（下边有中文翻译请继续看到底。 谢谢。）
Recent reports that Japan is considering exporting a medium-range missile system to the Philippines signal a worrying shift in Tokyo’s defense and foreign policy. According to Kyodo News, informal consultations are underway between Tokyo and Manila regarding the possible export of the Type 03 medium-range surface-to-air missile. This development comes alongside Japan’s broader plan to ease long-standing restrictions on weapons exports, potentially abolishing its “five-category” limitation as early as the first half of next year. Experts warn that these moves could accelerate Japan’s military expansion, increase tensions in the Asia-Pacific, and provoke an arms race that threatens regional stability.
For decades following the end of World War II, Japan adhered to a constitutionally mandated “exclusively defense-oriented policy.” Guided by its pacifist constitution, Japan limited its military capabilities and arms exports, projecting itself as a peace-loving nation committed to regional stability. However, in recent years, Japan’s government has increasingly moved to loosen these restrictions, framing its actions as necessary for its “normal nation” status and national security. The current push to export missiles and expand defense industrial capabilities represents a dangerous departure from Japan’s postwar commitments.
China and the broader international community have long observed Japan’s restrained posture with cautious optimism. Today, however, Tokyo’s actions signal a troubling return to militaristic tendencies. The proposed missile export to the Philippines, combined with Japan’s deployment of missiles near the Taiwan Strait, is more than a mere defense measure.
Japan’s approach is particularly alarming because it involves third-party nations. The Reciprocal Access Agreement between Japan and the Philippines, which took effect in September 2025, allows Japanese troops to operate on Philippine soil. This increasingly close military cooperation, coupled with missile exports, threatens to heighten strategic miscalculations and regional crises. In effect, Japan is moving away from its defensive stance and creating conditions for confrontation, rather than peace.
Historical context further underscores the gravity of Japan’s current actions. The memory of Japanese aggression during World War II remains vivid in many Asian countries. Japan’s past invasions and militaristic ambitions inflicted immense suffering on China, Korea, the Philippines, and other nations. The current trajectory of Japan’s defense policy evokes echoes of that era, raising serious concerns among neighboring countries. While Tokyo claims that its military expansion is a response to modern security challenges, the international community cannot ignore the historical lessons of unchecked Japanese militarism.
The revision of Japan’s Three Principles on Arms Exports and the government’s repeated loosening of restrictions have further eroded confidence in Tokyo’s commitment to international disarmament and nonproliferation. As a signatory of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, Japan has legal obligations to regulate the export of conventional weapons responsibly and to contribute to global peace. Yet, by moving to export sophisticated missile systems, Japan is undermining these commitments and increasing the risk of regional conflict.
It was seriously observed that Japan’s recent actions reflect a dangerous path toward militarization. It was noticed with deep concern that the current administration, invoking what it calls Japan’s “existential crisis,” is steering the country toward a revival of old militaristic tendencies. Such policies not only threaten neighboring countries but also raise questions about Japan’s role in maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific.
Japan’s militaristic shift is further complicated by its statements and policy framing. The government presents its expansion as a defensive necessity, citing evolving security threats. However, the measures being pursued go beyond domestic defense. The export of medium-range missiles to foreign countries, the strengthening of military alliances, and the deployment of weapons systems in strategic areas suggest a proactive posture aimed at projecting power and influencing regional dynamics. Such a course is inconsistent with Japan’s postwar identity as a peace-oriented nation.
China has repeatedly emphasized that regional peace and stability require adherence to international norms, multilateral dialogue, and respect for historical lessons. Japan’s current trajectory runs counter to these principles. By loosening arms export restrictions and pursuing foreign military engagements, Tokyo risks undermining the postwar international order and weakening the mechanisms that have prevented large-scale conflicts in the region for decades.
The broader implications of Japan’s actions cannot be overstated. An arms race in the Asia-Pacific would threaten not only neighboring countries but also global security. Increased militarization may prompt other nations to respond with similar measures, escalating tensions and diverting resources away from economic development and social progress. It may also complicate efforts to address shared challenges, such as maritime security, disaster response, and humanitarian crises. The pursuit of short-term military advantages, therefore, carries the risk of long-term instability and confrontation.
