The Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer Abukuma. The Philippines has expressed interest in importing destroyers of the same class. (From the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force website)
このページを で読む
In April, the Takaichi cabinet approved a significant loosening of Japan's defense export rules, opening the door to the sale of lethal weapons—including fighter jets, destroyers, and missiles—to other countries. The changes were formalized through a Cabinet decision and a National Security Council meeting, which revised the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and their implementation guidelines. Japanese media outlets were split, with some supporting the move as a boost to deterrence and security cooperation, while others warned that it could raise regional tensions.
Security and Industrial Strength
The Sankei Shimbun and the Yomiuri Shimbun welcomed the move, arguing that it would strengthen the defense capabilities of allies and like-minded countries and help maintain peace. In contrast, the Asahi Shimbun, Mainichi Shimbun, and Tokyo Shimbun called for limits on expanded exports, warning that they could heighten regional tensions.
Regarding the lifting of the ban on arms exports, The Sankei Shimbun said it would "contribute to peace in Japan and the region." It argued that the policy could "strengthen the defense capabilities of allies and like-minded nations, creating a favorable security environment for Japan." The paper also said the move could help expand the defense industry and improve the long-term operational capabilities of the Japan Self-Defense Forces.
The Yomiuri Shimbun described the move as "a natural response to changes in the security environment." It stressed that maintaining peace and security requires not only stronger defense preparedness but also greater capacity to sustain counterattacks. The paper added that no country can guarantee its security alone, making it essential to build cooperative frameworks with allies and like-minded nations, including mutual support in defense equipment.
Concern Over Erosion of Restraint
The Asahi Shimbun expressed a negative view, saying, "The restraint on weapons exports that Japan has maintained, however imperfectly, as a pillar of its identity as a peaceful nation is now being significantly dismantled." It criticized the policy, arguing that "if it fuels conflicts or further heightens regional tensions, it would ultimately be a negative for Japan's security."
The Mainichi Shimbun described the decision as "a major shift away from the restrained stance Japan has maintained for many years." It expressed concern that "if excessive exports trigger an arms race, regional stability could deteriorate. Combined with the expansion of the defense industry, this could heighten tensions with neighboring countries."
Similarly, the Tokyo Shimbun said the decision "disregards the ideals of pacifism without sufficient deliberation in the Diet or broader national debate." It also warned that "Japanese-made weapons could be used in wars abroad resulting in deaths and casualties," arguing that "profiting from the sale of weapons is incompatible with the ideals of a peaceful nation."
Historical Context and Sankei Counterpoint
The Sankei Shimbun noted that during the Korean War, Japan produced ammunition and supplied it to US forces, then the core of the United Nations coalition, contributing to efforts to repel North Korean aggression.
It also argued that if major advanced countries had followed Japan's past restraint on arms exports, "Japan would not have been able to sufficiently equip the Self-Defense Forces, and Ukraine would not have had the means to resist Russia's invasion."
The paper further warned that if Japanese people discourage their own defense industry by labeling it with terms such as "merchants of death," those who would benefit are "the forces seeking to invade Japan or its allies."
Diet Oversight Debate
The revised rules include a provision requiring the government to notify the Diet after deciding on arms exports. However, the Asahi Shimbun argued that "this alone cannot provide an adequate oversight function" and insisted that "weapons exports should not be left entirely to government discretion," calling for a system requiring Diet approval.
The Mainichi Shimbun similarly argued that "under the new system, meaningful restraints by the Diet can hardly be expected." It called for "a mechanism for prior review" and insisted that "clear rules and effective safeguards are needed to prevent weapons exports from expanding without control."
The Tokyo Shimbun also argued that "it is necessary to consider introducing a mechanism that would allow the Diet to place limits on weapons exports that could amount to involvement in war."
The Nihon Keizai Shimbun (Nikkei) expressed understanding of the goal of strengthening deterrence, while also stressing that "it is essential to carefully assess whether exports should be permitted and to establish a strict monitoring system."
Noting that countries in Southeast Asia, such as the Philippines, have shown interest in importing destroyers and other equipment, The Sankei Shimbun argued that Japan "should not fall into a backward-looking mindset of imposing restrictions, but should actively pursue exports and help foster peace."
It further claimed that exporting weapons would strengthen the deterrence capabilities of allies and like-minded nations, thereby improving Japan's security environment. The paper added that excessive restrictions would make it harder to maintain peace, arguing that Japan should actively promote exports and take responsibility for contributing to stability.
RELATED:
- Japan Opens Door for Wider Arms Exports, but Obstacles Remain
- Japan Watches Anxiously as Trump Raises US-China 'G2' at Xi Summit
- Trump Meeting with Xi Could Accelerate Japan's Indo-Pacific Strategy
Author: Hiroshi Sakai, The Sankei Shimbun
このページを で読む
