Government must not rush to alter the status quo.

Does the government have the right to relax Japan's three principles prohibiting the export of weapons so easily without clear explanation?

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and his administration have recently conveyed a plan to the ruling coalition to ease the principles in the beginning of December, when a new Defense Program Outline will be adopted.

The plan proposes to exclude, from the application of the principles banning arms exports, not only a missile defense system, which will be jointly developed by Japan and the United States, but also joint development and production of weapons between the two nations and in multilateral programs led by the United States. It also plans to allow exports of weapons for anti-terrorism campaigns, and to deal with pirates in Southeast Asia.

The three principles banning arms exports have provided leverage for Japan in the global diplomatic arena. Last year, Kuniko Inoguchi, then ambassador of Japan to the Conference on Disarmament, chaired the United Nations' first conference to promote the implementation of disarmament of illegal small weapons. She said her appointment to chair the conference was a symbol that Japan had been recognized as being in the forefront of humanitarian and disarmament efforts because it does not export weapons. Why is the Japanese government trying to undermine such a positive global evaluation?

The government says that when the next-generation missile defense system now being researched by Japan and the United States enters production, Japan must provide components in four areas, including the tips of interceptor missiles to the United States. Under the current situation, Japan can provide technology to the United States, but not final products, so the government insists the principles must be eased.

The missile defense system has reliability problems and is hugely expensive. Yet as long as the threat of nuclear programs and missiles in North Korea remains, we cannot rebuff joint development with the United States. If necessary, loosening the three principles may be an option in that area only.

However, the government's explanations are too sketchy. It has no idea when the defense system is projected to enter production. It is not even known for certain if Japan will really provide the components in the four areas.

A big reason for easing the principles is that the Japanese government apparently wants to be part of the joint international development of advanced weapons.

If left out of such projects, Japan will not be able to get sophisticated weapons, and it will be too costly to develop such weapons by itself. To protect the defense industry at a time when increases in the defense budget are unlikely, the Liberal Democratic Party and related businesses are promoting joint development and production. That is reflected in government policy.

Certainly, joint weapons development is common among European nations, and they are also developing new fighter jets together with the United States. However, even if Japan becomes part of such efforts, how much will the country benefit?

Japan has long taken the stance of enhancing its safety by staying away from selling weapons to other countries and from arms development with other nations. A majority of the general public continues to support these principles.

The reasoning that arms exports should be allowed to counter terrorism and pirate attacks appears to be legitimate. Yet there are many other ways to support affected nations, including funding. It is also important to fortify an international framework with neighboring countries to fight pirates in Southeast Asia.

Nearly 40 years have passed since the three principles were established. The world and military technologies have changed. However, the principles would certainly continue to legitimize Japan as a leader in global disarmament efforts in the future.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 20(IHT/Asahi: November 22,2004)