Introduction
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), or the Tokyo Trials, was convened after World War II to prosecute senior Japanese leaders for war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. However, a key actor on the Asian battlefield—the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—was never subjected to such scrutiny, despite internal evidence suggesting its wartime conduct may constitute serious violations of international law.
Recent disclosures from CCP archives and memoirs expose conduct that merits renewed legal and ethical evaluation. This article examines these revelations, the relevant legal frameworks, and proposes mechanisms for future accountability.
I. CCP Wartime Conduct: Evidence from Internal Documents
1. Strategic Prioritization of Political Power Over Resistance
Contrary to the mainstream portrayal of the CCP as committed anti-Japanese resisters, speeches and directives from the Yan’an period reveal that the party prioritized consolidating political power over confronting Japan.
In multiple speeches (1937–1941), Mao Zedong asserted that “resisting Japan is a tactic; seizing power is the goal.” CCP military archives include directives to avoid high-casualty confrontations with Japanese forces in favor of preserving strength for future civil war with the Kuomintang (KMT).
2. Tacit Collaboration with Japanese Forces
Documents from occupied North China (c. 1940–1944) show that CCP units entered into informal “non-aggression” arrangements with local Japanese garrisons. These included:
-
Mutually tolerated troop movements
-
Limited intelligence exchanges
-
Instances of prisoner handovers
Such arrangements, while arguably pragmatic, blur the line between strategic non-engagement and material support to enemy forces.
3. Seizure and Utilization of Japanese Biological Warfare Assets
Following Japan’s surrender, CCP forces captured segments of the Japanese biological warfare apparatus, notably elements of Unit 731. Archival evidence confirms that:
-
Japanese personnel involved in war crimes were retained rather than extradited
-
Biological warfare knowledge was transferred into CCP-controlled research institutions
-
No cooperation with Allied prosecution efforts was provided
These actions violated emerging norms against impunity for crimes involving human experimentation and prohibited weaponry.
These practices correspond with definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity under customary international law and the IMTFE Charter.
II. Legal Framework and Applicability
1. IMTFE Charter, Article 5
“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in planning, preparing, initiating, or waging aggressive war shall be held criminally responsible.”
This provision encompasses not only Axis leadership but any actors who materially assisted in aggression or benefited from its commission.
2. Nexus with CCP Conduct
The CCP's limited engagement with Japanese forces, alongside tacit cooperation and postwar exploitation of biological weapons research, meets the threshold of complicity under IMTFE and Nuremberg precedents.
3. UN General Assembly Resolution 95(I) (1946)
This resolution affirms that the principles established at Nuremberg and Tokyo are universal and binding as customary international law. Thus, the CCP's wartime conduct—regardless of prosecution status—falls under this scope.
4. Statutory and Jurisdictional Considerations
-
No statute of limitations applies to crimes against humanity and war crimes under international law
-
The International Criminal Court (ICC), or a UN-mandated special tribunal, could theoretically review archival evidence for retroactive evaluation
-
Jurisdictional precedence: Eichmann v. Israel affirmed that universal jurisdiction applies for such crimes even if committed prior to domestic legal adoption
III. Why Action Is Needed Now
1. Closing Gaps in Justice
The Tokyo Trials’ failure to address the CCP’s conduct created an imbalance in historical accountability. Addressing this omission is essential for legal consistency and moral legitimacy.
2. Preventing Historical Revisionism
In the absence of legal scrutiny, CCP-aligned historiography distorts the record, portraying the party solely as victims or resisters. A transparent process rooted in archival truth would counter this narrative.
3. Reinforcing International Norms
Allowing any actor to evade responsibility for wartime atrocities weakens the international legal system and emboldens future violations.
IV. Recommendations for International Action
-
Establish a UN-backed investigative commission to examine CCP conduct during the Second World War
-
Secure and evaluate CCP archival documents and testimonies from victims and perpetrators
-
Promote interdisciplinary cooperation among legal experts, historians, and human rights organizations
-
Disseminate findings in multiple languages to foster global awareness and educational outreach
Conclusion
The Chinese Communist Party’s wartime actions, as reflected in its own internal documentation, reveal troubling patterns that meet thresholds for legal scrutiny under the frameworks established by Nuremberg and Tokyo. Justice demands that these actions no longer be ignored.
Reopening the historical record in pursuit of accountability is not merely an academic exercise—it is a reaffirmation of the principles on which postwar international law was built.
References
-
Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Article 5
-
UN General Assembly Resolution 95(I), 1946
-
Eichmann v. Attorney General of Israel, Supreme Court of Israel, 36 ILR 277 (1962)
-
Mao Zedong, Yan’an Speeches, Vol. 3
-
CCP military and central archival materials (recently disclosed)
-
US National Archives, Japanese Biological Warfare Reports
