Japan has pledged not to become an exporter of weapons that fuel international conflict, a vow that is one of its most fundamental principles as a nation whose Constitution strongly upholds pacifism.

Opening the door to exports of lethal weapons runs counter to this long-held principle and is totally unacceptable.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner, Komeito, have started working-level talks for proposed revisions to the guidelines for the “three principles on transfer of defense equipment and technology,” which regulate the nation’s arms exports.

The two ruling parties are responding to a call for promoting arms transfers to other nations made in the revised National Security Strategy announced by the government at the end of last year.

Under the current guidelines, Japan is allowed to export defense equipment in the five categories of cooperation concerning rescue, transportation, vigilance, surveillance and minesweeping to “countries cooperating with Japan in the security area.”

The proposal to add such categories as “demining” and “education and training” to the list is reasonable.

But we cannot support the proposal to expand the scope to include such deadly weapons as fighter jets and destroyers, which has been made by some policymakers within the government and the LDP.

During the postwar period, Japan has limited its overseas aid to nonmilitary areas and restrained itself from exporting weapons. The policy change could cause the nation to lose its credibility and unique diplomatic strength, which have been built through years of efforts as a pacifist nation.

In stressing the importance of expanding arms exports, the government claims that this would help deepen Japan’s security cooperation with friendly nations and contribute to deterring attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by force.

Obviously, China is the reason behind this initiative. If Japan starts supplying killer weapons to other Asian nations, that could heighten tensions in the region.

In its security policy proposal to the government in April last year, the LDP cited Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to reinforce its case for making it possible for Japan to provide a wide range of equipment to countries that fall victim to aggression in violation of international law.

Japan has sent certain types of defense equipment including bulletproof vests and helmets to Ukraine. The LDP envisioned the lifting of the ban on transfers of lethal weapons to such countries.

Supplying arms designed for immediate use on battlefields, not those for deterrence, violates the spirit of the three principles.

After his visit to Ukraine, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said Japan will continue providing aid in line with its own policies and principles. The government should focus its efforts to help Ukraine on reconstruction and civilian areas.

Another aim of the initiative to expand the scope of arms exports is to maintain and bolster the domestic defense industry.

If the Self-Defense Forces are the only buyers of domestically made weapons, the proponents argue that it would be difficult for the defense industry to lower costs through mass production and maintain its manufacturing infrastructure.

What policymakers should do, however, is to come up with viable ideas to support the defense industry in ways that are consistent with the basic principles of Japan as a pacifist nation.

It should also be noted that the proposed change in the implementation guidelines for the three principles concerning arms exports would be linked to other related systems.

If the way the three principles are enforced is changed, that would also lead to significant changes in the Official Security Assistance program to support the militaries of developing countries. 

In addition, there would be changes in the system to promote arms exports that are included in the bill to support the defense industry, which is now being considered by the Diet.

Lifting the ban on the exports of deadly arms would have far-reaching effects on related systems and issues, which should be firmly kept in mind during debate on the matter.

--The Asahi Shimbun, April 30