Japan’s arms export liberalisation amid US hegemonic strain: systemic shift in defence industrialisation and geopolitical realignment

Indigenous communities in Okinawa and the Pacific Islands have long resisted militarisation, framing US military bases and arms exports as existential threats to sacred lands and cultural sovereignty. Japan’s arms export liberalisation disregards these perspectives, instead prioritising corporate and geopolitical interests over the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination and environmental protection. The erasure of these voices reflects a broader pattern of state-centric security narratives that marginalise traditional knowledge systems valuing peace and ecological balance.

The 'Three Principles on Arms Exports' were established in 1967 under US pressure to limit Japan’s military-industrial growth, reflecting post-WWII pacifist norms and the trauma of imperial militarism. The current relaxation mirrors earlier phases of remilitarisation, such as the 1980s 'comprehensive security' doctrine, which prioritised economic and military power projection. However, the historical parallels to pre-WWII militarisation—where export-driven arms production fueled regional conflicts—are systematically ignored in contemporary discourse.

In Germany, a similar shift occurred with the 2022 relaxation of arms export rules to Ukraine, justified by the 'defensive' framing of the Russian invasion, yet this has since expanded to include authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. South Korea’s arms export boom, driven by US-aligned demand, has led to accusations of fuelling conflicts in Yemen and Myanmar, highlighting the global risks of normalising arms transfers. In contrast, Costa Rica’s constitutional abolition of its military in 1948 offers a counter-model, demonstrating that security can be achieved through diplomacy and social investment rather than militarisation.

Empirical research shows that arms exports correlate with increased conflict intensity and human rights abuses in recipient countries, as documented by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Studies also indicate that defence industrialisation often leads to 'security dilemma' dynamics, where one state’s arms buildup triggers countermeasures from rivals, escalating regional tensions. The scientific consensus warns that liberalising arms exports without robust transparency and accountability mechanisms risks accelerating these destabilising trends.

Artists and spiritual leaders in Japan, such as the poet and peace activist Shuntaro Tanikawa, have long critiqued the dehumanising effects of militarisation through works that juxtapose industrial militarism with traditional Zen concepts of impermanence and non-violence. In Okinawa, the 'Eisa' dance and other cultural practices serve as acts of resistance against US military occupation, symbolising the preservation of identity in the face of imposed security narratives. Globally, movements like the 'Culture of Peace' initiative highlight how artistic and spiritual traditions can counter the glorification of war and arms economies.

Scenario modelling by the RAND Corporation suggests that Japan’s arms export liberalisation could lead to a 20-30% increase in regional arms races within a decade, particularly if China and South Korea reciprocate with expanded exports. Alternative futures include a 'cooperative security' model, where Japan redirects defence industrial capacity toward disaster relief and peacekeeping, leveraging its technological strengths for non-lethal applications. The long-term risk of entrenching a militarised economic model—where 10-15% of GDP is tied to defence—could undermine Japan’s soft power and diplomatic influence.

Japanese civil society groups like the 'Article 9 Association' and 'Peace Boat' have condemned the arms export liberalisation, arguing it violates constitutional pacifism and fuels global instability. In Okinawa, where 70% of US military bases are located, local governments and Indigenous Ryukyuan communities have filed lawsuits against the central government, citing violations of self-determination and environmental laws. Globally, women’s peace networks in conflict zones (e.g., Philippines, Colombia) warn that arms transfers exacerbate gender-based violence, yet their perspectives are excluded from mainstream security debates.