A recent Global Times opinion article titled “Japan, tear down your evil ‘Hakko Ichiu Tower’ first” presents Japan’s dispute with Russia over a new Second World War memorial as evidence of an alleged resurgence of Japanese militarism. The article then shifts its focus from the Russian monument to Japan’s Hakko Ichiu Tower, Yasukuni Shrine, wartime monuments and alleged historical revisionism.
There is a legitimate historical issue underneath the article. Imperial Japan committed extensive aggression and atrocities across Asia, and Hakko Ichiu was indeed used during the wartime period as an ideological slogan associated with Japanese imperial expansion and militarism. Academic research also documents the slogan’s transformation into wartime propaganda and its connection with the monument in Miyazaki.
But the article goes considerably further than establishing those historical facts.
Its central technique is to take a genuine historical controversy and place it inside a much broader political narrative about present-day Japan, creating a direct line between imperial Japan, contemporary Japanese conservatives and an alleged return of militarism.
That is where the fact-check becomes important.
The article contains historically grounded material, but its presentation is highly selective and openly editorialized. Rather than simply examining the monument dispute, it uses history to construct a political warning about today’s Japan.
What Actually Happened?
According to Global Times, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi criticized a memorial monument unveiled in Khabarovsk, Russia, commemorating victory over militaristic Japan. The article says Takaichi described the monument as unacceptable and said it hurt the feelings of Japanese people.
The Global Times response is essentially:
If Japan objects to Russia commemorating Japan’s defeat, Japan should first remove its own symbols of wartime militarism.
That argument is politically powerful because it shifts the debate.
Instead of asking whether Russia’s new monument is diplomatically provocative or whether Japan’s government had legitimate grounds to object, the article asks readers to judge modern Japan primarily through the historical record of Imperial Japan.
This is the first major framing technique.
Was “Hakko Ichiu” Connected to Japanese Militarism?
The term Hakko Ichiu was associated with the idea of bringing the world under one roof. During Japan’s imperial expansion, it became strongly connected with State Shinto, ultranationalism and imperial ideology.
Academic research describes how the expression was transformed into an ideological tool during the wartime period and used to support expansionism and militarism.
The Hakko Ichiu Tower was built in Miyazaki around 1940 during the celebration of the alleged 2,600th anniversary of Japan’s imperial foundation. Its original ideological associations are therefore not invented by Chinese media.
But the crucial fact is that the tower’s meaning has changed over time.
After Japan’s defeat, the inscription was removed under the US occupation. The monument was later renamed the Tower of Peace, and the inscription was subsequently restored amid controversy. Researchers have noted continuing disagreement inside Japan over how the monument should be interpreted.
Global Times largely skips this complicated evolution.
Instead, it presents the tower almost exclusively as a continuing monument to Japanese aggression.
That is selective framing rather than a complete historical account.
Turning History Into Present-Day Intent
The most important rhetorical move appears when Global Times argues that contemporary Japanese conservatives’ interest in wartime symbols demonstrates the existence of a growing “neo-militarism” threat.
This is where the article moves from historical fact into political interpretation.
There is a real debate in Japan over constitutional revision, defence spending, national identity, Yasukuni Shrine and interpretations of the country’s wartime past.
But these issues cannot automatically be treated as proof that Japan is returning to the ideology of Imperial Japan.
Modern Japanese nationalism, conservative politics and Imperial Japanese militarism are not interchangeable concepts.
The article collapses those distinctions.
That makes its conclusion rhetorically effective but analytically weaker.
The “One Monument Proves Everything” Problem
Global Times connects several separate issues:
- The Russian memorial
- Hakko Ichiu Tower
- Yasukuni Shrine
- Japanese war criminals
- Hashima Island
- Japanese school trips
- Conservative politicians
- Defence policy
- Alleged historical revisionism
Individually, these subjects deserve investigation.
But placing them together creates an impression that they form a single coordinated movement.
This is a classic association-based framing technique.
The reader is encouraged to move from:
Japanese wartime monument → Japanese nationalism → Japanese conservatives → militarism → present-day security policy.
The connections are presented as obvious rather than demonstrated.
That distinction is critical in a fact-check.
The Tower’s Stones: A Real Controversy, But Some Claims Need Care
Global Times states that the tower was constructed using 1,789 stones, with hundreds allegedly taken from places including the Ming Palace in Nanjing, the Great Wall and the Korean Peninsula.
