Japan's 2004 announcement that it was
considering joining the US in the production of a
missile defense system was deeply troubling to
Japanese and Asians concerned about the country's
expansive military posture in tandem with the
Americans.
Over the years, Japan has
created a high-tech, non-nuclear military force.
But it has steadfastly maintained an official ban
on weapons exports. Many feared that the 2004 move
heralded the end of Japan's nearly 40-year-old ban
on arms exports.
Since 1976, the Japanese
government has proclaimed that "Japan shall not
promote 'arms' exports, regardless of the
destinations." [1] This stance has been advanced
by ministers
and
officials in the domestic and international arena
who stress that Japan does not participate in the
global arms trade. For example, in 2000 Sugiura
Seiken, the senior vice minister for foreign
affairs, informed a UN conference that: "Japan has
been actively pursuing arms control and
disarmament. We do not permit the export of arms
to any country." [2]
However, in December
2004 it became clear that Japan's position as a
weapons manufacturer and weapons exporter were
under review. Not only was the Japanese government
considering taking part in the US Missile Defense
Program, but the chief cabinet secretary also
announced that Japan may consider other
opportunities for joint development and production
with the Americans, as well as projects with other
countries "related to support of counter-terrorism
and counter-piracy". [3] In addition, Prime
Minister Junichiro Koizumi confirmed the
possibility that Japan may sell arms to Southeast
Asian nations to fight piracy. [4]
These
statements, and particularly the Missile Defense
project, are being undertaken both in response to
rising Japan-North Korea tensions and in the wish
to strengthen the capacity of Southeast Asian
countries to protect Japanese shipping through the
Malacca Strait.
However, the truth of the
matter is that these plans do not indicate a
dramatic change in policy. Far from having a
record of no arms transfers, Japan has been, and
continues to be, actively involved in the sale of
small arms and dual-use goods to other nations.
Due to a lack of transparency in the reporting
system, however, important questions remain
concerning the precise nature of various military
exports.
Small arms Japan has
been one of the lead actors in the 2001 UN Program
of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the
Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in
All Its Aspects (PoA). It has donated substantial
sums of money for various weapons collection
programs worldwide, most notably, more than US$10
million for programs in Sri Lanka, Cambodia and
Sierra Leone. [5] Furthermore, Japan continues to
campaign for the establishment of an international
system to mark and trace small arms. [6]
As the former Japanese ambassador to the
UN Conference on Disarmament stated, Japan has
assumed this lead role on the PoA because " ...
many countries felt that Japan is the
standard-bearer of multilateral disarmament
affairs because Japan enjoys the high moral ground
of not exporting small arms." [7] However, the
fact is that Japan actually conducts a thriving
small arms export trade. The international annual
publication, the Small Arms Survey, for example,
reported that in 2002 Japan exported $65 million
worth of small arms which, in monetary terms,
ranks Japan among the top eight exporters of small
arms worldwide for that year. [8]
The
Japanese government evades this issue by
contending that "hunting guns and sport guns are
not regarded as 'arms'," [9] and therefore the
self-imposed ban on arms exports only applies to
guns of a military specification. This raises the
question of what differentiates a military
specification gun from a sporting or hunting
weapon. However, the Japanese Ministry for Export,
Trade and Industry (METI) provides no
comprehensive definition. Instead it decides on a
case-by-case basis whether a weapon should be
defined as being of military specification.
The finessing of the definition of "arms"
to exclude sporting and hunting weapons may ensure
that Japan adheres to its ban on arms in the eyes
of the policymakers but in reality this is a
cynical interpretation. While METI claims there is
a distinction between a sporting weapon and a
military weapon, the fact of the matter is that
almost all tactical shotguns - the type of weapon
used by military and police forces throughout the
world - are modified civilian guns. [10]
Each year small arms kill about 500,000
people around the world. So great is their impact
on human security that UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan observed, "In terms of the carnage they
cause, small arms, indeed, could well be described
as 'weapons of mass destruction'." [11]
The small arms used in these deaths are
not restricted to those of a military
specification. In armed conflicts around the world
hunting and sporting weapons are routinely used to
commit violent acts and abuse human rights. In
recent years Amnesty International has reported
the use of such weapons by death squads in Algeria
and armed political groups in the Solomon Islands.
[12] Clearly, when one is looking down the barrel
of a gun it matters little whether the weapon in
question is deemed to be of the sporting or
hunting, or military variety.
Questionable exports Further
questions about Japan's dedication to a ban on
arms exports are raised by an examination of data
submitted to the UN Commodity Trade Statistics
Database (UN Comtrade), which records the import
and export details voluntarily submitted by the
customs departments of countries worldwide. [13]
According to information submitted by the
Japanese customs department to this database, in
2001 Japan exported $55.7 million worth of "Bombs,
Grenades, Ammunition, Mines & Others". The
vast majority of this total went to the US.
However, according to the import data submitted by
other countries, other recipients of this
equipment from Japan included Denmark, Germany,
South Korea, Malaysia and Thailand.
Furthermore, according to information that
Japan submitted to the UN Comtrade database in
1999, Japan exported "military weapons" to
Indonesia and Malaysia and in 2000 Japan exported
"military weapons" to Israel. Also according to
the data submitted by Japan, it has exported
"parts and accessories of military weapons" to a
large number of countries over several years. And
in 2003, Japan reported that it had exported
"military rifles, machine guns and other" to the
Philippines.
Japanese Customs use the same
system of classification for registering exports
as does the UN. This means that the Japanese
definition of an export will be consistent with
the UN definition. So when, for example, Japanese
Customs report that "military rifles, machine guns
and other" have been exported, according to the UN
definition that means that the export must have
contained one of the following: self-propelled
artillery weapons; rocket launchers;
flame-throwers; grenade launchers; torpedos;
torpedo tubes; and similar or "other".
