Beware of Japan's dangerous move to cross the line of peace

Editor's note: Cao Cong, a special commentator for CGTN, is a doctoral candidate at the School of International Politics and Economics, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On February 25, the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan's Research Commission on Security approved at party headquarters a draft proposal to relax rules on the export of defense equipment. According to media reports, the draft, in principle, permits the export of weapons and equipment with lethal and destructive capabilities, including fighter jets and destroyers, and leaves policy space for exporting weapons to countries currently engaged in conflict under "special circumstances."

The proposal is expected to be submitted to the government as early as March and may lead to revisions to the implementation guidelines of the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology this spring. This development will mark a major breakthrough in Japan's military and security policy and warrant high vigilance from Asian neighbors and the international community.

For a long time, Japan has maintained relatively restrained institutional arrangements regarding arms exports. The current implementation guidelines limit permitted defense equipment exports to five non-combat categories: rescue, transport, warning, surveillance, and minesweeping. The proposed removal of this restriction will not only ease institutional constraints on lethal weapons exports but will also open the floodgates politically for exporting arms to conflict zones.

Although the draft still claims that exports to countries currently engaged in conflict are "prohibited in principle," it provides an exception "when special circumstances are taken into consideration, national security needs." It also centralizes review authority in the National Security Council, eliminating the need for cabinet approval or Diet participation as a necessary condition. In the face of broad exceptions and weakened procedures, the so-called "principle" appears increasingly fragile.

Some Japanese political figures have linked the relaxation of export rules to "supporting the defense industry" and "strengthening defense capabilities," even using it to exaggerate external tensions and claiming that Japan must "not yield to external pressure." The real issue, however, is whether Japan is using security as a pretext to lay the institutional foundation for the outward expansion of its military capabilities. Once weapons like fighter jets and destroyers become routine export commodities, Japan's defense industry will become deeply embedded in the global arms trade network.

It is also noteworthy that the draft clearly categorizes defense equipment into "weapons" (lethal, designed to kill and destroy) and "non-weapons" (non-lethal, such as bulletproof vests and helmets), restricting weapons exports to countries that have signed defense equipment and technology transfer agreements with Japan. Such an agreement framework could easily become deeply tied to specific security blocs, forming exclusive military cooperation networks.

If future arms exports are linked to so-called values-based diplomacy, Japan will not only strengthen military coordination with allies such as the United States but may also intensify bloc confrontation in sensitive regions, adding new destabilizing factors to an already complex regional security environment.

Looking back at the post-WWII period, every relaxation of Japan's military policy has followed a pattern of incremental breakthroughs. From expanding overseas dispatch missions after the Cold War, to the 2014 cabinet decision under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to lift the ban on collective self-defense, and the enactment of Security Legislation in 2015, the operational scope of Japan's Self-Defense Forces has continuously expanded.

Lin Jian, spokesperson for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has "urged Japan to reflect on its history of aggression, listen to the voices of its people against war and take actions to win the trust of its Asian neighbors." This position is grounded not only in current realities but also in profound historical reasons.

In the first half of the 20th century, Japan embarked on a path of militarism and launched wars of aggression against Asian countries, including China, bringing profound disasters to the region. The establishment of Japan's post-WWII Pacifist Constitution in 1947 was a systemic reflection of that history. It is precisely for this reason that Asian countries remain highly sensitive to any breakthrough in Japan's military policy.

Regrettably, in recent years, some political forces in Japan have taken a negative attitude toward historical issues, downplaying or even blurring responsibility for aggression. Against the backdrop of Japan's failure to reach a genuine consensus with its Asian neighbors on historical perceptions, it has persistently undermined the spirit of its Pacifist Constitution by bolstering military capabilities and relaxing arms export restrictions. Such policy intentions inevitably invite external scrutiny.

Peace and development remain the defining themes of our era. What the Asia-Pacific region needs is mutual trust and cooperation, not bloc confrontation and arms expansion.

Should Japan persist in its reckless pursuit of remilitarization and new militarism, it will only thrust itself into an increasingly complex and perilous security environment. Asian nations and the international community have every reason to remain vigilant and jointly safeguard the hard-won regional peace.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)