By Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan

 

Abstract

Japanese militarism’s roots and rise are traced back to the Meiji Restoration (1868), driven by the desire to resist Western imperialism and become a respected power. It reached its peak in the 1930s with the military’s dominance over civilian government, leading to aggression across Asia and eventually World War II. In the post-war era, Japan adopted a pacifist constitution, but recent developments have sparked intense international debate about a potential revival, as Japan significantly expands its military capabilities and redefines its defense policy. 

Roots of Japanese Militarism

• Transition: In 1868 the Tokugawa shōgun (“great general”), who ruled Japan in the feudal period, lost his power and Prince Mutsuhito, son of Komei was restored to the supreme position, becoming Emperor and taking the name Meiji (“enlightened rule”) for his regime.

• Meiji Restoration: The Imperial authorities adopted a Constitution in 1889, based on the Prussian model establishing a government close to that of European nations. Thus, Japan was ruled jointly by the Emperor as Head of State and the Prime Minister as Head of Government.

• Western Threat: Japan sought to rapidly industrialize and strengthen its military (“rich nation, strong army”) to avoid the fate of other Asian nations subjected to Western imperialism and unequal treaties.
• Military Influence and Autonomy: The Constitution granted the armed forces direct access to the Emperor, bypassing civilian government control. The Imperial Japanese Army General Staff office was independent of the War Ministry and answered only to the Emperor, ensuring military autonomy.

• Nationalism and Bushidō Ethic: An Emperor-centered ultra-nationalism was cultivated, and the traditional samurai ethic (Bushidō) was reinterpreted to emphasize self-sacrifice, loyalty, and aggression, permeating all levels of society through universal conscription and education.

It’s Phenomenal Rise

• Victories and Expansionism: Victories in the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894  and 1904 Russo-Japanese War boosted national prestige and reinforced the belief that military expansion was the best way to secure national interests and resources.

The Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895 forced Qing-dynasty China to ceded full sovereignty of the Liaodong Peninsula (including Port Arthur), Taiwan (Formosa), and its Pescadores (Penghu) to Japan.

After the decimation of its Pacific naval fleet, Russia ceded the southern half of Sakhalin Island to Japan (renamed Karafuto Prefecture). Control of Port Arthur and the port of Dalny on the Liaodong Peninsula (Kwantung Leased Territory) was transferred to Japan. Russia also was obligated to recognize Japan’s paramount interests in Korea and evacuate Manchuria.

• Resource Scarcity: As an island nation, however, Japan lacked crucial natural resources like oil, rubber, and minerals, which were essential for its industrial and military growth, leading to its expansionist ambitions into resource-rich areas like China and Southeast Asia.
• Assumption of Power: Through assassinations and attempted coups in the early 1930s, military officers increasingly dominated Japanese politics, sidelining civilian governments and establishing an authoritarian regime focused on imperial aggression.
• Economic Crisis and Political Instability: The Great Depression of 1929 to 39, severely hurt Japan’s economy, fueling nationalist sentiment, social unrest and popular support for military leaders who promised solutions seeking self-sufficiency through conquest.
• The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was publicly announced in August 1940 positioning itself as the dominant power in Asia, replacing Western colonial influence, originating from earlier Pan-Asianist ideas with the framework and specific terminology of Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe.
• Military Alliance: After being treated as a lesser power post-World War I, Japan was determined to assert itself as a major global player. Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy in 1940, formally joining the Axis powers and aligning against the Western democracies.

• Conflict with the US: But the United States opposed Japan’s aggression in China and imposed an oil embargo in 1941, which Japan saw as a direct threat to its survival, forcing a decision between war or submission. Japan decided to launch preemptive strikes against U.S. and European territories in the Pacific to seize resources and neutralize potential threats, with the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, being the most famous example, officially bringing the U.S. into the war.

