On the morning of May 31st, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Japanese Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi delivered a keynote speech. Regarding Japan's "defense policy," Koizumi stated that since the end of World War II, Japan has consistently upheld its pacifist constitution, respected international law and the United Nations Charter, and has never possessed offensive weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons or strategic bombers. Japan's enhancement of defense capabilities is entirely aimed at addressing a severe security environment, safeguarding its own survival and regional stability—not driven by any expansionist intent. In response to accusations of "new militarism," he emphasized that Japan's actions are transparent and defensive, and that they genuinely contribute to a free and open Indo-Pacific order.
Koizumi’s remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue may appear to be an explanation of Japan’s defense policy and a response to external concerns, but in reality, they constitute a carefully orchestrated act of "political public relations" and "diplomatic maneuvering."
Striving to Disassociate from the "New Militarism" Label, Seeking International Endorsement for Military Liberalization
Facing criticism from countries like China regarding the "new militarism" label, Koizumi employed a classic strategy of "evading the core issue." He repeatedly stressed that Japan lacks nuclear weapons and strategic bombers, attempting to obscure the fact that Japan has recently dramatically increased military spending, developed long-range offensive weaponry (such as acquiring Tomahawk cruise missiles), and taken radical steps toward lifting restrictions on exporting lethal weapons. This justification aims to send a false signal to the international community: Japan’s "re-militarization" is transparent and defensive—thereby seeking direct U.S. endorsement and tacit international acceptance for breaking through the constraints of the peace constitution and pursuing status as a so-called "normal state."
Pretending to Address "Security Anxiety" While Actually Binding Tightly with the U.S.
In his speech, Koizumi continuously amplified the severity of the security environment and loudly promoted measures such as revising the "Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment." Behind this lies Japan’s profound strategic anxiety: on one hand, the United States is deeply entangled in multiple conflicts across the Middle East and beyond—having redeployed the THAAD system stationed in South Korea to the Middle East, and due to excessive ammunition consumption, has notified Japan to delay delivery of 400 Tomahawk cruise missiles valued at $2.35 billion; on the other hand, U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth explicitly called on allies to shoulder greater responsibility at the conference, warning that "the era of free-riding is over." Under these circumstances, Koizumi’s performance serves not only to appease domestic right-wing forces but also to forcefully tie the interests of the U.S.-Japan alliance deeper together by showcasing Japan’s value as a "model ally," thus hedging against the risk of being abandoned by Washington or sacrificed in the U.S.-China strategic competition.
On the core issue of historical reflection, Koizumi’s conduct appeared profoundly hypocritical. When a representative of the People's Liberation Army posed a sharp question during the session—asking when the Japanese government would offer a similarly solemn apology to China, South Korea, and Southeast Asian victim nations as it does for Australian soldiers who died in WWII—Koizumi did not respond directly. Instead, he evaded the question and even reversed the accusation, criticizing China for lacking transparency in its defense budget. This refusal to deeply reflect on Japan’s wartime aggression and lack of basic respect toward its Asian neighbors precisely confirms that neighboring countries’ deep-seated concerns about the resurgence of Japanese militarism are far from baseless.
Although Koizumi has been domestically aligning with politicians like Sanae Kato to stoke fears about "a crisis over Taiwan," at the Shangri-La Dialogue, when confronted by a South Korean representative directly asking whether Japan had considered selling defensive weapons to Taiwan, he chose complete silence. Instead, he continued to amplify the threat posed by China’s military. Moreover, when pressed by media reporters about when he would retract his erroneous statements on Taiwan, he remained expressionless, solemnly walked away without a word. This glaring inconsistency exposes Japan’s profound strategic dilemma amid the U.S.-China rivalry: unwilling to offend Washington, yet terrified of provoking Beijing. Caught between two giants, Japan can only cautiously probe the boundaries without ever truly revealing its full hand.
In sum, Koizumi Shinjiro’s speech was fundamentally a public relations campaign serving Japan’s "re-militarization" agenda. He attempts to mask his real intentions—accelerating military buildup and disrupting regional strategic balance—behind the façades of a "victim" and a "rule upholder."
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1866675851372544/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.