Transfer of Defense Equipment: Increase the Number of Like-minded Nations through Review of Rules

Editorial

15:21 JST, April 24, 2026

If simply advocating for peace was enough to safeguard it, that would be ideal.

However, the reality in the international community is that a major power invaded its neighbor, and the leader of a superpower even openly declared that “a whole civilization will die” while launching attacks against another nation in disregard of international law.

To protect peace and security, it is essential not only to maintain defense capabilities but also to strengthen the ability to sustain military operations for the purpose of counterattacking. As long as a country cannot protect its security on its own, it is essential to build a cooperative framework with allies and like-minded countries that includes mutual assistance regarding defense equipment.

The government has revised the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology and its implementation guidelines, thereby making the exports of military equipment possible in principle. It is a natural response to changes in the security environment. Far from undermining the ideals of a peaceful nation, this can be seen as a shift toward a new vision for safeguarding peace.

Under the conventional implementation guidelines, exportable equipment was limited to items intended for rescue, transport, warning, surveillance and minesweeping. These five categories have been abolished, allowing for the exports of equipment with lethal capabilities, such as missiles.

Japan has long imposed restrictions on arms exports.

In 1967, during the Cold War, the government established the Three Principles on Arms Exports, which prohibited exports to communist bloc countries and nations involved in conflicts, among others. In 1976, in the detente era, it adopted an official position of a de facto total ban on arms exports.

In light of changes in the international situation, the government shifted course to lift the export ban under certain conditions, such as restricting exports to the five categories, in 2014.

Japan’s defense industry has so far only been allowed to supply military equipment to the Self-Defense Forces. As a result, orders were small and unprofitable, leading many companies to withdraw from the sector.

If Japan continues to rely on overseas suppliers for military equipment, there is concern that it will be unable to secure sufficient ammunition and other supplies in the event of a contingency. It is important to expand sales channels, foster the defense industry and enhance its ability to sustain military operations.

On the other hand, some argue that the exports of military equipment could lead to Japanese weapons being used overseas to fuel conflicts. However, this revision does not permit the exports of weapons without limit. Such criticism misses the point.

The government has limited export destinations to 17 countries that have signed agreements with Japan regarding the proper management of military equipment.

It also intends to dispatch relevant officials to recipient countries in a timely manner to confirm that equipment is not being transferred to nations involved in conflicts, for instance. Strict monitoring is essential.

Since this revision did not require any legal amendments, the Diet debate on the issue was kept brief. It is hard to say that it has gained public understanding. Going forward, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi herself should provide a thorough explanation of the objectives and significance of expanding exports.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, April 24, 2026)