Japan's Shift on Arms Exports Raises Concerns Over Militarism

China says Japan is disregarding its history with its decision to export weapons. Since adopting its post-war constitution in 1947, Japan has followed a pacifist framework, renouncing war. Last week, the Japanese government reversed its long-standing limits on the sale of weapons overseas. The move comes after Japan and Australia signed a 7 billion deal to supply warships to Australia. China is very critical of that decision. It is an indisputable fact that Japan's neomilitarism is becoming a force to stir up troubles and is posing a real threat. Historically, Japanese militarism triggered aggressive wars, committed heinous crimes, and brought devastation to the people of

Asia-Pacific countries by fabricating external threats, inciting nationalism, and hijacking the state machinery. Today, Japan's right-wing forces have not only failed to deeply reflect on the country's history of aggression, but are also constantly pushing its security policies in an offensive and expansionist direction, attempting to accelerate Japan's remilitarization by reorganizing the military-industrial complex. For more now on China's position, let's turn to Victor Gar. He is chair professor at Such University in Beijing and joins us from Myanmar. Victor, great to see you. The uh Chinese foreign ministry has issued a very strong statement uh accusing the Japanese government of attempting to remilitarize. What is your initial

reaction to this move by Japan? Why do you think it's happening now? First of all, what's happening in Japan is very dangerous, especially because the government and the political circles in Japan even up to today have not renounced the Japanese fascism which was defeated back in 1945. Now, some political circles in Japan even wanted to turn the table on the unconditional surrender of Japan back in 1945 to the United States, to China, to the former Soviet Union, and to Great Britain. Why? Because they didn't acknowledge that they were defeated by China or by the United States. They blame their defeat on the dropping of the two nuclear bombs by the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They

basically claim that Japan ended the war to save the Japanese people and they called the two bombs dropped by the United States on Hiroshima Nagasaki as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Therefore, it is shocking that the political circles in Japan even today still hang on to the residual association of Japanese fascism. In that sense, the incremental steps taken by the Japanese government, especially under current Japanese prime minister, Tagayichi is very dangerous because ultimately what will happen in Japan is the re-emergence of Japanese militarism which gave rise to Japanese fascism in the 1930s, in the 1940s, leading towards huge atrocities and crimes against humanity. not only

against the Chinese people but against the Korean people, the Vietnamese people or the other Asia-Pacific people, for example, and the United States, the Australians, the British, for example, you name it. Mankind should never allow Japan to rearm or to allow the re-emergence of neo-Japanese fascism. Period. So I think the Chinese government is responding in a very proper way to give warning to the political circles in Japan because we do not want to allow Japan to rearm or to reconstitute a threat to China or to other East Asian or uh Southeastern Asian countries or Asia-Pacific countries or ultimately to the United States. Remember Pearl Harbor. Remember what the Japanese fascists did against the American people, against the

Australian people, against the British people, and against all the other Asian nations, including China. China lost 35 million lives because of the Japanese aggression of China and the Chinese people will never allow Japan to rearm and reconstitute a threat to the peaceloving people and nations in this part of the world. Now the Japanese prime minister say Takayichi uh she has uh written on the social media platform X and I'm quoting her directly here. She said, "No country today can defend peace and safety by itself and needs partners to support each other." Unquote. Uh the prime minister also said that there is no change to uh the country's 80year history as a pacifist nation and that she is promising strict standards in the

way this policy is implemented. Does that go anywhere towards addressing China's concerns? What do you make of that? Absolutely not. I think Prime Minister Takahichi is telling lies to the Japanese people, to the American people, to the Chinese people, to the uh Korean people, to the Vietnamese people, to people in so many other Asian Pacific regions. Why? because she has paid homage to the Yasukuni shrine which ordered the war dates who were handed after due process being applied to them by the military tribunal at the end of the second world war after Japan unconditionally surrendered. Why should she visit the shrine honoring the dead of these war criminals and by justice

for example and as prime minister she keeps giving the so-called the gift to the Yasukuni shrine I think all these things piece up together to show that she still is associated with the Japanese fascism she is thinking about reviving Japanese fascism she wants to create the remilitarization of Japan. So peace for people in the world should never listen to the lies uttered by this prime minister Takichi because she is dangerous and I hope the American people will never trust her. Remember Pearl Harbor. Remember all the deceit, all the lies, all the fabrications the Japanese fascists told the world before they launched one war of aggression after another. before they occupied one country after another,

before they killed innocent people in the United States, in Honolulu for example, before they butchered and killed captured um prisoners of war of many countries. So I don't think Prime Minister Takahuchi has any credibility left because what she is thinking about is the reemergence of Japanese fascism. Period. Now, not everyone in Japan supports this new policy uh to lift the ban on lethal arm sales. Uh this is what a Japanese scholar had to say. Let's listen. In our opinion, the constitutional amendment that Takayichi seeks is actually a revision in a wrong direction and amounts to a violation of the constitution. We are indignant and can never allow such an approach under any circumstances. In our view, the recent

