The gusto with which Japan has embraced rearmament has surprised its allies and international partners.
Last month, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida unveiled detailed plans to double defense spending over the next five years, leaving no doubt about the country’s determination to expand its military capabilities to deter China’s expansionist ambitions.
Japan’s new strategic vision represents the culmination of a long-term shift that began under his predecessor, former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, who was assassinated in July last year. During Abe’s tenure, which lasted from his return to power in December 2012 until his resignation in September 2020, Japan revamped its military doctrine and significantly increased defense expenditure.
Abe also created a cabinet-level Japanese National Security Council, established the Japanese National Security Secretariat to support it, streamlined military procurement by forming the Japanese Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency and sought to amend the nation’s pacifist constitution, although in vain.
Taken together, Abe’s policies marked a historic shift in Japan’s defense policy and regional standing. No longer would Japanese security be a matter of wishful thinking, willful blindness and dependence on the US.
Before Abe, if China had attacked a US warship near Japan’s territorial waters, the Japanese military would not have gotten involved. Abe rejected this absurd approach and pushed Japan to assume a central role in the Indo-Pacific region.
Now, if the US and China were to go to war over Taiwan, Japan could cooperate with the US military. In a role reversal of sorts, the Japanese military is now protecting US ships and planes in the region.
Kishida’s ambitious defense policies, which include increasing military spending to ￥43 trillion (US$331 billion) by 2027 and revising Japan’s national security strategy to allow for counterstrike capabilities, implement many of Abe’s ideas. They also expand on them in four meaningful ways.
First, the new security doctrine calls a spade a spade.
When Japan published its first national security strategy in 2013, China’s incursions into Japanese waters and airspace near the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) — known as the Senkakus in Japan — were described as “an issue of concern to the international community, including Japan.”
However, the revised strategy refers to China — in line with US rhetoric — as “an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge” to Japan.
As this change makes clear, Japan’s military buildup aims, first and foremost, to deter Chinese expansionism.
Second, the new strategy seeks to increase fuel and ammunition supplies, thereby addressing a problem that Abe repeatedly warned of. While Japan has purchased many fighter jets, ships and combat vehicles over the past decade, it still lacks the strategic stockpiles and secure storage facilities needed to sustain a long war.
To be sure, stocking up on munitions and fuel is far less glamorous than purchasing F-35 fighter jets or long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles from the US.
However, while massive arms purchases would certainly help Japan face the triple threat of China, North Korea and Russia, the truth is that its strategic position is far more precarious than that of any other G7 member. Unless it builds and maintains adequate strategic reserves, Japan would not be able to defend itself.
Third, the US-Japanese defense pact used to have an unwritten rule that all new military assets should be under Washington’s control.
However, Japan, Italy and the UK recently announced a joint effort to develop a next-generation fighter jet.
The US Department of Defense immediately put out a statement in support of the new partnership, reflecting the growing military cooperation between the US, Japan, European countries, Australia and India.
Last, the revised national security strategy states that “Japan will actively accept displaced people due to war.”
This allusion to a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan, together with the implied willingness to accept the many Taiwanese who would surely flee if that happened, did not attract much attention, but is groundbreaking.
Had Abe lived, he would have been pleased that Kishida’s government is pursuing many of the goals he wanted to achieve.
While the new national security agenda stops short of amending the existing restrictions on the deployment of offensive weapons, it does emphasize the need to develop counterstrike capabilities that would enable Japan to hit targets in other countries in the event of an attack.
However, while the proposed increase in military spending seems to enjoy broad public support, the question of how to pay for it is most likely to be the subject of fierce parliamentary debate. Kishida’s plan to fund the additional expenditures by raising taxes has already provoked strong opposition, even within his own party.
Kishida’s competence will undoubtedly be put to the test over the coming months, as will Japan’s newfound strategic resolve.
Tomohiko Taniguchi, a professor at Keio University’s Graduate School of System Design and Management, was a special adviser to former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS