The administration of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has thrown open the door for exports of completed lethal weapons and is also set to continue discussions on a further expansion of Japan’s arms exports.

The administration should not be allowed to shift Japan’s rigorous self-restraint on weapons exports, which the country has long maintained as a fundamental policy of the pacifist state, without serious national debate.

The government revised its Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology, and the implementation guidelines for those principles, on Dec. 22.

The amendment reflected the “first installment” of proposals that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner, Komeito, had made in bringing together what they can agree upon in the present stage.

The centerpiece of the revisions is the total lifting of Japan’s self-imposed ban on the export of “licensed products,” which Japanese companies manufacture domestically under agreements with businesses based in other countries.

Japan previously allowed itself to export only components, but not finished products, of weapons licensed by a U.S. company. The country, however, is henceforth allowed to ship weapons, including finished products, to any nation that has a licensing agreement with Japan.

The government has quickly decided, by way of the first implementation of the amendment, to export Patriot surface-to-air missiles, owned by the Self-Defense Forces, to the United States.

The decision was made in response to a request from Washington, which is troubled by a shortage in the U.S. inventory due partly to supplying similar missiles to Ukraine, sources said.

That could undeniably result in indirect military assistance for Ukraine, even though officials explain that the exported Patriot missiles will not be transferred from the United States to a third country.

The government should ensure the policy of providing “uniquely Japanese forms of assistance” that Kishida has reiterated on so many occasions, such as mine clearance and the rebuilding of infrastructure and industries, will stay unshaken.

The licensing nation will be allowed to re-export weapons to a third country upon Japan’s prior consent, but the revised implementation guidelines state expressly that exceptions will be made for “nations where combat is deemed to be actually taking place,” with a veiled reference to Ukraine and Israel.

Japan’s exports, however, could encourage international conflicts depending on circumstances if a chain of linked exports, such as in the case of the Patriot missiles, were to occur.

Japan has allowed itself to export arms in the five categories of rescue, transportation, vigilance, surveillance and minesweeping.

The latest revisions lifted a ban on the export of defense equipment for those categories with lethal arms aboard, such as heavy machine guns for minesweeping, if such weaponry is needed for the corresponding duties or for self-protection.

The LDP and Komeito remain divided on, and continue discussing, the wisdom of reviewing the five categories themselves and of allowing Japan to export weapons that are developed jointly with other nations, with a veiled reference to next-generation fighter jets, directly to a third country.

The government has called on the ruling coalition to reach a conclusion by the end of February. But Japan should not be allowed to continue like this in expanding its exports of lethal weapons.

Decisions to ease regulations on arms exports have practically been made in closed-door talks by a small number of working-level officials from the ruling parties, even though they amount to reviews of a fundamental national policy.

No discussions on the matter have been held in an open arena, including in the Diet.

A broad-based public consensus could never be obtained with such an approach.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 24