rallies and demonstrations in front of the national diet and elsewhere in the country also reflect the people's voice. We believe it is Say Takayichi who has further reinforced this dangerous trend. We consider her not only unsuitable to be a prime minister but also unqualified to be a member of the national diet. So as we heard there Victor, there is also deep opposition in Japan to this new policy. But uh one other issue I mean could this fuel a new arms race in the region? Absolutely. I think I know many Japanese people many of whom I know in Japan do not want to see the reemergence of Japanese fascism because the Japanese nation as a whole were the victims of

Japanese militarism between 1931 all the way to 1945. They learned the lesson. They do not want to see their politicians or people like Prime Minister Takishi mislead the Japanese nation in the wrong direction of ultimate catastrophe to the Japanese nation. Because if Japan wants to launch a war against other nations in its neighborhoods in violation of the terms of the Japanese unconditional surrender back in 1945, every inch of land in Japan will be turned by these new Japanese fascists into war zone and millions of people in Japan may die as a direct result of the remilitarization of Japan by their politicians.

Therefore, I'm completely standing by the just positions expressed by the Japanese people. You just now hold it. And I do believe that Japan should be reigned in and Japan should not forget the verdict issued by justice upon the ultimate defeat of Japanese fascism in 1945. And Japan should always remember what it entered into. For example, they accepted the post proclamation and the Cairo declaration. They undertook the commitment to the pass pacifist constitution. Whatever Prime Minister Taki is doing right now or seeking to do is in violation of the Japanese constitution. In that sense, she is already criminal in violating the constitution of Japan as the ultimate the highest instrument of law in the

land of Japan. So I think uh people in the world including the Americans, the Australians, the Canadians, all the Western Europeans for example, all the people in the world, all the countries in the world, all the members of the United Nation should be careful and alert of any step taken by Prime Minister Takichi and the government in rearming Japan or even exporting lethal weapons. They should not be in possession of lethal weapons to start with. Now, as I mentioned in the introduction, Australia has signed an arms deal with Japan uh to uh buy three warships and there are also plans to jointly work on the production of eight more of these vessels. This is considered Tokyo's most consequential

arms deal since 2014. Um but if we look at the relationship between China and Japan, which is already very tense, where does it go to from here? Is it going to get uh even worse from here? First of all, a brief point for the people of Australia. I hope they will tell the Australian government that thousands of the Australians, including the Australians captured prisoners in war, died at the hands of the Japanese fascism in the Second World War. And they should never allow the Japanese uh doing such lethal weapon sale to Australia. and they should not allow the Australian government to enter into suchh dangerous arms deal which is in

violation of the Japanese pacifist constitution. That's number one. Number two is that from the Chinese perspective, we are always very philosophical. We know that any attempts by the Japanese government including Prime Minister Tagichi leading towards reemergence of Japanese militarism or fascism for example eventually will be doomed to failure. However, before we reach the point of failure, we need to tell everyone in Japan and everyone in the world, stop Japanese remilitarization because it will lead to Japanese fatism. It will lead to crimes against humanity as Japan committed before they unconditionally surrender. If anyone allows Japan to disobey the terms of their unconditional surrender to China,

to the United States, to the former Soviet Union, and to Great Britain, they will be on the verge of unleashing catastrophes for peaceloving countries and nations in our part of the world and beyond. So this is the moment of truth. Stop Japan in rearming itself, in exporting lethal weapons to other countries. And let's call on countries like Australia to use their own sanity and judgment. Not forget all the atrocities Japanese fascism created against innocent people of Australia. Japan even wanted to bomb and occupy Australia before they were defeated in the Second World War. We should never contempt. We should never even think about the prospect of a remilitarized Japan because we know for sure that it

will be evil and it will be catastrophe for mankind. Dr. G, we have to leave it there. Thanks for joining us. Thank you very much for having me. There's been widespread criticism from international analysts over Japan's decision to lift its ban on exporting lethal weapons. There is currently no threat serious enough to justify Japan taking such drastic measures. I hope that Japan will not become a source of instability and violence.

