根據(jù)《波茨坦公告》《中國(guó)駐日占領(lǐng)軍備忘錄》，我們可以駐軍日本

對(duì)日本實(shí)行分區(qū)占領(lǐng)系第二次世界大戰(zhàn)的勝利成果之一且由《波茨坦公告》（實(shí)為《開羅宣言》的升級(jí)版）明確界定的，簡(jiǎn)言之，中國(guó)、美國(guó)、蘇聯(lián)、英國(guó)都有權(quán)駐軍日本。針對(duì)中國(guó)駐軍日本的具體事宜安排，則是由《中國(guó)駐日占領(lǐng)軍備忘錄》進(jìn)行明確。《中國(guó)駐日占領(lǐng)軍備忘錄》的法律基礎(chǔ)來源于《波茨坦公告》第七條之規(guī)定“日本領(lǐng)土經(jīng)盟國(guó)之指定，必須占領(lǐng)”；中國(guó)作為盟國(guó)成員之一，具有駐軍日本的權(quán)力。本條款就為中國(guó)作為戰(zhàn)勝國(guó)在日本駐軍提供了無可辯駁的法律依據(jù)。

1946年07月20日，中美雙方簽署《中國(guó)駐日占領(lǐng)軍備忘錄》規(guī)定，中國(guó)駐日占領(lǐng)軍區(qū)域?yàn)閻壑h，師部設(shè)在名古屋；在必要時(shí)，駐軍范圍還可以擴(kuò)展至三重縣、靜岡縣。當(dāng)然，中國(guó)駐日占領(lǐng)軍要接受盟軍最高統(tǒng)帥部的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)并聽從其指揮。中國(guó)駐日占領(lǐng)軍區(qū)域主要位于四國(guó)島，該區(qū)域覆蓋了日本東京和中部工業(yè)區(qū)的核心地帶，具有極其重要的監(jiān)控工業(yè)和戰(zhàn)略防控價(jià)值。有關(guān)該備忘錄的效力和“效期”問題，也明確規(guī)定，中國(guó)或美國(guó)任何一方都無權(quán)單方廢止，“除非中美雙方共同宣布廢止，否則協(xié)議持續(xù)有效”。因此、該備忘錄直到如今仍有法律效力。

必須要說明的是：其一、代表中國(guó)簽字的系當(dāng)時(shí)的中華民國(guó)政府，現(xiàn)在的合法權(quán)力和權(quán)利已經(jīng)歸屬中華人民共和國(guó)（聯(lián)合國(guó)方面已經(jīng)確認(rèn)）；其二、雖然蘇聯(lián)已經(jīng)解體了，但是代表蘇聯(lián)合法權(quán)力和權(quán)利是如今的俄羅斯聯(lián)邦。換而言之，今天的中國(guó)和俄羅斯都有權(quán)駐軍日本。這就是真正的懸在日本頭上的“達(dá)摩克里斯之劍”，在必要的時(shí)候，我們也好，俄羅斯也罷，都可以重啟對(duì)日本的駐軍權(quán)或者喚醒這些條款對(duì)日本的駐軍權(quán)利（好像這些權(quán)利條款沒有完全實(shí)施，日本政府方面還真當(dāng)這些條款“沉睡”了呢）；因此，這是我們的一張很重要的牌。

（以下是英文版 The next is English edtion）

The 10th Episode of “Global Refuel”: According to the Potsdam Proclamation and the Memorandum on Chinese Occupation Forces in Japan, We Still Have the Right to Station Troops in Japan

(Thursday Afternoon, December 18, 2025)

The partition occupation of Japan was one of the victorious outcomes of World War II and was clearly defined by the Potsdam Proclamation (essentially an upgraded version of the Cairo Declaration). In short, China, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom all had the right to station troops in Japan. The specific arrangements regarding the stationing of Chinese troops in Japan were clarified in the Memorandum on Chinese Occupation Forces in Japan. The legal basis for this Memorandum derives from Article 7 of the Potsdam Proclamation, which stipulates that "Japanese territory shall be occupied as the Allies may designate." As one of the Allied nations, China possesses the right to station troops in Japan. This provision provides an indisputable legal basis for China, as a victorious nation, to station troops in Japan.

On July 20, 1946, China and the United States signed the Memorandum on Chinese Occupation Forces in Japan, stipulating that the Chinese occupation zone in Japan would be Aichi Prefecture, with the divisional headquarters located in Nagoya. If necessary, the area of occupation could be extended to include Mie and Shizuoka Prefectures. Of course, the Chinese occupation forces were to be under the leadership and command of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. The Chinese occupation zone was primarily located on Shikoku Island, an area covering the core regions of Japan's Tokyo and central industrial zones, holding significant monitoring and strategic control value regarding industry. Regarding the validity and "duration" of this Memorandum, it was explicitly stated that neither China nor the United States had the right to unilaterally abrogate it; "unless both China and the United States jointly declare its abrogation, the agreement shall remain in effect." Therefore, this Memorandum retains legal force to this day.

It must be clarified: First, the signatory on behalf of China was the then Republic of China government, whose legitimate powers and rights have now been succeeded by the People's Republic of China (as confirmed by the United Nations). Second, although the Soviet Union has dissolved, its legitimate powers and rights are now held by the Russian Federation. In other words, both China and Russia today have the right to station troops in Japan. This is the true "Sword of Damocles" hanging over Japan. When necessary, we, as well as Russia, can reactivate the right to station troops in Japan or "awaken" these provisions concerning the right to station troops in Japan (it seems these rights were not fully implemented, and the Japanese government has truly acted as if these provisions are "dormant"). Therefore, this is a very important card in our hand.