THE incumbent government of Japan headed by its Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi through various posturing, signaling and acts seems to be trying to reset new military and security doctrine in the country.
According to many regional countries and their experts it would start a new race of arms and conflicts in the region damaging regional peace, stability and prosperity. Thus, its series of policy initiatives has broken its long-awaited post-World War II (WWII) image of a peaceful nation. Additionally, immense expansion in defense spending, developing country’s missile technology and intentional revising of the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology, to seeking to enshrine the Self-Defense Forces in the Constitution, and repeatedly hyping the Taiwan question, Japan is pursuing a new national security strategy through a gradual and institutionalized manner, moving onto a dangerous path of remilitarization.
Previously, Japan has been following and maintaining its national security policy on the principle of exclusively defense-oriented policy since World War II, building on a minimum level of self-defense, possessing no offensive weapons and refrain from military expansion abroad. Obviously, it remained an important political symbol distinguishing post-war Japan from its prewar militarism. Nevertheless, recent policy changes have drastically changed this principle gearing towards massive militarization in the region. Evidently, since 2022 the Japanese Government has been initiating many integrated policies mainly the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy and Defense Buildup Program vividly reflecting its intention to acquire the capability to strike enemy bases, namely a counter strike capability which is real terms fat from purely defensive representing a typical offensive deterrence posture.
After its incorporation into operational planning, such capabilities inevitably alter Japan’s strategic posture, transforming it from a passive defender into a state possessing pre-emptive strike capabilities. The deployment of long-range missiles in Kumamoto and Shizuoka prefectures further reflects this shift towards militarism. The upgraded Type 12 surface-to-ship missile in Kumamoto reportedly has a range of 1,000 kilometers, capable of reaching parts of the Asian mainland coast, while a hypersonic missile in Shizuoka is planned to reach 2,000 kilometers. The Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer Chōkai has also been equipped to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of about 1,600 kilometers, marking a significant expansion of counterstrike capability. Japan is simultaneously building integrated future warfare systems, including new Ground Self-Defense offices for unmanned warfare and large-scale procurement of reconnaissance and attack drones. The reorganization of naval forces into a unified Fleet Surface Force and rising defense spending further intensify regional concerns over Japan’s expanding military power.
Critical analysis confirmed that Japan’s revision of its three security documents, raising total defense spending to 43 trillion yen over five years during 2022 was the first giant step towards changing its security and military doctrines. Hence, Japan’s initial defense budget for fiscal year 2026 reached 9 trillion yen, a record high. Ironically, under the Sanae Takaichi administration it moved to revise the three security documents ahead of schedule, strongly indicating defense spending will likely rise further. Shockingly, Japan’s loosening restrictions on arms exports revising the Three Principles on the Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology, allowing the export of lethal weapons to “like-minded countries is another strong indicator of changing military doctrine and paradigm shift in its national security enabling to export frigates, air defense missiles and other weapons to countries such as the Philippines and Australia.
Politically, only getting approval from its National Security Council, composed of the prime minister and cabinet ministers, while the Diet is merely informed afterward highlighting expansion of military trade authority through weak supervision increasing the risk of weapons proliferation, intensifying regional arms races, and drawing Japan into external conflicts. Thus, Japan’s so-called pacifism is under great threat which should be reversed and truly respected as well. Moreover, it is a bitter reality of history that when military capital aligns with security policy, it often drives more hawkish diplomacy and higher military spending.
Unfortunately, the incumbent government of Japan is also taking serious initiatives on institutional levels revising the pacifist constitution and explicitly writing the Self-Defense Forces into the constitution, striving hard to remove legal and political constraints on military expansion. So, Japan’s Article 9. Article 9 of Japan’s constitution clearly rejects war and disowns the maintenance of land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential securing a key symbol of Japan’s postwar peace framework. In summary, re-branding and re-inclusion of the Self-Defense Forces would constitutionally legitimize permanent military forces and open the door to larger military buildups, expanded overseas operations, and looser restrictions on the use of force. Thus, Japan is on the path of militarism creating instability and disharmony in the region.
The writer argues that Japan’s emerging militarism serves external objectives, evident in its repeated emphasis on the Taiwan issue and growing involvement in regional affairs, heightening tensions. The current regime has deliberately reinforced military deployments in its southwestern region, integrating Taiwan-related contingencies into strategic planning, while expanding US-Japan military and maritime cooperation to support Taiwan in crises. Additionally, the deployment of electronic warfare units on Yonaguni Island, just 110 kilometres from Taiwan, poses serious risks to regional peace and stability. Overall, Japan’s continued focus on Taiwan carries significant socio-economic, geopolitical, and geostrategic implications, representing a red line for China and potentially undermining the foundation of bilateral relations, which must be avoided.
—The writer is President, the Centre for Knowledge and Public Policy, Regional Expert: China, CPEC, BRI & World Affairs.
