In connection to the National Defense Program Outline decided by the Cabinet in last December, the chief Cabinet secretary issued a statement on plans to ease the so-called three basic principles on arms exports, which virtually ban all weapons exports. As a former Ministry of International Trade and Industry official directly involved in this matter, I wish to state my personal view.

Since the three principles were reinforced in 1976, Japan has almost completely banned arms exports as a matter of fact. It has applied this basic rule not only to weapons and weapon parts but also to weapons manufacturing technology.

However, in 1983, Japan lifted its ban on the export of weapons technology to the United States-an exception in view of Japan's strong ties with the United States based on the Japan-U.S. security pact.

As part of this exceptional measure, Japan and the United States have been conducting joint research on weapons technology, including missile defense (MD) systems. With the study phase nearly over, the MD project is about to enter the development and production phase.

Since the final system will be completed in the United States, Japan is to manufacture the necessary parts and export them to the United States.

However, if the parts are exclusively used for weapons and serve no other tangible purpose, Japan does not have the liberty to export them, even to the United States. This is in clear violation of its ban on arms exports. The 1983 exception applies only to the export of weapons technology and not to weapons and parts thereof.

It is true that MD systems are indispensable to Japan's national defense, especially when considering North Korea's missile technology. It is therefore understandable not to apply the ban on parts exports to the United States for MD development and production purposes.

However, I feel uneasy with the way the chief Cabinet secretary said the matter will be studied on ``a case-by-case basis,'' leaving room to ease the ban on the export of arms other than those related to MD.

Actually, MD is not the only factor behind the move to re-examine the three principles.

Take, for example, that 11 countries, including Britain and Australia, are now jointly developing F35 strike fighters under the initiative of the United States. Developers expect to sell as many as 5,000 of the fighters, which are said to cost considerably less than existing fighters. Of course, Japan is not a party to the joint development project. Even if it wants to join in, it is now too late.

Like the F35 project, international joint development could become the norm for weapons development in the future. If so, the three principles on weapons exports would forever bar Japan's participation in such projects. Japan would therefore be left behind not only in the area of weapons technology, but also in deriving state-of-the-art multipurpose technology, proponents of lifting the principles maintain.

However, even if Japan is allowed to participate in joint development, it would be denied access to core technology, which would remain a so-called black box.

There is more to advanced technology than military technology. For example, in the area of space development, so long as technology is limited to peaceful purposes, Japan is free to export both its know-how and products as a general rule. Japan should take the initiative to promote international joint development in such areas.

Some people contend that unless Japan takes part in international joint projects to develop weapons, it would be denied a chance to buy the latest weapons. When that happens, the situation would present a major defense problem, they say.

But that would never happen. It is a matter of course for developers to want to sell as many of their products as possible because it would lower costs. Needless to say, this is desirable for the governments of countries that took part in the joint development. On the contrary, the import of such low-cost advanced weapons could deliver a serious blow to the domestic defense industry.

Japan must have been prepared to accept the consequences when it pledged to honor the three principles on arms exports. If it recognized the export of weapons, Japan's defense industry would have grown much stronger as a result of increased production and declined imports. It would have lowered the price of domestically made weapons and contributed to the nation's budget.

But postwar Japan chose not to follow that path. Instead, it demonstrated its will to be a peaceful nation by banning itself from exporting weapons. In order for Japan to keep carrying the banner of peace, it should limit the export of weapons to those related to MD and strictly apply the ban to all other weapons.

*

*

*

The author is chairman of the Japan Economic Foundation. As a former Ministry of International Trade and Industry official, he served as the director of the Aircraft and Ordnance Division, director-general of the International Trade Administrative Bureau and vice minister for international affairs. He contributed this comment to The Asahi Shimbun.(IHT/Asahi: February 12,2005)