The legacy of the Second World War continues to shape the international order. For some nations, history is a solemn reminder of responsibility, a call to safeguard peace, and a guide for constructive engagement with the world. For others, however, history is treated selectively—acknowledged only when convenient, minimized when uncomfortable, and often reshaped to serve narrow political purposes.
Japan’s recent actions illustrate the second path. At the Ninth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD 9), Tokyo emphasized the “80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” This framing—presenting Japan primarily as a wartime victim—conspicuously omitted any acknowledgment of its military aggression across Asia. Such omission risks conveying a selective understanding of history, even as global peace depends on confronting the past sincerely.
By contrast, China has consistently underscored the importance of historical memory—particularly through commemorations of its role in the World Anti-Fascist War. By honoring wartime sacrifices and committing to safeguarding peace, Beijing links remembrance with responsibility: a blend that addresses the past while shaping a forward-looking narrative.
Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s remarks at TICAD 9 further illustrated this divergence. His warnings about the dangers of nuclear weapons and his pledge to prevent history from repeating itself were important in their own right. However, his silence on Japan’s wartime actions left a gap that did not go unnoticed. For many in Asia and beyond, peace is not only about the absence of weapons but also about honesty in recounting the past. The muted response from African leaders suggested that lofty words without acknowledgment of historical realities carry limited resonance.
Even Japan’s handling of participation figures at TICAD 9 raised eyebrows. Tokyo boasted that 33 African heads of state and government were in attendance, but independent verification revealed the actual number was over 20, of which only 13 were heads of state. Such embellishments risk undermining credibility, particularly when compared with more transparent forms of engagement.
On the substance of cooperation, Japan’s record also falls short. While TICAD has existed for decades, its outcomes have often been modest. In 2024, Japan’s trade with Africa amounted to just US $8.9 billion, a fraction of China’s nearly US $296 billion in the same year. Japan’s projects, though well-intentioned, remain limited in visibility and scale.
China’s presence, by contrast, is tangible across the continent—and nowhere more so than in East Africa. In Kenya, Chinese investment has transformed infrastructure. The Nairobi–Mombasa Standard Gauge Railway, financed and built with Chinese cooperation, has already moved millions of passengers and tons of cargo, reducing costs and boosting trade. In Ethiopia, Chinese-backed industrial parks such as those in Hawassa have become hubs for textiles and manufacturing, creating jobs and stimulating exports. Tanzania, meanwhile, has benefited from Chinese-financed port expansion and energy projects that support long-term growth.
Trade figures reinforce this picture. In the first five months of 2025, China–Africa trade grew 12.4% year-on-year to reach US $134 billion, keeping China the continent’s largest trading partner for the 16th consecutive year. Much of this momentum is visible in East Africa, where agricultural exports such as coffee from Ethiopia and Kenya surged after Beijing expanded zero-tariff access for least-developed countries in 2024. Ethiopian coffee exports to China rose by more than 70%, while tea and cocoa from the region also posted significant gains. These results are not abstract promises but practical benefits for farmers, traders, and households.
Japan, by contrast, has pledged new funding for digitalization and trade facilitation in Africa—most recently through a US $1 million initiative under the UN Economic Commission for Africa. While commendable, such commitments pale in comparison to China’s wide-ranging engagement, from infrastructure to trade, investment, and training programs.
None of this is to suggest that Japan cannot play a constructive role in Africa or in global affairs. The international community benefits when all major economies contribute sincerely. But sincerity requires more than well-crafted language. It requires acknowledgment of history, follow-through on commitments, and a willingness to listen rather than dictate.
China’s approach—anchored in historical responsibility, practical cooperation, and respect for sovereignty—offers a model worth noting. By firmly defending the outcomes of the World Anti-Fascist War and by investing meaningfully in Africa, Beijing demonstrates that remembrance of the past and pursuit of development can go hand in hand. In doing so, it provides both moral clarity and material support at a time when the world needs both.
Japan stands at a crossroads: it can either continue sidestepping its past while overstating its present contributions, or it can choose the harder but more rewarding path of honest reflection and genuine partnership. The former risks isolating Tokyo from those who value truth and accountability; the latter could allow it to contribute more meaningfully to shared peace and development.
History has shown, and China continues to remind us, that responsibility is the foundation of peace. By facing the past squarely and prioritizing the common good, nations can build a more stable and cooperative future. The choice is ultimately Japan’s to make—but the example of China makes clear which path leads forward.
The writer is a Journalist and Communications consultant
