People attend a protest in entrance of the Japanese prime minister’s official residence in Tokyo, Japan, November 21, 2025. /Xinhua
Editor’s word:Â Xiang Haoyu, a particular commentator for CGTN, is a specifically appointed analysis fellow on the Department for Asia-Pacific Studies, China Institute of International Studies. The article displays the writer’s opinions and never essentially the views of CGTN.
In February, Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) adopted a draft proposal to revise the operational tips for the “Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology,” a vital doc governing the export of army {hardware}.
On March 6, the LDP and its coalition companion, the Japan Innovation Party, collectively submitted the proposal to Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. If adopted, the revision would scrap the present rule limiting arms exports to 5 classes – rescue, transport, vigilance, surveillance, and mine clearance – and considerably loosen export controls, together with permitting the export of deadly weapons.
These developments haven’t solely come below shut worldwide scrutiny but additionally met with opposition inside Japan. To defend the transfer, the present administration has as soon as once more resorted to the previous trick of peddling the so-called “China threat.”
In response to media inquiries, Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi claimed that China’s characterization of the coverage shift as “militarization” is a “propaganda campaign.” Citing knowledge from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, he additionally claimed that China is the world’s fourth largest arms exporter whereas Japan doesn’t even rank among the many prime 50.
The implied argument is obvious: If China exports giant portions of weapons, why cannot Japan?
This argument will not be solely logically flawed but additionally a malicious distortion of China’s place.
To start with, the character and context of arms exports by China and Japan are completely completely different.
As a everlasting member of the UN Security Council, China upholds the UN Charter and worldwide regulation. Its participation in worldwide arms commerce has all the time complied with UN resolutions and norms of worldwide regulation.
China strictly adheres to a few rules in arms exports: they need to be conducive to the reputable self-defense functionality of the recipient nation; they need to not impair regional and international peace, safety and stability; and they need to not intrude within the inside affairs of the recipient nation.
China by no means makes use of arms exports as a instrument for geopolitical rivalry, nor does it search army presence or political privileges in alternate for weapons. It has all the time opposed weapons proliferation and promotes arms management and non-proliferation in UN our bodies.
In distinction, Japan’s leisure of arms exports, framed as a response to the so-called “external threats” from China, Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, is rooted in a Cold War mentality of zero-sum recreation and serves the strategic objectives of containment and confrontation. Japan’s arms export growth is meant to gas bloc confrontation and intensify camp-based rivalry within the area. This is basically completely different from China’s strategy in logic, objective and finish outcomes.
In addition, the 2 nations bear vastly completely different historic and ethical obligations.
China suffered immensely from the brutal aggression of Japanese militarists. Today, China is a big nation with advanced environment. Necessary growth of nationwide protection capabilities and engagement in worldwide army commerce cooperation is China’s reputable proper and contributes to regional safety.
Japan, nonetheless, has but to attract severe classes from its historical past of aggression, and is now suffering from historic revisionism. Against this backdrop, any transfer to elevate the ban on deadly weapon exports is certain to trigger severe safety considerations and warrants shut scrutiny.
This will not be a matter of double customary, however quite a mirrored image of differing ethical obligations formed by historical past and information. Ignoring this distinction and judging an aggressor and its sufferer by the identical ethical yardstick is in itself a denial of historic justice – it’s neither truthful nor cheap.
Koizumi has additionally portrayed China’s uncommon earth export controls on sure Japanese entities as “pressuring behavior,” and camouflaged the easing of arms exports as a self-defense measure aimed toward lowering dependence on particular nations. This is precisely the identical public relations tactic lengthy utilized by Japanese right-wing forces to erode the constraints of the pacifist Constitution and push for army growth.
Invoking the so-called “China threat” whereas pursuing army buildup within the identify of “self-defense” displays a deeply entrenched Cold War logic: Security is outlined in zero-sum phrases. Japan’s try to deal with home skepticism by shifting consideration outward quantities to untenable sophistry. Rather than resolving considerations, it solely exposes the ulterior motives behind the choice to ease arms exports and highlights the more and more harmful trajectory of the safety coverage.