Such worrying behavior should be condemned and opposed. Given Japan extremely negative role in World War II, including its aggressions against China, attacks on the United States, and wars waged in Asia, Japan should now adhere to pacifist principles. Japan's atrocities in World War II are almost unimaginable. Yet, what is even more alarming is that Japan has learned nothing from its past. That is a warning for the entire Far East. We must stay vigilant against Japanese militarism. Joining us now from Washington DC is S Rob Gupta. He's a senior Asia-Pacific international relations policy specialist at the Institute for China America Studies. We're also joined by Zun Ahmed Khan. She is a research fellow at the Center for China and

Globalization. She joins us from Beijing. Thanks to both of you for being with us. Zoo, let me start with you. Japan's decision to sell lethal weapons is a decisive shift away from its pacifist identity. Uh as we just heard from several international experts there, they've joined China in condemning uh what they believe is the Japanese move towards remilitarization. What is your view of why this has taken place? Thank you Anan firstly for having me. I mean I think uh we have to go back a few years. I mean it was also back in 2014 when the first reinterpretations of article 9 which is obviously Japan's pacifist pledge to Asia and the world uh

was reinterpreted right and then gradually I feel um with this current administration we saw uh prime minister Sai Taki's remarks on a Taiwan contingency she has also recently made a very successful bilateral meeting with President Trump and I feel I mean part of what's happening right Now with Japan's uh reinterpretation and also with the new arms exports um uh decision has a lot to do with where she thinks uh Japan's strategic opportunities lie which in obviously the long run may be misplaced but right now we know that the Trump administration is focusing on more burden sharing. She also maybe realizes that this is a great opportunity given that the world is currently in influx and maybe the notice that a lot of countries would have given

the attention that the world would have given to these changes these shifts is slightly diluted now given how much uh you know the war in Iran etc are uh drawing uh global attention and another factor I feel I mean there has been a faction in Japan that has always tried to give Japan you know more a more strategic position in the world. We know that by 2050, Japan will not be one of the leading economies in the world. We also know that the gap between Japan and China is only increasing whether it's economic or otherwise significance on the global stage. So I feel like this administration is trying to find a way to maintain the existing status quo, elevate its importance as a strategic

partner to the Trump administration to NATO allies uh maybe to be one of the beneficiaries of the new focus on perhaps Indopacific strategy which is focused on containing China and what a lot of Japanese as well and the region at large are pushing back against uh including obviously China is that this is against Japan's postwar or identity. It can create new complications. It might draw Japan in conflicts that the country simply does not want. And it will have ramifications for the people on the ground. So, it's definitely I mean the timing it makes sense given the kind of influx the world is in and the kind of demands that the Trump administration is expecting. And Zun, where does this leave China

Japan relations? Um I think I mean obviously there has been decades of creating a basic sense of trust. Uh we know that China has uh repeatedly you know condemned Japan's lack of uh existing remorse really for the actions uh of Japanese aggression. We know that the expectation from Japan from not only China and but the region at large is to condemn to a greater extent the crimes that were committed against the people of Asia. uh but of course with time you know Japan and China have had very robust economic ties and that relationship is being sabotaged and what I think one of the things that the Japanese people against this move realize is that Japan's economic future lies with Asia with ASEAN with China so

this lack of trust and obviously the push back from China even people you know voluntarily cancelling their trips to Japan and probably there will be greater people-to-people businessto business level ramifications will hurt Japan. So maybe I mean one of the things that the current administration needs to consider is what are the real fallouts for the country and those obviously emanate from a growing lack of trust between China and Japan to begin with. Okay. Uh so Rob uh I mean if we look at some of the immediate consequences of this decision by Japan uh Japanese companies can now sell missiles, fighter jets, destroyers and other uh major arms technology. It can export this and over

the weekend as I pointed out Japan signed a multi-billion dollar deal to supply Australia with warships. Uh and Australia plans to deploy these ships to defend what it says are critical maritime trade routes in the Indian Ocean as well as the Pacific Ocean. I mean how significant is this shift for Japan and does it mark uh how do you know how important is this in terms of Japan playing a bigger security role in the region? Oh I think it is you've you've hit the nub out there. uh it is about Japan playing a larger security role in the Asia-Pacific Indo-acific region and the purpose of this uh revision of its arms export policies is geared to towards that end. I

think it's a very significant change. You know the Japanese government has made these changes incrementally. There was one done in 2022, there was in 2014 2015. It's just that this change, an incremental one, is also a very significant one. Significant because it does allow for the first time real lethal weapons platforms to be sold to its partners. They have tried to do this under the framework of pacifism, but that is beginning to wear thin because there are so many exceptions and exceptions that are built in. And so it's made that made Japan's policym in terms of arms exports much more complex and complicated because there are all these exceptions built in and or rather relaxations built in. We

have to remember this start the this with regard to arms exports this viewpoint on pacifism started from about the mid 1970s where we have the arms export ban and we had a kind of 1% ceiling in terms of uh GDP defense spending and that has now gone to 2% in over these last 50 years particularly in these last few years the purpose you know as zoo just now mentioned it is about uh Japan is being asked to bear greater share of its own security burden. Part of what Japan senses is bearing its share of its own security burden is now developing and pluralizing its security relationships with immediate partners. And in order to pluralize those relationships, there are also defense exchanges and arms export

