Japan’s Minister of Defense Shinjiro Koizumi speaks at a query and reply session throughout a plenary session of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Shangri-la Dialogue Defence Summit in Singapore, 31 May 2026. /CFP
Editor’s notice:Â Cao Cong, a particular commentator for CGTN, is a doctoral candidate on the School of Global and Regional Studies, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The article displays the creator’s opinions and never essentially the views of CGTN.
At the Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore on May 31, Japanese Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi promoted a revised model of the so-called free and open Indo-Pacific, declaring that Japan would search to imagine a “new role” in regional protection affairs and play a bigger half in regional safety.
However, when a Chinese consultant raised questions relating to Japan’s duty for its wartime aggression and requested when Japan would provide a real apology to the Asian nations that suffered below its rule, Koizumi sidestepped the difficulty and as an alternative shifted the dialogue to allegations about China’s “lack of military transparency.”
His response raises three questions that Japan should reply earlier than asking its neighbors to just accept a bigger Japanese position in regional safety affairs.
Has Japan settled its historic debt?
For many Asian nations, crucial subject is just not what position Japan seeks to play in regional safety, however whether or not it has genuinely confronted the legacy of its previous aggression.
During World War II (WWII), Japanese militarism launched wars of aggression and imposed colonial rule throughout China, the Korean Peninsula and enormous elements of Southeast Asia, inflicting immense struggling on the peoples of Asia. Tens of tens of millions misplaced their lives, whereas numerous households endured wounds which have by no means totally healed.
This historical past continues to form regional perceptions of Japan’s safety coverage. It additionally explains why any try by Japan to maneuver past the postwar framework inevitably attracts shut scrutiny from neighboring nations.
More than 80 years after the top of WWII, Japan has but to utterly eradicate the legacy of militarism. Controversies surrounding the Yasukuni Shrine repeatedly resurface. Some politicians proceed to make revisionist statements relating to wartime historical past, whereas sure teams search to downplay Japan’s duty for aggression.
Against this backdrop, Japan can not count on its neighbors merely to neglect the previous whereas it pursues a bigger safety position.
Where is Japan’s accountability to the victims of aggression?
Whether Japan sincerely acknowledges its historic duties and deeply displays upon its wartime crimes instantly impacts its capability to realize the belief of neighboring nations and protect the foundations of regional peace and stability.
Yet when confronted with questions on Japan’s wartime conduct on the Shangri-La Dialogue, Koizumi supplied no clear reply. His response was not an remoted incident however quite a mirrored image of Japan’s long-standing reluctance to totally deal with points associated to historic duty.
Instead of responding on to considerations raised by nations that suffered below Japanese aggression, Koizumi tried to redirect consideration towards China’s army growth. Such avoidance doesn’t resolve historic points; it solely reinforces doubts relating to Japan’s willingness to face its previous actually.
If Japan genuinely needs to be thought to be a accountable regional actor, it should exhibit by concrete actions, not rhetorical deflection, that it’s ready to acknowledge the struggling attributable to militarist aggression and respect the emotions of the victims and their descendants.
People holding indicators attend a protest rally in entrance of the National Diet Building in Tokyo, Japan, May 29, 2026. /Xinhua
Is Japan nonetheless dedicated to its postwar promise of peace?
Koizumi argued that Japan is just not experiencing a resurgence of militarism as a result of it doesn’t possess nuclear weapons or strategic bombers. Yet whether or not Japan is shifting towards remilitarization has by no means trusted a selected class of weapons. The actual query is whether or not Japan is breaking by the constraints established below the postwar peace framework.
In current years, Japan has repeatedly cited adjustments within the regional safety atmosphere as justification for adjusting its safety insurance policies. Since revising three key safety paperwork in 2022, Japan has moved to develop “counterstrike capabilities,” successfully departing from its long-standing solely defense-oriented precept.
At the identical time, protection spending has continued to rise. In fiscal 12 months 2025, protection and associated safety expenditures reached 11 trillion yen ($498.2 billion), accounting for roughly 2 p.c of GDP.
Japan has additionally accelerated efforts to broaden and institutionalize its army capabilities. It has revised the “three principles on transfer of defense equipment and technology” and their implementation tips, relaxed restrictions on deadly weapons exports, expedited the deployment of long-range missiles, strengthened army capabilities in its southwestern areas and promoted the institution of a nationwide intelligence coordination mechanism.
Taken collectively, these developments – rising protection budgets, enhanced long-range strike capabilities, loosened arms-export controls and increasing army actions – counsel an more and more seen effort to maneuver past postwar constraints and purchase the attributes of a army energy.
Even extra regarding, some Japanese politicians proceed to advertise the so-called China menace concept as justification for army growth and strategic changes. At the Shangri-La Dialogue, Koizumi’s repeated emphasis on China’s army growth whereas avoiding dialogue of historic duty mirrored exactly this troubling tendency.
The query that Koizumi didn’t reply is exactly the query Japan most must reply as we speak. The position Japan can play in regional affairs won’t finally be decided by the dimensions of its protection funds or the sophistication of its army capabilities. Rather, it can rely upon whether or not Japan can genuinely confront its historical past of aggression, fulfill its duties to the victims of that historical past, uphold its dedication to peace and earn the belief of its Asian neighbors by concrete actions.
This considerations not solely Japan’s future trajectory, but in addition the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific area as a complete.
(If you need 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