The 80th anniversary of Victory over Japan Day (V-J Day) was recently celebrated by several countries in the West, marking the surrender of Imperial Japan in August 15th, 1945, a pivotal event that effectively brought World War II to a close.

The Pacific theatre of conflict in the global fight involved vast swathes of China being overrun and occupied by the Japanese aggressor, whose invasion was characterised by widespread atrocities -- among which includes the butchery perpetrated in the gruesome Nanjing Massacre in 1937. The unyielding resistance of the Chinese people against the Japanese aggression since 1931 saw a much longer period of sorrow and a greater magnitude of humanitarian disaster inflicted upon the nation vis-a-vis others in the WWII.

Yet, the ultimate triumph over the aggressors, notably Japan -- from the Western perspective -- is rarely credited to the immense sacrifices of its 400 million populace then.

Eight decades on, the deafening silence on censuring the militarist past of the aggressors is starkly contrasted by the yearly commemorative event in the controversial Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, Japan, honouring the war dead, many of whom were the convicted war criminals in the WWII. Selective memories and distorted perspectives of past conflicts are rearing their ugly heads time and again amid the rising right-wing nationalism in Japan. This has been drawing ire from its neighbouring countries, notably China and South Korea, who remain unsettled with the absence of formal apology from Japan over its wartime culpability.

Indeed, over the past 8 decades, not an iota of remorseful-ness had ever been expressed formally by Tokyo for the atrocities and grave sorrow inflicted upon the neighbouring countries it overran. Conversely, wartime atrocities are deliberately downplayed, if not totally obscured in the denial mode. Intention to bury truth with insidious distortion is both evident and obnoxious.

In such an insensitive scenario, anguish over the potential resurgence of militarism in Japan is not at all unfounded. From the Chinese perspective, domestic moves in Japan to amend the Pacifist Constitution, particularly Article 9, which states that "renouncing war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes " sets the tone to remove the post-WWII caveats against militarism. The apprehension against the resurgence of militarism in Japan is further fueled by the continuous hike in its military spending over recent years.

Compounded by the growing significance of the US-Japan alliance in containing China, the shared geopolitical interests of both Washington and Tokyo further provide a convenient catalyst for the right wingers to advance their political cause. The growing assertiveness of China over its core sovereign interests in the East China Sea and South China Sea is being made a convenient bogey by the US-led West alongside their erstwhile foe-turn-ally Japan in Asia Pacific. The belligerent call for hiking the military spending to 5 percent of GDP in both Japan and South Korea by the Pentagon chief under the Trump Administration is set to up the ante across the region.

Warmongers who are serving the interests of the US' Military-Industrial Complex have never ceased exploiting any disputes available to flare up a kinetic conflict in Asia Pacific as Washington seeks to pivot its global gameplan to the region again. 
 

To counter the growing geopolitical and military clout of China, the US position on territorial disputes in both the South China Sea and East China Sea witnessed a conspicuous shift from a relatively neutral stance to one of strong opposition to China's assertive maritime claims. In the case of South China Sea, the US explicitly aligned its stance with the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling that favoured the Philippines. The recent US' successive meddling with the stand-off between China and the Philippines in the disputed waters marks a clear manifestation of its China-averse position.
 

The inconclusive overlapping territorial disputes over some parts of South China Sea (SCS) have been exploited to the hilt. Being a distant non-stakeholder, Washington, alongside its allies, have consistently been conducting the Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) with warships sabre-rattling across the South China Sea, purportedly to sustain safe passage for vessels transiting across the region amid increasing assertiveness of China on its sovereignty claim.

Yet, in reality, the busy international sea lane handling about a third of the global seaborne logistics, with its overflights, remains open and unimpeded. The flexing of military muscle through FONOPS, alongside the increased presence of US' military installations at the doorstep of China, is ostensibly part of the US' deterrent security playbook intended to contain China which is currently dubbed a potential adversary from Washington's perspective. 
 

Parallel to this, the sovereignty dispute over Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands in the East China Sea witnessed an evolving position of Washington over the decades. From leaving the dispute to be decided by the parties involved, namely Japan, Chinese Mainland and Taiwan, China to upholding its written obligations to defend the Diaoyu Dao under the US–Japan Security Treaty as the Japanese-administered territory, the conspicuous shift in position of Washington on the controversy spells an end to its decades-long strategic ambiguity on the issue of sovereignty of Diaoyu Dao. By so doing, the US is no longer a stabilising force keeping the Sino-Japan face-off in equilibrium, but emerges as an extra-territorial stakeholder who is conflict-prone instead should there be any skirmish flaring up.

Given the benefits of hindsight, Japan has its sovereignty restored sooner than expected largely attributed to Washington's calculus in stifling the spread of communism in Asia as the Cold War loomed large after WWII. This was delivered via the signing of San Francisco Treaty, or the Treaty of Peace with Japan, at the behest of Washington in 1951. It serves to water down certain defining terms for the Japanese surrender which had been agreed upon in the preceding Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration. Chinese sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao was conveniently "hijacked" in the absence of China when the San Francisco Treaty was signed between the US-led West and Japan. 

Plainly put, under the US geopolitical prism then, China -- one of the victorious nations in WWII -- was virtually having its interests and concerns sidelined simply because the CPC ruling the nation then was on different side of the ideological divide, while the culpable Japan made a coveted ally to the US. This precipitates the current sword of Damocles over the fragile peace across the region. Sovereignty dispute continues to haunt the delicate relations between Beijing and Tokyo under the watch of Washington. The continued military presence of the latter in Japan is now intended more as a tool to encircle China than keeping in check any potential rise of the past militarism.
 

Meanwhile, state actors across the world appear more engrossed in interpreting the contemporary global dynamics than revisiting history of our immediate past conflicts. Many of them conveniently turn their blind eyes to the militarist past of the wartime aggressors, purportedly in the name of "magnanimity".

In contrast, the upcoming grandeur military parade in Beijing commemorating the WWII triumph against fascism, stands out starkly as a timely reminder to caution humanity against the evil of global fight. 

From the Chinese perspective, the immense sorrow caused by the Japanese aggressors' atrocities which scarred the history of China shouldn't be allowed to sink into oblivion. In this context, descendents of the perpetrators have no moral high ground to call out such commemoration. The recent intense diplomatic manoeuvre of Tokyo in lobbying state actors from the region to skip attending the occasion which is purportedly dubbed "anti-Japan" is grossly undiplomatic.

In this context, Japan should have more courage to face the past culpability with a formal apology to the victimised neighbours in the region, notably China. Any cowardice to face the ugly past would only perpetuate the age-old acrimony. The parade is set to serve more to alarm the stakeholders, victors and losers of WWII alike, on the potential revival of militarism which might ultimately lead humanity to Armageddon. 
 

At this juncture, the much anticipated parade of China's military assets is visibly an open display of its military might before the world, ostensibly serving as a deterrent to any imminent geopolitical endeavour against the country.

Reading this in tandem with its diplomacy and global outreach initiatives worldwide, Beijing's message is unambiguously clear that the nation believes in fostering a shared future with the world through inclusive and symbiotic collaboration, more so in the face of growing exigencies threatening the survival of humanity. Yet, it remains equally ready with sufficient might to take on any attempts intended to breach its core interests.

Author: ONG Tee Keat, President of Belt and Road Initiative Caucus for Asia Pacific (BRICAP) in Malaysia, Special Invited Expert of the CMG Expert Committee on South China Sea Studies