Of
course a note of caution must be added in that the
"other" at the end of the list may refer to a
number of different items ranging from military
rifles to optical devices for use on firearms.
Although the Japanese Customs choose to subdivide
the categories when they submit information to UN
Comtrade, thus providing a greater level of
detail, even this information does not give a
sufficiently detailed breakdown of exactly what
items were in the export.
Since there is
no domestic report of arms exports, and the
information submitted to UN Comtrade is
sufficiently vague as to prevent any meaningful
analysis, it is impossible to verify the exact
nature of the equipment in these transfers. Until
the Japanese government reveals details of these
exports, questions will remain as to whether they
complied with the "no arms trade" policy.
Dual-use goods A bright light is
shone on Japan's involvement in the arms trade
when one examines exports of defense electronics
and dual-use equipment. Ever since its inception,
a gaping hole has existed in the ban on arms
exports, specifically products that have both
military and civilian applications may escape the
ban on military exports.
In the 1980s
Japanese companies began taking advantage of this
loophole by making inroads mainly into the US
defense market, providing semiconductor chips for
guided missiles and camera lenses used in
reconnaissance systems. Since then Japanese
components have found their way into a large
number of security and defense products across the
globe, such as silicon sensors, which are at the
core of BAE Systems Inertial Measurement Units
used for missile guidance systems, [14] or the
Sony Exwave HAD 800 Line TV camera incorporated in
the Denel military and paramilitary turrets. [15]
It seems that even certain vehicles used
by the military are able to evade the export ban
by using the dual-use window of opportunity.
Military forces throughout the world can be seen
riding Toyotas, Suzukis and Mitsubishis. In March
of this year the Omani Engine Engineering Company
announced that it would be basing its Nimer 1
light armored personnel carrier on a Toyota Land
Cruiser 4x4 chassis. [16] The vehicle, which will
have firing ports and the possibility of mounted
machine guns, is clearly for military use, yet
because the Land Cruiser chassis can also be
exported for civilian use, it escapes the ban on
arms exports.
In August 2004 ShinMaywa
promoted its US-1A amphibious aircraft designed
for search and rescue but also for maritime patrol
and anti-submarine warfare roles. While the
assistant manager of defense systems at the
company acknowledged that Japan is prohibited from
exporting defense systems he insisted that the
craft was available for purchase and could be used
for "multipurpose missions". [17]
Transparency and truth The
essential problem when analyzing Japan's adherence
to its "no arms trade" policy is the lack of
transparency in the reporting of the export
licenses that have been granted for goods used in
the defense industry. Although Japan makes annual
submissions to UN databases regarding its exports,
these submissions are voluntary and, as can be
seen from the UN Comtrade data above, do not
always tally with what other countries claim to be
receiving from Japan.
More importantly,
unlike many other countries such as Germany,
Finland, the UK or US the Japanese government
provides no annual report detailing the licenses
it has granted for arms or goods used in the
defense industry. This means that the Japanese
public and media have no access to information
concerning what defense goods may have been
exported and whether these exports comply with the
spirit or the letter of a policy banning arms
exports.
It is nevertheless clear from the
number of small arms and dual-use goods openly
exported, that Japan has, for a number of years,
had a fairly active arms trade, despite its
declaration to the contrary. Japan's claim that it
has no arms trade leaves it open to the charge of
duplicity and deceit.
With the Japanese
government proposing major changes related to
weapons production and exports, now would surely
be a time to provide an open and honest account of
the nation's actual involvement in the arms trade,
and to establish a formal system of reporting that
lays to rest doubts about the military content of
exports. Such information would end the hypocrisy
and denial that currently reigns.
[2] Sugiura Seikin, senior vice minister
for Foreign Affairs of Japan Speech to the UN
Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and
Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, 9 July 2000
[3] Statement by the chief cabinet
secretary 10 December 2004
[4] Japan
Signals Key Military Shift www.dailytimes.com.pk
11 December 2004
[5] Japan to enforce arms
reduction policy accessed 7 March 2005 &
Government of Japan's National Report on the
Implementation of Programme of Action (PoA) to
Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in
Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects
accessed 17 July 2003
[6] Speech by
Ambassador Amano Yukiya, director-general for Arms
Control and Scientific Affairs accessed 17 July
2003
[7] Inoguchi Kuniko, former Japanese
ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, Asahi
Shimbun, 20 September 2004 [8] Weapons at War:
Small Arms Survey 2005 (Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 2005), p102-105
[9] National
Reporton the Implementation of Programme of Action
(PoA) to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit
Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its
Aspects 22 November 2005
[10] Information
from article Kalashnikov Saiga-12S shotgun is
tailored for tactical requirements, Jane's
International Defence Review, 1 May 2002
[11] War on Terror Fuels Small Arms Trade,
The Guardian, 10 October 2003
[12] A
Catalogue of Failures: G8 Arms Exports and Human
Rights Violations,
[13] Figures used in
this article all come from the Comtrade data
available on the website of the Norwegian
Initiative on Small Arms Transfers (NISAT)
[14] Saab Bofors to lead NLAW Jane's
Defence Industry, 1 July 2002
[15] The
ever-clearer view from above International Defence
Review 1 September 2004
[16] The
ever-clearer view from above International Defence
Review 1 September 2004
[17] Assistant
Manager, Godo Tadoroko quoted in Jane's Defence
Weekly, 25 August 2004.
Robin
Ballantyne, a researcher at the Omega Research
Foundation, can be reached at
robin.ballantyne@googlemail.com