US President Donald Trump meets with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi within the Oval Office on the White House in Washington, DC, the US, March 19, 2026. /CFP
Japan’s push to ease arms exports is a step towards “re-militarization” pushed by clear strategic ambitions. Three aims stand out.
First, revitalizing the home protection business to interrupt the constraints of the unique defense-only precept.
After World War II, Japan adopted the completely defense-oriented coverage below its pacifist Constitution. In 1967, it launched the “Three Principles on Arms Exports,” which strictly restricted arms gross sales and have become one of many landmark insurance policies signifying Japan’s post-war dedication to peaceable growth. However, the Shinzo Abe cupboard changed it with the “Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology” in 2014, considerably easing weapons exports.
Now the present authorities is looking for to take away the remaining restrictions, even opening the door to exports of deadly weapons. The actual purpose is to show Japan into a serious arms exporter, and maintain its home protection business with abroad gross sales, thereby forming a closed industrial loop of “funding the military through arms sales.”
This won’t solely stimulate the growth of Japan’s arms business but additionally steer its broader financial and industrial construction towards militarization, thus reshaping the nationwide trajectory.
Strengthening alliance integration is one other goal.
Koizumi claimed at a press convention that Japan goals to scale back dependence on particular nations and construct up unbiased protection capabilities – an obvious reference to the US. Yet this rhetoric is misleading. In essence, it seeks to capitalize on Washington’s expectations for “security burden sharing” by Asia-Pacific allies and elevate Japan’s standing in America’s Indo-Pacific Strategy.
By supplying weapons and gear to US allies and “like-minded” companions, Japan could assist include and counter strategic rivals like China and Russia, combine itself extra deeply into the deadly operational chain of the Western fight system, and enhance its international army affect.
Finally, circumventing constitutional constraints to speed up “re-militarization” is the third aim.
Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution clearly stipulates that Japan shall not keep land, sea and air forces, and renounces the proper of struggle and the proper of belligerency. Yet for a very long time, the Japanese authorities has repeatedly damaged constitutional restraints by way of reinterpretations of the Constitution, dramatic will increase within the protection finances, and growth of offensive army capabilities.
Faced with home resistance to constitutional revision, they’ve step by step eroded the pacifist provisions of the Constitution by way of supplementary laws and coverage changes. This “salami-slicing” strategy dangers steering Japan away from its peaceable growth path to re-emerge as a “war-capable major power” with reckless strategic ambitions.
If Japan absolutely liberalizes deadly weapon exports, the implications shall be profound and far-reaching.
At the regional degree, it is going to heighten the chance of an arms race within the Asia-Pacific. Japan is already an industrial energy with a powerful army expertise foundation, possessing subtle capabilities in naval vessels, fighter jets, tanks and missiles. More Japanese weapons flowing into delicate areas are prone to gas geopolitical tensions, create new flashpoints, and significantly harm regional peace and stability.
At the worldwide degree, the proliferation of Japanese weapons will additional erode the worldwide arms management system. Mechanisms such because the Arms Trade Treaty are already going through credibility challenges as a result of sure nations’ withdrawal. Japan’s full liberalization of arms gross sales and army assist would additional maintain again the worldwide efforts to curb arms proliferation.
At the historic and ethical degree, arms exports by Japan, a serious aggressor in World War II, carry specific sensitivity. For nations falling sufferer to Japanese militarism similar to China and South Korea, Japan’s return to the previous path of army growth is all the time extremely alarming. Such strikes would additional undermine the safety belief and reconciliation efforts within the area.
However, sober voices additionally exist in Japan. During a parliamentary debate, an opposition lawmaker posed a pointed query: “On the one hand, Japan teaches its children to cherish peace; on the other hand, it manufactures lethal weapons and exports them to gain profits. How can we explain such a contradiction to our children?”
Lessons from historical past stay recent. No matter how Japanese politicians try and justify their actions, they can’t cowl up the ulterior motives and potential risks of easing arms exports and pursuing re-militarization. This growth deserves the vigilance of regional nations and the worldwide group.
(If you wish to contribute and have particular experience, please contact us at [email protected]. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, previously Twitter, to find the newest commentaries within the CGTN Opinion Section.)
Source: CGTN