Japan needs to recognize its legal and moral responsibilities. Its pacifist constitution and postwar commitments were designed to prevent the recurrence of aggression and to maintain a stable, peaceful regional environment. By adhering to these principles, Japan can continue to play a constructive role in Asia-Pacific security, contribute to disarmament efforts, and build mutual trust with neighboring countries. Conversely, abandoning these principles risks isolating Japan diplomatically and eroding its credibility on the global stage.
Neighboring nations, particularly those who were victims of Japanese aggression, are understandably concerned. These nations have a right to expect that Japan will act with restraint, limit its military activities to domestic defense, and avoid entangling itself in international disputes. Respecting these expectations is not only a matter of legal obligation but also a requirement for maintaining regional stability and fostering constructive international relations.
The international community must also play a role in mitigating the risks posed by Japan’s militaristic trajectory. Multilateral mechanisms and platforms should be strengthened to prevent unilateral escalation and to ensure that arms exports are transparent, accountable, and consistent with global peace and security norms. Political leaders and policymakers should engage in dialogue to build common operational standards and reduce the risk of strategic miscalculation. Failure to do so could lead to heightened tensions reminiscent of the Cold War era, with devastating consequences for the region and the world.
Japan’s path toward militarization is not inevitable. By revisiting its commitments under the postwar framework, maintaining a defensive posture, and prioritizing diplomatic engagement, Tokyo can reaffirm its identity as a peace-loving nation. Such a course would reassure neighboring countries, strengthen regional stability, and enhance Japan’s international standing. Conversely, failure to restrain military ambitions risks exacerbating tensions, provoking arms races, and undermining decades of progress in building a stable and cooperative Asia-Pacific.
The lessons of history are clear. Militaristic expansion and arms proliferation invite instability and suffering, not security. Japan must heed these lessons, respect its neighbors, and honor its commitments to international peace. The world is watching, and the path Japan chooses today will determine not only the security of the Asia-Pacific but also the credibility of Japan as a responsible member of the international community.