relationships which are built in. And as you just now said, I mean it's those the Moami frigots which are being sent to being sold to Australia which is the key reason for this relaxation because this relaxation could those frigots could not have been sold to Australia if this lethal weapons relaxation had the arms export had not been relaxed. You know, Japan is also thinking in terms of sell selling used I think destroyers to the Philippines and it could not do so but it is now capable of doing so. So these are kind it has been an incremental process but just because for the first time real lethal weapons full platforms now can be exported to 17 uh Indoacific and other partners. Uh this is also a

very significant change in terms of its regulations on arm sales. Right Zoo uh Japan has said that it will only export these lethal weapons to countries that are not involved in conflicts right now. Those conflicts being defined uh by the United Nations charter. But in addition to changing the balance of power in the region, in addition to Chinese fears that this is Japan on the way to remilitarization, China also has interests. It is deeply invested in the belt and road initiative. It would want to protect those interests. So does this make an argument for China to expand its military footprint? First of all, I mean an uh China does not have the track record uh the unfortunate legacy that Japan has. I mean this pacifist clause the

cornerstone of Japan's post-war identity is really based on the aggression on the millions and millions of people who lost their lives and the peoples all of them who whose you know uh villages towns cities entire nations were ravished by that uh you know aggressive posture that Japan assumed. So I mean I think the fact that a country with that legacy is now unchecked going towards as Su Risley pointed out you know uh towards reexporting lethal weapons. This is this is something that uh that has to be checked for very different reasons. On the other hand, yes, China is developing increasingly advanced weapons and China is also uh you know exporting to countries again uh following uh basic

standards of not countries in active conflicts etc right so uh I don't think the belton road initiative is to that extent you know focused on military cooperation as it is on ports bridges sustainable development climate change etc and I do not think that this Japanese move would incentivize or expedite those exports rather it would make China and the region more cautious and again let's mention that calling the Taiwan contingency as part of that a collective self-defense is again a breach of uh the one China principle I mean Japan has to respect that so Japan is it seems to be you know on purpose being provocative on purpose using the current state of turmoil that the world finds itself in the current what I

consider you know desperation of status core powers to remain more relevant and trying to somehow capitalize on this sentiment to maintain its uh current uh status in the global architecture and all of that might come at a great expense. Uh China on the other hand is connecting with the world's majority. China on the other hand is developing you know technological expertise that are allowing countries to pursue paths of development peacefully. So I mean I think that comparison maybe some people are trying to make that cannot be made. But what China definitely will do is not tolerate whatever Sana Takuchi's remarks have been so far if Japan were to move forward with those China will not

tolerate and Japan very clearly knows what that means. So I feel like these remarks uh these statements these moves I mean they have some tangible ramifications like the arms exports right now but at the same time they're also just maybe being used to appease certain global partners certain global allies that Japan can be a very useful partner in this military architecture which Asia as a whole rejects. Right Sab uh Japan is among uh America's oldest and closest allies in that region. uh there are something like 50,000 US troops which are based on uh Japanese territory. And we recently had a very large delegation from about 30 NATO countries. They visited the

Yokosuka US naval base to explore cooperation and what was termed strategic alignment. Um so this visit by this NATO delegation, what kind of message does that send? And I should say the visit to Japan, what kind of message does it send to China? Oh, I sense I think it sends the absolutely the wrong message to China and I and China has taken note and China has been angered by the fact uh NATO's area of operation should be Europe is Europe. It should not be straying beyond and it should not add complications to the security of the Indopacific region. I understand that the Japanese and others might want a certain degree of reassurance from the from its NATO allies. uh but I think it's just uncalled for and unnecessary and I

think uh Japan has strong allies in the Asia-Pacific and it should operate with those allies and not exacerbate the security dilemma in the Indo Pacific. Let me also just come back to that other point which you were asking with regard to combat zone and in terms of conflicts. Now you know in my previous answer I said little by little they've made incremental revisions relaxations and all it has done is just complicated matters and made it an extremely complex to read many of these regulations and also in this instance I mean we Japan nominally says and uh we can accept that it is not going to have these arms sold to nations involved

in combat but again there are exceptions built into it and that exceptions is are items which are created through joint development which is happening mainly with western partners with the US with the UK with Italy. Arms that are developed from joint development can be used in a combat zone and it has also created a kind of what is called a special circumstance where for its Indo-Pacific partners where arms could be sold even in terms in the combat zone if it if there are specific circumstances. Okay, that is where we have to leave it. Sir Rob Gupta Zun Ahmed gone. Thanks to both of you for being with us. And that's it for this edition of The Heat.

I'm Arnand Naidu in Washington.