckoning

Japan continues to struggle with how it confronts — or avoids confronting — its wartime responsibilities. Millions across Asia still await formal accountability for massacres, biological warfare experiments, forced labor, and the sexual enslavement of females euphemistically called “comfort women”. Too often, Japanese political leaders oscillate between half-hearted apologies, strategic ambiguity, and outright denial. Textbooks soften the brutality of Japanese invasion. Museums omit truths of crimes against humanity. Historical revisionists speak proudly where remorse should reside.

In Asian philosophical traditions, especially Confucian and Buddhist cultures, moral accountability is not optional — its absence carries karmic consequence. Collective denial of a militarist past breeds moral decay. Historical amnesia breeds mistrust. Failing to address past war atrocities risks transmitting generational sin, where future Japanese — who did not commit the crimes — still bear the burden of resentment, fear, and unresolved historical fury. If this path continues, Japan risks sabotaging its own future through moral erosion, diplomatic isolation, and deepening multigenerational resentment from China, South Korea, and other Asian nations still waiting for justice.

Retraction is not humiliation. Retraction is accountability. And accountability is the foundation of trust — today and for the generations yet to be born

Europe learned that peace requires the courage to confront truth. Postwar Germany faced its nightmare history head-on — funding Holocaust memorials, protecting historical memory through law, and teaching future generations without distortion. Germany demonstrates a profound lesson: National dignity grows, not shrinks, from accountability. Japan has not yet wholeheartedly chosen that path.

Warning: Political extremism knocks again

Takaichi’s statement is not isolated — it reflects a worrying climate in economically, demographically and socially declining Japan where ultranationalist factions and revisionist politicians attempt to whitewash militarism, normalize confrontation, and romanticize imperial nostalgia. History teaches that extremism rarely announces itself with violence first — it begins with rhetoric. Unchallenged, such rhetoric becomes ideology. Ideology becomes policy. Policy becomes disaster.

Japan must resist becoming hostage to dangerous ultraright-wing militarist sentiment capable of destabilizing its politics and the peace of an entire region.

This controversy presents Japan with two paths: escalation or reflection. A sincere retraction by the prime minister would not signify weakness — it would represent maturity, wisdom, and a meaningful step toward a future based not on fear, but trust.

Asia deserves a future shaped not by revived militarism but by development, mutual respect, and shared peace. Japan must finally step beyond the shadows of its unresolved fascist, militarist past — not only legally, but morally.

Retraction is not humiliation. Retraction is accountability. And accountability is the foundation of trust — today and for the generations yet to be born.

The author is an economics and politics analyst, multi-awarded columnist of Philippine Star and Abante, college teacher, and Moderator of the Pandesal Forum.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.