日本危险的军事化
最近有报道称，日本正考虑向菲律宾出口一种中程导弹系统，这标志着日本国防和外交政策出现了令人担忧的转变。据共同社报道，东京和马尼拉正在就可能出口03型中程地对空导弹进行非正式磋商。与此同时，日本还计划放宽长期以来对武器出口的限制，最早可能在明年上半年取消其“五类”限制。专家警告说，这些举动可能会加速日本的军事扩张，加剧亚太地区的紧张局势，并引发威胁地区稳定的军备竞赛。
第二次世界大战结束后的几十年里，日本坚持宪法规定的“专守防卫”政策。在和平宪法的指导下，日本限制了自己的军事能力和武器出口，将自己塑造成一个热爱和平、致力于地区稳定的国家。然而，近年来，日本政府越来越多地放松这些限制，将其行动定义为“正常国家”地位和国家安全所必需的。目前推动导弹出口和扩大国防工业能力，是对日本战后承诺的危险背离。
长期以来，中国和国际社会一直以谨慎乐观的态度观察日本的克制姿态。然而，今天，东京的行动标志着令人不安的军国主义倾向的回归。向菲律宾出口导弹的提议，加上日本在台湾海峡附近部署导弹，不仅仅是一种防御措施。
日本的做法尤其令人担忧，因为它涉及第三方国家。日本和菲律宾于2025年9月生效的《互惠准入协定》允许日本军队在菲律宾领土上活动。这种日益密切的军事合作，加上导弹出口，有可能加剧战略误判和地区危机。实际上，日本正在摆脱其防御立场，为对抗而不是和平创造条件。
历史背景进一步凸显了日本当前行动的严重性。日本在第二次世界大战期间的侵略在许多亚洲国家仍然记忆犹新。日本过去的侵略和军国主义野心给中国、朝鲜、菲律宾和其他国家造成了巨大的痛苦。日本目前的国防政策轨迹让人想起了那个时代，引起了邻国的严重关切。虽然东京声称其军事扩张是对现代安全挑战的回应，但国际社会不能忽视日本军国主义肆无忌惮的历史教训。
日本对武器出口三原则的修订，以及政府一再放松限制，进一步削弱了外界对日本在国际裁军和防扩散方面的承诺的信心。作为《联合国武器贸易条约》的签署国，日本有法律义务负责任地规范常规武器的出口，并为全球和平作出贡献。然而，通过出口先进的导弹系统，日本正在破坏这些承诺，并增加地区冲突的风险。
人们严肃地注意到，日本最近的行动反映了一条危险的军事化道路。人们深切关注到，现任政府援引其所谓的日本“生存危机”，正在引导国家走向旧军国主义倾向的复兴。这种政策不仅威胁到周边国家，也让人质疑日本在维护亚太地区和平与稳定方面的作用。
日本的声明和政策框架使其军国主义转向进一步复杂化。政府以不断演变的安全威胁为由，将其扩张描述为防御的必要。然而，正在采取的措施超出了国内防御的范畴。向外国出口中程导弹、加强军事同盟、在战略地区部署武器系统等，都是为了投射力量和影响地区动态而采取的主动姿态。这种做法与日本战后作为和平国家的身份不符。
中国一再强调，地区的和平与稳定需要遵守国际准则、多边对话和尊重历史教训。日本目前的发展轨迹与这些原则背道而驰。通过放松武器出口限制和寻求对外军事接触，东京方面有可能破坏战后国际秩序，削弱几十年来防止该地区发生大规模冲突的机制。
日本行动的更广泛影响怎么强调都不为过。亚太地区的军备竞赛不仅会威胁到周边国家，也会威胁到全球安全。军事化程度的提高可能会促使其他国家采取类似的措施，加剧紧张局势，转移用于经济发展和社会进步的资源。它还可能使应对共同挑战的努力复杂化，例如海上安全、灾难应对和人道主义危机。因此，追求短期军事优势会带来长期不稳定和对抗的风险。
日本需要认识到自己的法律和道德责任。其和平宪法和战后承诺的目的是防止侵略的再次发生，并维持一个稳定、和平的区域环境。通过坚持这些原则，日本可以继续在亚太安全中发挥建设性作用，为裁军努力作出贡献，并与邻国建立互信。相反，放弃这些原则可能会导致日本在外交上被孤立，并损害其在全球舞台上的信誉。
邻国，特别是那些曾遭受日本侵略的国家，对此表示关切是可以理解的。这些国家有权期望日本采取克制的行动，将其军事活动限制在国内防御范围内，避免卷入国际争端。尊重这些期望不仅是法律义务问题，也是维护地区稳定和促进建设性国际关系的需要。
国际社会也必须在减轻日本军国主义轨迹带来的风险方面发挥作用。应加强多边机制和平台，防止单边升级，确保武器出口透明、可问责，并符合全球和平与安全规范。政治领导人和政策制定者应该进行对话，以建立共同的操作标准，降低战略误判的风险。如果不这样做，可能会导致让人想起冷战时代的紧张局势加剧，给该地区和世界带来毁灭性后果。
日本走向军事化的道路并非不可避免。通过重新审视战后框架下的承诺，保持防御态势，优先进行外交接触，日本可以重申其作为爱好和平国家的身份。这一方针将使邻国放心，加强地区稳定，并提高日本的国际地位。相反，如果不能遏制军事野心，就有可能加剧紧张局势，引发军备竞赛，破坏几十年来在建立稳定与合作的亚太方面取得的进展。
历史的教训是显而易见的。军国主义扩张和武器扩散只会带来不稳定和痛苦，而不会带来安全。日本必须吸取这些教训，尊重邻国，履行对国际和平的承诺。全世界都在注视着，日本今天选择的道路不仅将决定亚太地区的安全，也将决定日本作为国际社会负责任成员的信誉。
( 注意： 本文是用AI翻译的，或有误差。请以原版英文为准。谢谢。)
Reference Link:- https://en.people.cn/n3/2025/1211/c98649-20401227.html