Revising Japan's arms export ban isn't 'militarism'

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s Cabinet on Tuesday made a landmark decision to abolish decades-old restrictions limiting military equipment transfers to “nonlethal” categories, paving the way for the export of lethal weapons even to countries currently engaged in combat.

In a news conference that same day, Takaichi’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara explained that “These decisions are intended to ensure Japan’s security and further contribute to the peace and stability of the region and the international community amid accelerating changes in the security environment surrounding our country. Today, no country can safeguard its own peace and security on its own.”

A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed “serious concern,” stating: “Japan’s rearmament is becoming a reality. We will resolutely prevent Japan’s reckless actions toward a new form of militarism.” The diplomat also criticized Takaichi’s offering at Yasukuni Shrine for the spring festival, saying, “Japan’s backward-looking moves are an attempt to evade its own culpability.”

China’s state-run media also bashed the move, claiming that “the principle of senshu boei (exclusively defense-oriented defense) upheld by postwar Japan is wavering,” and that “the majority of countries to which Japan intends to export are neighbors of China, significantly increasing the risk of conflict in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.” It went on to say that the passage of a Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer through the Taiwan Strait last week was “evidence that remnants of Japanese militarism are attempting to assert their presence in the Taiwan Strait.”

China’s repeated allegations of Japanese “neo-militarism” are unfounded and unpersuasive and little more than government propaganda. Any visitor to Japan would understand this immediately. To begin with, “militarism” refers to an ideology that prioritizes military power above all else in a nation’s politics, economy, education and social structure, elevating military values as the national ideal. Generally, it is accompanied by these four features:

• Military dominance: Civilian control does not function. The military holds decisive influence over politics and prioritizes intimidation through force.
• Permeation of military values: Military values are promoted as virtues for the entire population and propagated through education and the media.
• Prioritization of military expansion: A large portion of the national budget is allocated to defense spending and a powerful military force is maintained and strengthened over the long term.
• Expansionism: Foreign policy aimed at extending a country’s influence over others, often backed by military power.

If the above definition is correct, it accurately describes Beijing’s foreign policy in the 21st century. Japan’s militarism ended with World War II more than eight decades ago. Today’s Japan is free, democratic and open. It has proven itself a peace-loving nation governed by rules and with well-established civilian control.
Perhaps what Beijing views as “militaristic" is the Japanese people’s desire not to be lumped together with China. Yet even in Japan, where freedom of speech is guaranteed, there are pundits who aren’t happy with this Cabinet decision.

As for me, I’ve long found the “export ban” on lethal arms baffling, dating back to my time as an active-duty official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs decades ago. It seems to me a healthy thing that the ban has finally been revised and Japan can finally begin to move closer to becoming a “normal country.”

A bit of history might shed some light on the subject. The Three Principles on Arms Exports were established in 1967, when then-Prime Minister Eisaku Sato announced a policy in parliament that would prohibit arms exports in three specific cases: first, to communist bloc countries, second, to countries subject to U.N. resolutions prohibiting arms exports, and third, to countries involved in international conflicts or at risk of becoming involved.

While this constituted the “Three Principles” at the time, the policy reflected a nuanced position that exports were permissible as long as they did not fall under these three categories.

However, in 1976, under Prime Minister Takeo Miki’s administration, these principles were tightened. A unified government policy was established stating that even for regions not covered by the Three Principles, Japan would “refrain from exporting arms in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution and legal amendments.” Consequently, Japan adopted a policy that was effectively a near-total embargo, meaning it “would not export arms to any country.”

Fast forward to the 21st century. In the face of China’s military rise in the Indo-Pacific region, this policy became increasingly out of step with the times. In 2014, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s second administration fundamentally revised the previous rule of “prohibiting exports in principle and allowing exceptions,” establishing a new, three-part framework: First, exports to countries involved in conflicts or those violating U.N. resolutions would remain prohibited; second, exports were permitted only when strictly vetted and deemed to contribute to peacekeeping or Japan’s national security; and third, exports explicitly prohibited the recipient country from using the equipment for purposes other than those intended or reselling it to a third country without prior consent.

Yet much has changed in the past decade, making it wise for the Takaichi government to revisit export policy for three main reasons. First, faced with the continued military expansion of China’s People’s Liberation Army in the Indo-Pacific, many neighboring partner nations have begun seeking to import Japanese defense equipment. Second, if more countries use Japanese military equipment, their capabilities will improve, thereby strengthening deterrence against conflict. Third, enhancing Japan’s domestic production capacity for such equipment is also expected to contribute to the country’s national security.

In short, this simply means that Japan has finally lifted the ban on the “selective export of domestically produced weapons” as part of its “foreign and national security policy” — something any normal country would do. Of course, we must listen to the voices of our neighbors. But it is patently absurd for either China or Russia or any other nation to label Japan as “neo-militarist.”

The Takaichi Cabinet’s decision in no way alters Japan’s ideals as a peace-loving nation. On the contrary, it allows Japan to contribute more not only to its own security but also to the peace and stability of the region and the international community. Countries that criticize this new policy as “militarism” may be viewed as undermining the regional peace and security that Japan strives to maintain.