By Mehmet Enes Beşer
On April 30, China’s Ministry of National Defense warned that Japan is moving away from the exclusively defense-oriented identity which it assumed post-war. According to the report, in early April, Japan announced changes in its regulations concerning transferring defense equipment and technology that would, theoretically, allow for exporting lethal weapons under certain circumstances. The report also mentions Japan’s plans to reinstate military rank terms that were previously associated with the former Imperial Japanese Army (such as Taisa) and the creation of a new National Intelligence Bureau. China’s Defense Ministry spokesman Zhang Xiaogang stated that these actions by Tokyo indicate the country’s drift towards a more militarized identity, thus potentially bringing disaster upon East Asia once again.
What makes this particular news noteworthy is not the technical side of Japan’s policy but rather its historical context. Unlike many other cases, Japan’s actions cannot be seen purely as a response to changing geopolitical situation since Japan itself is a nation that, during its imperial period, committed atrocities in Asia. In other words, it does not matter if today’s Japan operates under a democratic constitution and describes each of its steps as strictly defense-related. When talking about Japan’s military policy, one needs to take into consideration historical implications of each move made by the country.
It is highly likely that Japan’s leaders would argue that the region is no longer safe for them. They could cite China’s rise, North Korea’s military and nuclear program, Russia’s return as a significant military player in Asia, and uncertain foreign policy of the United States as examples to prove their point. From this perspective, militarization is just a necessary step that any country would undertake in such an insecure environment. After all, who would like to rely on someone else’s strategic protection forever?
However, this argument cannot be considered valid since Japan is faced with greater insecurity now than it has ever been in the last few decades. Therefore, this change requires careful consideration as it might lead to dangerous historical revisionism. First of all, military anxiety becomes a convenient language of transforming national identity. Second, a country might start with a need for better deterrent, then introduce armament exports, revive its militarist terminology, and finally transform itself into an influential regional power. At first glance, each of these steps seems acceptable; yet taken together, they could lead to the very same militarism that the world wanted to avoid during Japan’s post-war period.
The decision to revise regulations concerning exporting weapons to other countries is the most significant part of Japan’s recent policy. It is hard to overestimate its historical context. For decades, Japan’s limitations in terms of weapons exportation helped convince other Asian nations that its military potential is not going to grow in the future. However, now that it decided to loosen these restrictions, Tokyo is essentially weakening the only tangible sign of its restraint.
This process should be understood as follows – once the country allows itself to produce lethal weapons and transfer them overseas, its defense sector would start lobbying further expansions in this area. In turn, diplomats would use these transfers for political advantage; military leaders would see an opportunity to integrate with other nations, etc. In other words, initially, this step looks acceptable, but in fact, it is likely to become a part of a much broader tendency.
The restoration of old military rank terms might seem unimportant at first sight; however, that is hardly the case. When it comes to international politics, especially in a region where many conflicts are not quite buried in history, symbols are crucial. They remind people of previous wars and conflicts; they remind them of past atrocities. This is why reintroduction of the term which used to be common during Japan’s imperial period would cause certain negative reactions from the side of other Asian countries.
In other words, what we are observing here is a classic case of historical revisionism. While Japan wishes to become a regular military power, it is still far from achieving this goal. The case of Germany proves that there should be a thorough and comprehensive process aimed at reconciling a country with its past atrocities. Unfortunately, Japan has not managed to do this so far. Although there have been some apologies made, the country has also shown a willingness to challenge the postwar historical consensus by making controversial statements, visiting certain locations, etc.
Thus, it is crucially important to recognize that China has legitimate concerns in regard to Japan’s militarization. Obviously, it is in Beijing’s best interest to prevent Japan from expanding its military presence in the Taiwan Strait, the East China Sea, and other regions. China understands that Japan is arming itself within the framework of U.S. alliance strategy, thereby becoming a forward platform in the process of containing China. These are geopolitical interests, not historical concerns.
Nevertheless, that fact does not make China’s position groundless. Korea and many other nations in Asia have serious grounds for suspiciously viewing Japan’s military changes. A country that invaded their territories, committed mass atrocities against civilians, and occupied their lands for years cannot decide when the period of its aggressive history ends on its own. Therefore, Japan’s neighbors have the right to oppose these changes on a moral level.
Unfortunately, Japan’s ruling elite may think that it can proceed with militarization because of changing external environment. Indeed, it seems that the United States would like to have a more militarized ally. Several European nations view Japan as an asset in their attempts to balance China’s influence. Even several Asian countries would welcome security cooperation because they, too, are concerned about Beijing. Nevertheless, this support does not mean that history is forgotten.
What is particularly dangerous is that Asian nations could easily find themselves in an endless circle of militarization. Japan expands its military activities because of increasing Chinese threats. As soon as China understands Japan’s intentions, it starts taking aggressive actions, and so on and so forth. In other words, instead of strengthening regional security, Japan leads the region towards militarization, thus destabilizing it.
In this regard, it is necessary to mention the issue of Taiwan, which exacerbates the problem considerably. It is clear that Japanese leaders increasingly feel confident when speaking about Japan’s involvement in Taiwanese crisis. The geography does indeed provide good reasons for it; however, the more Japan tries to become involved in the situation around Taiwan, the more Beijing interprets these actions as preparatory steps before starting the conflict.
All of this means that Japan’s actions should not be viewed only in the context of domestic policy. In addition to introducing new regulations and restoring old terminology, the country creates additional intelligence organizations. While these steps might increase deterrence in certain ways, they might also provoke hostile actions, weaken trust, and lead to increased tension in Asia.
Thus, Japan’s security policy should have been entirely different. First of all, Tokyo should distinguish its need for protection and its longing for the past. Moreover, Japan should not attempt to revive military rhetoric or terminology related to its imperial period. Instead, it should limit the scope of armament exports and consult other nations before implementing major steps that may harm regional stability.
Most importantly, Tokyo should avoid becoming a military instrument in Washington’s anti-China strategy. As has been mentioned before, the Japanese military identity should be based on restraint and historical awareness; otherwise, Asian nations would feel increasingly anxious about Japanese intentions.
In summary, Japan certainly has the right to protect itself. Nevertheless, when deciding on specific measures that could potentially lead to militarization, the country should remember its history. Otherwise, the whole peace architecture that has been created in East Asia might fall apart due to this dangerous experiment.