Xiaoquan refuted anonymously at the Shangri-La Dialogue on Sunday (May 31): "Isn't it quite strange that a country possessing a large number of nuclear weapons and strategic bombers labels Japan—lacking both nuclear weapons and strategic bombers—as 'neo-militarism'? At this moment, what we need is not baseless rumors whispered behind closed doors, but open and direct communication."
Xiaoquan dismissed relevant concerns at the Shangri-La Dialogue by citing Japan’s lack of nuclear weapons and strategic bombers, but in reality, this shifts the criteria for evaluation. Japan does not possess such weaponry due to international legal restrictions and the post-WWII peace constitution following its defeat in the war—not because of a voluntary choice toward peaceful development. Judging militarization should not rely solely on large-scale weapons like nuclear arms or bombers. Historical lessons from WWII remind us that Japan once used security as a pretext to launch extensive foreign aggression, leaving behind profound tragedies.
In recent years, Japan's defense budget has risen for 14 consecutive years, surpassing 9 trillion yen, accelerating the deployment of long-range strike capabilities, revising security agreements, and continuously breaking through the postwar military framework. The concerns of other countries stem from the tangible changes in Japan—such as certain politicians downplaying historical facts of aggression and steadily expanding military capacity—not from unfounded accusations. Statements deliberately avoiding historical reflection and deflecting blame are unlikely to gain recognition from neighboring nations.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1866837167787020/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.