Fri, Dec 19, 2025 page7

• What is left of Japan’s pacifism meets reality

  • By Gearoid Reidy / Bloomberg Opinion
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  In the summer of 2015, tens of thousands of angry Japanese took to the streets of Tokyo.

  Changes to security legislation pushed by then-Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe were considered by some to be so controversial, so against the spirit of Japan’s pacifist constitution, that protests against them were the biggest seen since the 1960s. In parliament, some lawmakers scuffled in a failed attempt to stop the law from being passed.

  International media asked: “Is Japan abandoning its pacifism?”

  Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Herbert Bix reflected a commonly held view at the time when he wrote in 2016 that “neoliberals illegally jammed through” the bills, and that increased defense spending was “wasting taxpayer money that is needed to meet the more pressing needs of the Japanese people.”

  Just 10 years later, these voices have largely fallen silent. Sure, there are a handful of protesters from time to time in front of the prime minister’s residence advocating for pacifism, and the public is still conflicted about Japan’s place in an increasingly dangerous world.

  However, for a country often accused of moving slowly, it is extraordinary how much has changed in just a decade. Serious opposition to defense itself has largely fallen away, despite far more expansive changes. And the international consensus is that Tokyo needs to do more, not less.

  Russia’s war on Ukraine, North Korea’s intermittent missile and nuclear provocations, Chinese militarism and a flaky ally in Washington have all conspired to dramatically change public attitude and policy away from the deep pacifism adopted after World War II. This is not the “remilitarization” that authorities in Beijing talk about, but a belated waking up to the security realities in one of the world’s most dangerous neighborhoods.

  The legislation that caused so much upset in 2015 now looks almost pitifully inadequate — allowing Tokyo to come to the aid of a foreign country if an attack threatens Japan’s survival. In the decade since, popular pushback was limited against the removal of an informal cap on defense spending of 1 percent of GDP, the introduction of counterstrike capabilities, loosening the exports of arms and other changes that have come to pass or are in the works.

  It is a huge contrast to the era of Students Emergency Action for Liberal Democracy, the group that led the 2015 demonstrations. Carrying signs with slogans such as “Youth Against Fascism,” they were often hailed as a symbol of change, and became the subject of fawning profiles that said they “made it cool to protest.”

  The group disbanded a year later and their movement faded away. Today’s youth often lean more conservative; more than 80 percent of under-40s in most polls back conservative Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. Despite the ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s struggles over the past few years, it is striking how little support has shifted to traditional left-leaning parties that oppose revising the pacifist constitution.

  Go back a decade before the protests and the government had a different goal — a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, befitting its economic status. That dream is dead — but so is the idea that the postwar liberal world order would protect Japan.

  Russia and China are certainly motivators, but so is US President Donald Trump. His breaking of trade norms and casting doubts on traditional alliances, along with the worry that he might someday decide cooperating with Beijing is better for business, concerns Tokyo.

  There is plenty of blame to go around: Senior politicians note the damage done by then-US president Barack Obama’s failure to effectively challenge China’s militarizing islands in the South China Sea.

  All that means Japan must learn to protect itself, and taboos are falling away. Next year, Takaichi aims to ease rules to substantially expand exports of lethal weapons. However, the big one is still out there.

  Since becoming leader, Takaichi has declined to endorse the non-nuclear principles — non-binding guidelines committing the government to not possessing, producing or permitting nuclear weapons in the country. However, three years ago, she endorsed the idea of having a discussion about allowing nuclear sharing — placing US nuclear weapons in Japan, as they are in Europe.

  That debate needs to be held, and done so in public. If it ever is, expect re-energized opposition and protests. I lived for years in Hiroshima, where I maintain strong roots, and know how deeply domestic revulsion of nuclear weapons goes. To say nothing of the international reaction: China, North Korea and Russia would be livid. South Korea would likely accelerate its own atomic ambitions, which have been enhanced by a recent nuclear submarine deal with the US.

  Abe helped the country awaken from a fantasy that it did not need to defend itself. Takaichi would have to confront the idea that Japan can shelter forever under another’s protection.

  Gearoid Reidy is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Japan and the Koreas. He previously led the breaking news team in North Asia, and was the Tokyo deputy bureau chief. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    US bolstering first island chain deterrence: NSB report

  • 2

    Taiwan, Poland to codevelop drones

  • 3

    Climber to attempt free solo of 101

  • 4

    Cameron Menzies cracks in the Palace as darts faces an uncomfortable truth

  • 5

    China ‘rejects’ chips, outfoxing US: Sacks