Japan's recent large-scale military buildup is eroding its postwar pacifist stance, long anchored in the Constitution and the principle of an exclusively defense-oriented posture, experts warn.

Since Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi took office in October, Japan has significantly accelerated its military expansion. In November, the government approved a supplementary budget for fiscal year 2025 that lifted total defense spending to about 11 trillion yen ($70 billion), achieving the target of defense expenditure equivalent to 2 percent of GDP two years ahead of schedule.

The figure translates into an annual defense burden of more than 90,000 yen ($570) per person, the Shimbun Akahata newspaper reported.

In her policy speech in autumn, Takaichi pledged to revise Japan's "three key security documents" in 2026. The revisions are expected to institutionalize so-called counterstrike capabilities — widely criticized as unconstitutional — and to raise total defense spending for the 2023-27 period to around 43 trillion yen.

In addition, the government has decided to include "strengthening Pacific defense" in the revised documents, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported on Sunday.

Beyond sharply increasing defense spending, the Takaichi administration is also seeking to fully lift restrictions on lethal weapons exports, revisit the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, and further loosen arms export controls. The government plans to submit related motions next month and revise the implementation guidelines of the "Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology" in April.

Under the current guidelines, Japan's defense exports are in principle limited to five noncombat categories, such as rescue and transport. Removing these limits would allow Japan to export lethal weapons, including fighter jets and tanks.

Hiroshi Shiratori, a professor at Hosei University in Tokyo, told China Daily that the policy direction is incompatible with the pacifist principles enshrined in the Constitution and the concept of an exclusively defense-oriented posture.

If Japan manufactures and exports weapons, causes harm abroad and profits from it, such thinking fundamentally conflicts with the country's postwar national identity, Shiratori said. "It would mean that Japan is no longer a peaceful nation."

Such policies could revive memories of Japan's actions during the Pacific War among neighboring countries, running counter to the "peaceful nation" image Tokyo has cultivated for nearly 80 years and undermining international trust, he said.

Easing restrictions on defense equipment exports signals Japan's push to expand its military-industrial sector, which could encourage others to follow suit and trigger a regional arms race, he added.

Strategic considerations

Ukeru Magosaki, director of the East Asian Community Institute in Tokyo and a former senior Foreign Ministry official, said Japan's recent moves to ease arms export rules are driven less by domestic demand than by the United States' strategic considerations.

The US is increasingly struggling to bear the cost of weapons production or sustain output sufficient to meet its strategic needs, Magosaki said, adding that Washington is turning to allies to help supply weapons to governments it supports, drawing Japan into that framework.

A Reuters report published this month said US defense contractor Lockheed Martin has reached a seven-year agreement with the Department of Defense to increase annual production of PAC-3 Patriot missile interceptors from about 600 to 2,000 units to meet the growing global demand.

Meanwhile, economic website Toyo Keizai Online reported that as Japan's defense budget continues to expand, major manufacturers such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries have recorded notable increases in defense-related orders, with defense contracts accounting for a growing share of revenues and lifting medium-term sales projections.

Magosaki said easing arms export restrictions, regardless of destination, would heighten regional instability and be seen by neighboring countries as Japan aligning more closely with US strategy, further straining relations.