Samurai or Kamikaze? Japan’s rearmament and insecurity in the name of security

As the 80th anniversary of Japan’s capitulation is approaching, a strange and unsettling ritual is unfolding in the East. The world is watching Japan – a nation that for decades stood as the global standard for peaceful, high-tech prosperity – systematically dismantle its own pacifist identity. In full Robotech swing, the Land of the Rising Sun is rediscovering its Samurai self. Or could it be Kamikaze?

New aircraft carriers are surely impressive. But as the yen falters and birth rates plummet, one must ask: Is Tokyo truly finding its sovereign voice, or is it merely reciting a script written in Washington? Could what is being presented as a necessary awakening be more of a retreat into a dangerous past that will bring an uncertain future?

For eighty years, Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution was not just a legal clause. It was a national cultural vow. It was the commitment of a society that has tasted the nuclear fire of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to never again trade its prosperity for the hollow glory of imperial supremacy.

Yet today, under the “strong invitation” of its American partner, Japan is being pushed toward a new militarisation. The election of a nationalist leadership comes with a rhetoric that echoes a past many hoped was buried. At the same time, the 14th consecutive year of military spending increases transforms the Self-Defence Forces into a power capable of serious offensive operations.

But where does this lead? Should we be content with seeing yet another world power intensively prepare for war? The parallel with Europe is impossible to ignore. Just as Germany has been shaken from its peaceful slumber to become a military counterweight to Russia, Japan is being prepared as the primary proxy to contain China.

Geopolitically, it makes sense. But is this truly in the interest of the Japanese people? Should a nation with an aging, decreasing population and a staggering national debt be prioritising hypersonic missiles over social cohesion? Instead of transforming into a US military outpost, which in the end will only ensure American security and growth, should Japan not focus on its own peaceful development?

Threats from Beijing and Pyongyang leave Tokyo no choice, one will argue. This is a one-way street. Nevertheless, it is paved with the deconstruction of a successful country’s constitutional soul. When Japanese schoolbooks are edited to sanitise a brutal past, are we witnessing a healthy revival of national pride, or the dangerous cultivation of historical amnesia?

This revisionist Bushido serves a modern strategic purpose, but the cost to the truth of the last century cannot be ignored. By rewriting the history of its previous expansionism, Japan may as well be preparing the psychological ground for its next military role. And this is not to be taken lightly.

Japan rose to dominate the world through innovation and research. It proved that a nation could lead through the brilliance of its technology, which in turn brought about the iconic status of a unique and admired contemporary culture. The soft power of anime came from the precision of the semiconductor, not the calibre of Japanese naval guns.

If the legendary work ethic of the Japanese people is now diverted into a war economy, what will remain for the future of its youth? A missile in a silo does not generate wealth – at least not in the way Toyotas, Walkmans and PlayStations do. Arms exports could of course benefit the Japanese economy, but it is doubtful that existing great exporters will be happy to share their market shares with a new competitor.

Not that this is only about prosperity. Five years ago, few would have truly expected that war would return to haunt Europe. Nowadays, everything seems possible. If conflict erupts in the Pacific, will Japan be the architect of its own fate, or merely the expendable frontline in a war of an overlord across the ocean? Let us not forget that the US has played this game before with great success. In fact, to the Americans, WW2 itself was just a series of overseas operations.

So, Tokyo is treading the way of the warrior, as we are being told that the best way to save a stagnant industrial nation is to prepare it for a confrontation it did not seek. And no, to question the validity of this statement is not about the old “canons or butter” argument. Especially in the case of Japan, it is about sovereignty, and the decision to trade it for a perilous role that serves distant directors.