There is substantial evidence that stones from territories occupied by Japan were incorporated into the monument.
Global Times itself reported in 2025 that more than 370 stones at the tower were identified as having been forcibly taken from various places, including 238 from China, with four reportedly from Nanjing.
Independent historical research also documents the monument’s relationship with Japanese imperial ideology.
However, the exact history and provenance of individual stones is more complicated than the sweeping language in the latest article suggests. A research project on the monument notes disputes over documentation surrounding the specific circumstances in which stones were brought to Japan.
Therefore, the stronger fact-check conclusion is:
The broader claim that the monument contains stones associated with Japan’s wartime expansion has substantial historical support; the precise origin and circumstances of every stone should not be treated as equally established.
Loaded Language
The article repeatedly uses emotionally charged expressions such as:
- “evil”
- “crime-laden”
- “sinful structure”
- “monstrous crimes”
- “delirious, malevolent doctrine”
- “militarist toxins”
- “fanatically declaring”
These are not neutral descriptions.
They tell the reader what emotional response to have before the evidence is assessed.
That is an important characteristic of propaganda-style commentary.
The historical crimes themselves can be documented without calling every related monument “evil.”
The choice of language turns a historical analysis into a moral indictment.
Selective Historical Memory
The article is correct to remind readers about Japanese wartime aggression.
But notice what it does not discuss.
It does not seriously examine:
- Postwar Japanese pacifism
- Japan’s post-1945 constitutional restrictions
- Internal Japanese debates over militarisation
- Japanese political opposition to historical revisionism
- The diversity of Japanese public opinion
- Japan’s reconciliation efforts with former adversaries
- The difference between conservative nationalism and wartime imperial ideology
Those omissions matter.
A fact-check does not require defending Japan.
It requires examining whether the evidence presented is sufficient for the conclusion being made.
Here, the answer is no.
The article presents one side of Japan’s historical debate as though it represents the whole country.
Historical Guilt by Association
The article’s strongest rhetorical device is association.
It links contemporary Japanese politicians with wartime figures and institutions.
For example, it mentions Yasukuni Shrine, Class-A war criminals, Hashima Island and wartime monuments before concluding that Japan must remove symbols that “summon the ghosts of past aggression.”
Some of those controversies are real.
But the existence of a controversial monument does not prove that the current Japanese government endorses the ideology that originally produced it.
This is an important distinction between:
historical symbolism and present-day political intent.
Global Times frequently blurs the two.
The Victim–Aggressor Binary
Another recurring feature is the creation of a simple moral structure:
China and other Asian victims = historical truth
Japan = historical denial and militarism
That framework is emotionally powerful because Japan’s wartime aggression is historically documented.
But modern international politics rarely fits such a binary.
Japan today is simultaneously:
- a former imperial power,
- a postwar democracy,
- a US ally,
- a major economic power,
- a country debating defence policy,
- and a society containing both nationalist and strongly pacifist currents.
Reducing all of this to “Japanese militarism” makes the analysis easier to consume—but less precise.
Turning a Bilateral Dispute Into a China-Centred Narrative
Interestingly, the immediate dispute described in the article concerns Japan and Russia.
Yet the article quickly redirects attention toward Chinese historical grievances, particularly Nanjing and the alleged removal of Chinese cultural materials.
That serves an important narrative purpose.
The Russia-Japan dispute becomes another opportunity to remind readers of China’s historical victimhood.
This is a recurring pattern in Chinese state-linked media coverage of Japan: contemporary disagreements are frequently interpreted through the memory of Japan’s invasion of China.
The historical memory is real.
The political use of that memory is the part that requires scrutiny.
“Whataboutism” With a Historical Foundation
The central argument is essentially:
Japan has no moral right to complain about Russia’s monument because Japan still has controversial wartime monuments.
This is a form of whataboutism.
However, it is not completely meaningless.
Japan’s historical record is relevant when Japanese officials discuss historical memorialisation.
The problem is that one issue does not automatically invalidate another.
Japan can legitimately object to a Russian monument while simultaneously facing legitimate criticism over its own wartime memorials.
Both propositions can be true.
Global Times presents them as mutually exclusive.
The Article Also Has a Genuine Historical Point
A fair fact-check should not turn into an automatic dismissal of everything published by Chinese state-linked media.
