Japan: Forgotten Militarism and Unequal Memory

XULIO RIOS

Historical memory is never neutral. It determines what societies consider unthinkable and what, on the contrary, they eventually accept as a natural evolution of events. In the West, there is a widely shared awareness of the meaning of Nazism and its consequences for Europe and the world. The experience of the Second World War, the Holocaust, and the devastation wrought by the expansionism of the Third Reich have been incorporated into the collective consciousness through education, culture, historical research, and numerous public policies aimed at preventing the repetition of such a tragedy. For decades, this memory has served as a powerful instrument of prevention.

It cannot be said, however, that a similar awareness exists regarding the Japanese militarism that led Asia and the Pacific into one of the most destructive wars of the 20th century. Outside the region, knowledge of that past is considerably more diffuse. For a significant portion of Western public opinion, Japan is primarily associated with postwar reconstruction and economic development. o to technological innovation. In contrast, the memory of the war of aggression waged by the Japanese Empire, the massacres committed in numerous occupied territories, the biological experiments carried out on the civilian population, the system of sexual slavery known as that of the "comfort women," or the enormous human losses that still form part of the collective memory of China, Korea, and other Asian countries remains much less present.

This asymmetry in international memory has political consequences. Where memory remains alive, there is greater sensitivity toward any development that could be interpreted as a rehabilitation, even partial, of the militaristic past. Where such memory is scarce, changes are usually viewed solely through the lens of contemporary strategic balances.

That is precisely why it is important to observe the current historical moment closely. Humanity is undergoing a new industrial revolution driven by artificial intelligence, dual-use technologies, and competition for technological leadership. At the same time, we are witnessing an accelerated intensification of strategic rivalry among the great powers. The combination of technological innovation, geopolitical uncertainty, and increasing militarization constitutes a scenario that history invites us to view with caution.

New defense policy in Japan

In that context, it acquires special relevance.the transformation that develops in Japan from its defense policy. The strengthening of Japanese military capabilities, the sustained increase in defense spending, the expansion of the operational range of the Self-Defense Forces, and the successive reinterpretations of the limitations established by the postwar Constitution reflect a CHANGEprofound change regarding the model adopted after 1945. The positions defended by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, in favor of an even broader revision of the constitutional framework and greater "standardization" The country's military represents a particularly significant expression of that evolution.

EThese changes are argued in an objectively more complex regional environment. But precisely because of those uncertainties there, It is essential to prevent the logic of confrontation from overshadowing the lessons of history. Security should never be built at the price of forgetting.

It is striking that many of the major Western powers not only observe this process with equanimity, but in numerous cases encourage it as part of strengthening strategic alliances in Asia. From this perspective, Japan's military buildup appears as yet another component of the containment architecture against China. However, this geopolitical calculation risks minimizing the weight of historical memory and ignoring the deeply rooted perceptions among the peoples who directly suffered under Japanese occupation.

The difference with the German case is particularly illustrative. The memory of Nazism has become a universal heritage, while that of Japanese militarism remains, to a large extent, confined to the regional sphere. This difference does not imply establishing mechanical equivalences between the two historical processes, but it does invite us to ask why one has given rise to a robust international culture of prevention while the other continues to occupy a much more marginal place in the global consciousness.

Perhaps this insufficient internalization explains why certain strategic transformations now elicit limited concern outside of Asia. However, for those who retain a direct or inherited memory of those events, references to the past are not an exercise in retrospective revisionism, but rather a warning about the importance of preventing certain dynamics from recurring without sufficient scrutiny.

History shows that major conflicts rarely erupt suddenly. They usually develop slowly, fueled by technological changes, international rivalries, and nationalist rhetoric.s and gradual processes of normalizing the use of force. Precisely for this reason, prevention policies are much more effective when they are based on a solid and shared historical memory.

It is therefore urgent to promote a broader awareness of the legacy of Japanese militarism, not to reopen old wounds or fuel permanent antagonisms, but as part of an international culture of peace. This task falls primarily to the countries of East Asia, custodians of a particularly intense memory, but also to the international community as a whole. Conflict prevention requires remembering all tragedies, not just those that have occupied a privileged place in Western memory. Because history not only serves to explain the past; it is also an essential tool for recognizing present-day risks in time and preventing the repetition of the mistakes that led to some of humanity's greatest catastrophes.

Xulio Ríos is Emeritus Advisor to the Chinese Policy Observatory.