Tokyo adapts its defense policy in response to Chinese ambitions. A choice of responsibility for an international order based on rules.

By Sébastien Boussois, PhD in Political Science (*)

For several years, Japan has been evolving in a strategic environment that is no longer post-war. The illusion of a stable regional order has given way to a more unstable reality, marked by China’s military power, increasing tensions in the South China Sea, and a growing willingness to challenge existing balances. China is the world’s second power, and Tokyo no longer holds the position it had since the 1990s crisis. In this context, the overhaul of the Japanese system of transferring defense materials abroad is not a militaristic drift but a lucid adjustment to a world where power is becoming a central language.

It is necessary to stop misdiagnosing. Since the end of World War II, Japan has established itself as one of the most peaceful powers in the world. Its Constitution, commitment to peacekeeping operations, role in development assistance, and constant adherence to multilateralism demonstrate a fundamentally defensive strategic culture. Accusing Tokyo today of “remilitarization” and raising a Japanese threat in the Pacific makes no sense.

This strategy is precisely advocated by Beijing. China criticizes a rearming Japan while pursuing its military expansion on an unprecedented scale. The continuous increase in its defense budget, the rapid development of its naval and air capabilities, and its massive arms exports worldwide reflect a reality that contrasts with its official discourse. On one side, Tokyo strictly regulates its transfers of military technologies in accordance with international law and the United Nations Charter; on the other, China increasingly acts assertively to impose its views in its regional environment.

The issue of the Senkaku Islands perfectly illustrates this dynamic. These territories administered by Japan are regularly the target of Chinese maritime and aerial incursions, in a logic of constant pressure. Such actions are not mere diplomatic disputes but rather a gradual strategy to alter the status quo. In this context, asking Japan to remain passive would be asking it to renounce its own security.

The reform initiated by Tokyo precisely responds to this evolution. By expanding cooperation possibilities in defense with allies and partners, Japan is not seeking to project offensive power but to strengthen a network of collective security. The goal is clear: to build resilient value chains, share technological capacities, and ensure increased interoperability with democracies in the region and beyond. In doing so, Japan is engaging in a logic of deterrence, not confrontation.

It is also important to understand that the transfer of defense materials is not merely a commercial logic. It is a strategic tool to stabilize partners, enhance their defense capacities, and ultimately contribute to a stronger regional balance. In a fragmenting Indo-Pacific region, this approach appears as a necessity rather than a purely ideological choice.

Faced with this, Chinese criticisms appear to be an attempt to delegitimize any alternative rise in power to its own. By labeling Japan as “neo-militarist,” Beijing aims primarily to confine Tokyo to an outdated past to mask its own well-known present ambitions. In reality, it is precisely because Japan remains faithful to its pacifist principles that it now needs to adapt its security tools.

Europe, especially France, would be wrong to distance itself from this evolution. The excellent relations between Paris and Tokyo, as evidenced by President Macron’s recent visit to the Japanese archipelago, highlight this fact. Paris has ambitions in the region due to its maritime space and must be able to rely on strong cooperation with Tokyo.

In a world where geopolitical fault lines are shifting towards the Indo-Pacific, supporting Japanese initiatives means defending a certain international order based on rules, not on might. It is not about choosing a side reflexively but recognizing that not all actors play by the same rules. In reality, Japan is not breaking with its history but extending it by adapting to the changing world. Faced with an increasingly assertive China, it chooses not flight or passivity but responsibility. And in the world to come, this could make all the difference.

(*) PhD in Political Science, researcher in Arab world geopolitical international relations, director of the European Geopolitical Institute (IGE), associated with CNAM Paris (Security Defense Team), at the Geneva Geostrategic Observatory (Switzerland). Media consultant and columnist.