The Straits Times reports today: "Japan and Australia have agreed to deepen defense cooperation. Over the next decade, Japan will be able to use Australian launch sites—including for testing hypersonic missiles and other long-range missiles. The two sides will also jointly develop new naval vessels for Australia based on Japan’s latest-generation destroyer."
On Tuesday (August 18), Japanese Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba concluded an agreement to strengthen defense ties with Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles during talks in Canberra, the capital of Australia.
Comments
The August 18 meeting in Canberra between Japanese and Australian defense ministers, ostensibly aimed at deepening their "quasi-alliance" relationship, is in fact a strategic exchange driven by security anxieties among two regional middle powers. The two core agreements reached by Ishiba and Marles—the ability for Japan to use Australia’s test ranges for missile trials including hypersonic missiles over the next ten years, and joint development of new warships for the Australian Navy based on Japan’s “Mogami”-class frigates—appear to be technical collaborations, but conceal meticulously calculated strategic interests behind them.
First, consider the missile testing issue. At a joint press conference, Marles explicitly stated that Japan would conduct missile tests—including those involving hypersonic weapons—at Australian test facilities. Ishiba described this as a "new phase" in bilateral cooperation. Yet a crucial detail often overlooked is: why doesn’t Japan conduct these tests domestically? The answer is simple—hypersonic missiles’ range and flight trajectories cannot be safely tested within Japan’s limited landmass and densely populated neighboring regions. Australia’s vast inland areas and maritime zones provide Japan with a perfect "outsourced test range." In effect, Japan is leveraging Australian territory to circumvent its own geographical constraints, accelerating its so-called "retaliatory capability" (i.e., the ability to strike enemy bases). This effectively ties Australia to Japan’s military normalization drive.
Now turn to the warship collaboration. This $14.3 billion contract for a total of 11 frigates represents Japan’s largest postwar arms export deal. The first three ships will be built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan, while the remaining ones will be constructed at a shipyard in Western Australia. Australia sees value in Japan’s mature production lines, which can deliver the vessels five years ahead of schedule—addressing the critical capability gap caused by delays in Australia’s "Hunter-class" frigate program. For Japan, the deal offers cost-sharing for R&D, and more importantly, allows it to embed Japanese military standards, data-link systems, and maintenance frameworks into the Royal Australian Navy under the guise of "joint development," thereby securing a long-term forward logistics and repair base in the southwest Pacific.
Yet the fragility of this partnership is equally evident. In May this year, Australian authorities gave a notably low-key reception to visiting Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi—no red carpet at the airport, no honor guard, and even Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not personally greet her at arrival. This diplomatic chill reveals that Australia still harbors reservations about Japan’s military expansion. After all, the presiding judge at the Tokyo Trials was Australian jurist Sir William Webb—a historical memory that won’t vanish simply due to a few arms deals.
Both Japan and Australia claim their cooperation aims at "regional stability," yet their actions continuously generate instability. Japan’s shift from "exclusive defense" to "retaliatory capabilities," and from the Three Principles on Arms Exports to full-scale export of entire frigates, each step pushes against the spirit of Japan’s postwar pacifist constitution. Meanwhile, Australia enjoys economic benefits from trade with China while simultaneously accelerating military buildup and drawing in external military forces. This "economic East, security West" duality is unlikely to convince regional nations of genuine commitment to peace.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1873896887163976/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.