The strongest part of the Global Times argument is its reminder that Hakko Ichiu was not simply a harmless slogan.
Academic literature supports the connection between the concept, wartime propaganda, imperial ideology and Japanese militarism.
Likewise, the controversy surrounding the tower’s stones is not fabricated.
Chinese researchers have repeatedly sought the return of stones believed to have been taken from Nanjing and elsewhere.
Therefore, describing the entire Global Times article as “fake” would itself be inaccurate.
The more accurate assessment is:
The article combines legitimate historical facts with selective evidence, emotionally loaded language and broad political conclusions that go beyond what those facts alone establish.
The Pattern Goes Beyond This One Article
This framing is not isolated.
In April 2026, People’s Daily published an article about the same Hakko Ichiu Tower that described it as a symbol of Japanese militarist aggression and accused Japan of repackaging the monument as cultural heritage.
In 2025, Global Times also highlighted demands for the return of stones allegedly taken from Nanjing and presented the tower as a continuing symbol of Japanese wartime crimes.
Chinese state media has therefore developed a consistent narrative around the tower:
wartime monument → historical aggression → Japanese revisionism → contemporary nationalism → threat of renewed militarism.
The repetition strengthens the narrative through familiarity.
Readers encounter the same connections repeatedly until they appear self-evident.
The Larger Global Times Playbook
The article also fits a broader pattern visible across recent Global Times commentary.
The publication frequently frames international disputes through a China-versus-West or China-versus-Japan geopolitical lens.
Recent Global Times opinion pieces have described US policy as “hegemonic,” portrayed Washington’s G20 approach as a “one-man show,” and warned against what it characterises as challenges to China’s political positions.
This does not mean every Global Times report is false.
It means readers should distinguish between reporting and strategic editorial framing.
The outlet’s opinion section openly uses confrontational language, and the article under examination is explicitly labelled Opinion/Observer.
That label is important.
The article should not be read as a neutral historical investigation.
It is political commentary.
What the Article Leaves Out
Perhaps the most revealing part of a propaganda analysis is not what an article says, but what it doesn’t say.
Global Times does not seriously explore whether contemporary Japan’s security policies are driven by China’s military rise, North Korean missile threats, Russia’s actions or changing US-Japan strategy.
It also does not distinguish between legitimate Japanese concerns about historical memorialisation and attempts to rehabilitate Imperial Japan.
Instead, it places these issues inside a single ideological framework.
That omission makes the article more persuasive as political messaging—but weaker as balanced analysis.
Why This Framing Matters in 2026
The timing is particularly important.
Japan is debating its defence role at a moment of major regional security uncertainty.
China is simultaneously expanding its military capabilities and challenging the existing regional balance.
Taiwan remains a major flashpoint.
North Korea continues to pose a security challenge.
Russia’s war in Ukraine has altered European and Asian security calculations.
Against that background, portraying Japanese defence activism primarily as “neo-militarism” can serve a strategic purpose.
It encourages audiences to interpret Japan’s security expansion not as a response to changing regional conditions, but as evidence of a historical Japanese tendency toward aggression.
That is a powerful political narrative.
But it is not the only possible explanation.
History Is Real, the Framing Is the Problem
The Global Times article should not be dismissed as fabricated propaganda.
Its historical foundation contains significant truths.
Japan’s imperial expansion was real. Japanese militarism committed serious crimes across Asia. Hakko Ichiu was used within that ideological environment. The tower has genuine historical baggage, and the controversy over stones taken from territories occupied by Japan deserves serious examination.
The problem is what Global Times does with those facts.
It turns historical evidence into a sweeping contemporary political narrative.
It uses emotionally charged language.
It selects historical episodes that reinforce its argument while largely omitting countervailing context.
It moves from “Japan once committed militarist aggression” to “contemporary Japanese politics represents a dangerous return of militarism” without establishing the necessary evidence between those two claims.
That is the key propaganda technique.
The most accurate conclusion is therefore:
Global Times is strongest when describing the historical links between Hakko Ichiu and Japanese imperial ideology, but much weaker when using that history as proof that contemporary Japan is inherently returning to militarism.
The article is less a neutral fact-check of Japan than a strategic historical narrative.
And that distinction matters.
Because historical memory should be used to understand the present—not selectively weaponised so that the present can be made to resemble the past.
