The following is from Masayuki Takayama's latest book, "Henkenjizai: Who Buried Shinzo Abe?
This book is the latest in a series of bound editions of his famous columns in weekly Shincho, but the original text has been polished to make it even easier to read.
He deserves the Nobel Prize for Literature for this one book alone.
It is a must-read not only for the Japanese people but for people worldwide.

A rogue state threatens Japan with the "Old Enemies Clause
Some time ago, Beatrice Finn, the head of an NGO that won the Nobel Peace Prize for calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, visited Japan.　
One would have thought that she would be sympathetic to Japan, the only country to have suffered atomic bombings, but she was very stinging.　
Japan had rejected the Nuclear Weapons Convention, which she had recommended.
She was not happy about it.　
The reason for this is apparent.
Japan cannot have nuclear weapons or a proper army because of the MacArthur Constitution.
Japan needs the U.S. nuclear umbrella to protect itself, but if it joins the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it will also have to get out from under the U.S. nuclear umbrella.　
Another reason for not ratifying the treaty is the right of the only nation to have experienced the atomic bombings.
Japan has the right to have nuclear weapons to protect itself from the threat of atomic weapons before any other country.　
In addition, Japan still reserves the right to retaliate with two nuclear weapons against the U.S. for dropping the inhumane atomic bombs.　
Of the 200,000 people killed by Truman's atomic bombs, 80% were women and children, non-combatants under international law.
Moreover, the U.S. conducted "plutonium-type human experimentation" (U.S. Department of Energy) in Nagasaki.
The U.S. has not yet apologized for this barbaric act.　
The Japanese people swore at that time that they would avenge the war.
There is no reason for the Japanese to abandon that vow.　
The line in which Finn angrily declared that he would not tolerate such infidelity that would ruin my face without even understanding the situation was terrible.
She said, "Besides Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan will be hit thrice."　
If she had no sense of racism, she would not be killing time in Japan but would be flying to Moscow right now to express her feelings to Vladimir Putin, who has been insinuating the use of nuclear weapons.　
She is a makeshift and sarcastic woman, but her words, "Japan will take the third bullet," are not insane.　
The basis for this is the "Former Enemies Clause" in the UN Charter.　
It refers to countries that fought against the Allied Powers in the last World War, such as Germany, Hungary, and Finland.　
To get an idea of the seriousness of this former history, one need only look at Article 53 of the Charter, which states that "armed sanctions" shall be imposed on any country that has fought against the Allied Powers.　
Take, for example, Russia, which is currently invading Ukraine.
This country previously invaded Japan after Japan surrendered and arbitrarily raped, pillaged, and murdered its people, just as it is now in Ukraine.
To top it all off, they took Japanese territory from Minamikarabuto to the four northern islands.　
Russia did not hesitate to fire on citizens in Eastern Europe who refused to communize and was happy to run them over with tanks and kill them.　
Article 53 of the Charter stipulates that "the nations shall cooperate in imposing military sanctions" against such a wicked country, only requiring the approval of the Security Council to invoke such sanctions.
It was supposed to be the case this time, but it did not pass because Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, used its veto.　
However, Article 53 has a second clause that allows countries that feel threatened by a rogue state that is a former enemy, such as Japan or Germany, to "impose armed sanctions without the approval of the Security Council.　
The former enemy nation is said to be a rogue nation by nature.
We can imagine a country like Russia and North Korea divided by two.
It says that if such a country commits another delinquent act, it can be lynched with justice on its own.　
For example, let's say Japan is equipped with enemy-based attack missiles.
If China or North Korea judges this as a sign of the resurgence of the Japanese Empire, they are allowed to rain nuclear weapons down on Japan.　
Moreover, that would be judged as a legitimate act authorized by the UN Charter.　
Some say, "No, no, no, the former Enemy Clause is now a dead culture, having been repealed by the UN General Assembly 30 years ago.　
But the Security Council has yet to decide to abolish it.
On the contrary, China's Yang Jiehui has even shown a willingness to use the former enemy clause in connection with the Senkaku Islands, saying, "You are a former enemy of China, and you want to take China's territory.　
North Korea is no different.
The former enemy clause is a "blade of justice" for such a rogue state.　
Yet, in Japan, the prime minister denies any nuclear retaliation, saying, "We will not discuss nuclear weapons because of the three non-nuclear principles," and the opposition parties foolishly argue that an enemy base attack would be unwise.　
If Japan has no intention of retaliating even after a third nuclear strike, neither China nor the North will hesitate.　
Isn't that kind of madness certainly coming from across the Sea of Japan?　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
(June 9, 2022 issue)