EDITORIAL: Japan makes security policy switch without public discourse

Release time：2024-05-22 05:29:45 Source：International Illustrations news portal

Under its post-World War II pacifist Constitution, Japan has strictly refrained from arms exports for decades, resolving never to be a nation that encourages conflict or allows its weapons to be used to kill people.

But this resolve is being nullified by the government’s decision on March 26 to lift the nation’s export ban on fighter jets, which are lethal weapons par excellence.

This truly major shift in national security policy, executed in the absence of public discourse, comes on the heels of the revision of the so-called three strategic documents--namely, the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy and the Defense Buildup Program.

The revision of the key documents has effectively killed the traditional “exclusively defense-oriented” posture by allowing Japan to possess the ability to strike enemy bases.

CROSSING THE LINE

The Cabinet of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on March 26 approved a plan to export next-generation fighter jets, which are being developed jointly with Britain and Italy, to third-party countries.

Komeito, the junior coalition partner of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, was initially cagey about allowing direct exports from Japan of weapons that are developed in collaboration with other countries.

But Komeito eventually relented, on the condition that the plan is applied only to next-generation fighter jets.

In December, it became possible for Japan to export, to the United States, Patriot surface-to-air missile units that are manufactured in Japan under license from the U.S. licensor company.

This partially opened the way to the export of finished weapons with lethal capabilities. But exporting fighter jets definitely crosses the line.

The Three Principles of Arms Exports, first applied in 1967 by the Cabinet of Prime Minister Eisaku Sato to exports to nations engaged in combat, effectively became a total arms export ban in 1976 under the administration of Prime Minister Takeo Miki. 

Supported by the public, the ban remained for years as a pillar of Japan’s restrictive defense policy.

Lethal weapons remained strictly regulated even after the original three principles were transformed in 2014 by then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe into the present Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology, which allows the export of certain weapons under certain conditions.

There is no question that these deregulations over the last 10 years have lowered the hurdle sufficiently for the Kishida administration to lift the export ban on fighter jets.

An epitome of cutting-edge technology, fighter jets are extremely costly to develop and produce. And because they are difficult for Japan or any country to put together on its own, international collaboration has become a global trend.

However, exporting them to third-party countries is a different story altogether.

DANGEROUS SLIPPERY SLOPE

In justifying its latest decision, the government argued as follows: Britain and Italy can export the jets by obtaining prior approval from their development partners.

But if Japan alone is unable to do so because its Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology will limit the jet’s market, this will hinder cost-saving through mass production.

As a result, the government’s argument continues, Japan’s say in negotiations on matters such as the jets’ performance efficiency will invariably diminish and that will also make Japan a less desirable development partner in future projects.

But in any joint development project, aren’t the needs of individual nations taken into consideration and respected?

Is it really in Japan’s interest now to move away from its principles that have always helped enhance its credibility as a pacifist nation and served as a major diplomatic asset?

The government has revised the guidelines to the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology to state unequivocally that it will limit the export of fighter jets only to countries with which Japan has signed agreements concerning the transfer of defense equipment and technology.

Furthermore, the guidelines stress that the jet will not be sold to “countries where armed conflicts are in progress.”

Currently, there are 15 signatories to the above-mentioned accords, including the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Italy. But there also are India and the United Arab Emirates, which are in dispute with their neighbors.

There is no guarantee that countries that are not at war when Japan exports the jets will never go to war in the future. Likewise, no one can say with absolute certainty that exported aircraft will never cause local disputes to escalate or heighten tensions in the region.

To win Komeito’s support, the Kishida administration limited the exportable weapons to next-generation fighter jets only. But there is no denying the possibility that new jointly developed products will be added by piecemeal, and eventually even weapons developed solely by Japan will be allowed.

At the root of the arms export deregulation following the revision of the three strategic documents is the thinking that the reinforcement of relations with allies and friendly nations through flexible trade in weapons should benefit Japan in matters of diplomacy as well as security.

There also is interest in boosting Japanese exports to shore up the Japanese defense industry that has so far had only the Self-Defense Forces as its clients.

If those are the government’s real motives, is it only inevitable that even though the government at present says the exports are limited to fighter planes for the time being, that will not be the case forever?

In fact, some LDP members are already saying, “The government only needs to keep adding new items.”

We believe that is exactly what the government is thinking.

ENSURE DIET’S INVOLVEMENT

We must not overlook the fact that this crucial shift in security policy was simply approved by the Cabinet in the absence of any enabling legislation or legal amendment.

And this was exactly a repeat of how the three strategic documents were revised without any in-depth public discourse, including debate in the Diet.

Surveys by various news organizations show that public opinion on the export of fighter jets is almost evenly divided. As such, it is quite clear that the matter is nowhere near receiving broad public support.

The government says that when the time comes for sealing an actual export deal, the Cabinet will decide on each case to ensure that proper procedures are strictly adhered to.

However, we must note that such procedures merely entail securing the ruling coalition’s prior approval before each Cabinet decision.

And with no guarantee that the public will have a say in the matter, the setup itself can hardly be expected to serve as an effective deterrent.

In the arms export superpower that is the United States, every export plan must, in principle, be submitted to Congress for approval.

Kishida said at a recent Upper House Budget Committee session, “When discussing issues of national security, it is extremely important to gain the understanding of the people in the process.”

If he believes that at all, he must at least introduce a system that involves the Diet in the way the American system mandates congressional involvement.

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 27

Related articles