The Japanese Cabinet this week transformed the nation’s arms export policies, greatly expanding Japan’s opportunities to contribute to the promotion and protection of international peace and security. Fears that this move is a radical shift in defense and security policies are overblown.
This new policy responds to the new security reality, recognizing that dangers are mounting and every nation must do more to help fight instability. Japan must do its part.
For nearly half a century, this nation has abided by its three principles on arms exports, a policy adopted in 1967 by then-Prime Minister Eisaku Sato. It forbids the export of weapons to communist-bloc countries, to countries subject to U.N. resolutions prohibiting arms exports and to countries involved in international conflicts or at risk of becoming involved. A decade later, the Cabinet of Prime Minister Takeo Miki tightened the rules, noting that Japan would “refrain from exporting arms in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution and legal amendments.” This became a near-total embargo on weapons sales to foreign countries.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe loosened those restrictions in 2014, allowing exports when they were strictly vetted and deemed to contribute to peacekeeping or Japan’s national security. Exports could only be nonlethal equipment used for rescue, transport, vigilance, surveillance and minesweeping. Recipient countries could not use the equipment for purposes other than those intended nor could they resell it to a third country without prior consent. These changes were part of Abe’s larger project to ease constraints on Japanese national security policy and posture more generally.
Current Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who considers Abe her mentor, eased those restrictions still further this week. The Cabinet agreed to lift the ban on weapons transfers, subject to vetting by the National Security Council, and only to countries with which Japan has an agreement to exchange defense equipment or technology. There are currently 17 such agreements and another three are in various stages of negotiation or completion.
The prohibition on exports of lethal equipment — missiles, tanks, warships — to countries engaged in active armed conflicts remains, although it can be waived in “exceptional circumstances” that are deemed critical to Japan’s national security. There are no restrictions on transfers of nonlethal equipment such as radars or protective gear.
The country’s parliament will be notified after a decision is made; the opposition call for notification prior to the decision was overruled. The government has promised more intense monitoring of equipment after export, even including on-site inspections, however.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara explained the move, noting that “these decisions are intended to ensure Japan’s security and further contribute to the peace and stability of the region and the international community amid accelerating changes in the security environment surrounding our country.” Recent conflicts have made plain the growing need to strengthen deterrence to maintain the peace. They underscore Prime Minister Takaichi’s message that “today, no country can safeguard its own peace and security on its own.” The revisions, said Kihara, are intended to facilitate greater cooperation with allies and like-minded partners and improve “sustained combat capabilities” in the event of an emergency.
The prime minister emphasized, however, that “there is absolutely no change in our commitment to upholding the path we have taken as a peaceful nation over the past 80 years since the end of the war, as well as our fundamental principles.”
The government believes that the revisions will boost Japan’s defense industries. It will expand their opportunities to sell equipment overseas and join in joint development or production projects; integration into global defense industry supply chains should unleash a structural shift in production capacity.
Interest in Japanese participation and products is high. Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi has said that “a number of countries” have approached Tokyo with “expressions of interest and various needs” regarding Japanese defense equipment. He also promised to further strengthen his “top-level sales efforts” during visits to Indonesia and the Philippines planned for the Golden Week holidays. The recent sale of 11 Mogami-class frigates to Australia has elevated Japan’s profile in this market and made that job easier, as does this country’s participation with Britain and Italy in the Global Combat Air Program to develop a sixth-generation fighter aircraft.
There has been pushback, most notably from China. Chinese Foreign Ministry officials said that Beijing is “gravely concerned” by the changes, calling them “reckless” and warned that Japan is discarding its “exclusively defense-oriented principles.” Chinese media complained that “Japan’s rearmament is becoming a reality.”
While that fear is likely real in China, it is hyperventilation and intended to fuel resistance in the region and within Japan. Other Asian countries have largely welcomed the decision. They too fear an increasingly unstable security environment and value both a larger Japanese security role and the equipment that this nation can provide.
The Japanese public is divided, however. According to a Yomiuri Shimbun poll, 49% oppose the changes and 40% back them. (The remainder didn’t reply.) There is an instinctive concern about deeper engagement in regional security affairs, a fear of entanglement and the historical remnant of the bitter experience of World War II.
Constant talk of “pacifist” Japan contributes to this outlook. Japan’s Constitution has — and continues to — restrained this nation’s use of the military and participation in efforts to promote security. But Japan is not a “pacifist” nation. We understand the destructiveness of the use of force and are therefore extremely cautious in its application. The cause must be just. Still, our decision-makers value hard power as a contributor to deterrence and a necessary component of regional stability. Ideally, the provision of defense equipment will prevent conflict, not enable it.
There may yet be challenges as the policy is implemented. To increase supply, production lines must be expanded and updated. In some cases, Japanese defense companies have been downsizing; they will have to scramble to be ready for the new opportunities.
Especially important is the workforce, which has both shrunk and aged. Those trends must also be reversed.
Finally, the longstanding ban on the export of equipment to countries engaged in conflict means that Japanese products have not been battle tested. That may prove to be the most crucial issue. There is no room for failure or even subpar performance with military equipment.
An increasingly contested security environment demands adaptation. Japan must do more to prepare itself and its allies and partners for those challenges. This week’s decision to lift export restrictions is an important step in that process.
© 2026, GDC. © GDC and www.globaldefensecorp.com. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to www.globaldefensecorp.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