Implications on the Philippines

The implications of a militarist Japan on the Philippines can be viewed through two distinct lenses: the historical experience of World War II occupation, characterized by immense suffering and economic collapse, and the contemporary context where increased Japanese military cooperation acts as a strategic partnership against shared regional challenges, from the Western perspective primarily China’s expansion. 

World War II

During the Japanese occupation from 1942 to 1945, the implications for the Philippines were overwhelmingly negative and brutal. 

• Humanitarian Crisis and Atrocities: The occupation led to an estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 Filipino deaths due to war, famine, massacres, and disease. Filipino and American soldiers endured the brutal Bataan Death March, and countless Filipino women were forced into sexual slavery as “comfort women”.
• Economic Collapse: The Japanese military administration seized control of the economy, leading to a 70% reduction in GDP by the war’s end, hyperinflation, and widespread food shortages. Key industries like sugar collapsed, causing vast unemployment.
• Political Repression: The existing Philippine Commonwealth government was abolished, and a Japanese-controlled puppet government was installed. Political and educational systems were restructured to remove American influence and promote Japanese ideology, with strict censorship imposed on literature and media.
• Resistance Movement: The occupation spurred a strong and highly effective Filipino guerrilla resistance movement, which controlled a significant portion of the islands and continued fighting until the end of the war. 
• Instrument of Surrender: The formal end of World War II in the Pacific, occurred on September 2, 1945, aboard the battleship USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, where Japanese representatives Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and Army Chief of Staff Yoshijiro Umezu inked the Instrument of Surrender while General Douglas MacArthur signed as Supreme Commander for the Allies, followed by representatives from other Allied nations like the U.S., China, UK, and Soviet Union.

Contemporary Strategic Partnership

In the modern era, Japan has been a pacifist nation with a constitution that renounces war. However, in the face of evolving regional security dynamics, Japan has gradually expanded its military’s role beyond self-defense, a shift that presents different implications for the Philippines.

• Enhanced Defense Cooperation: The Philippines and Japan have established a strong defense and security partnership, formalized by the Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA). This agreement streamlines the process for the deployment of forces for joint exercises, training, and disaster relief, strengthening the Philippines’ national security.
• Military Modernization Support: Japan is actively contributing to the capability upgrade of the Philippine military through security assistance grants, including the transfer of coastal radar systems and small boats for maritime surveillance, particularly in the South China Sea.
• Regional Stability and Countering China: A more capable Japanese military, working in concert with the Philippines and allies like the United States, helps to maintain a military balance in the Indo-Pacific region. This cooperation serves as a strategy to deter China’s expansionist activities and uphold the rule of law in international waters.
• Economic and Infrastructure Benefits: Beyond security, Japan is a major source of development assistance and investment, contributing significantly to Philippine infrastructure projects like the Metro Manila Subway and various railway expansions.

The Question of Revival

Following its defeat in World War II, Japan’s militarism was completely discredited, and its new constitution enshrined pacifism, notably in Article 9, which renounces war and the maintenance of a military.

However, the current security landscape has prompted a significant shift in Japan’s defense policy, leading to a vigorous debate about a “revival” of militarism: 

• Policy Shifts: Japan has adopted new national security strategies that allow for a more active role in collective self-defense and the acquisition of “counter-strike capabilities” (long-range missiles) that can hit enemy bases.

• Increased Budgets: Defense spending has been substantially increased, with plans to reach 2% of GDP (a NATO standard) by 2027, which would give Japan the third-largest military budget globally.
• Erosion of Pacifist Principles: Critics argue these changes, along with discussions about potentially revising the three non-nuclear principles and the constitution itself, are hollowing out the post-war pacifist identity.
• Geopolitical Context: Proponents of the changes argue they are a necessary and natural reaction to a challenging regional environment, citing threats from China and North Korea.
• Neighboring Concerns: Countries in East Asia, particularly China and South Korea, view these actions and accompanying historical revisionism as an alarming resurgence of past militarist impulses that pose a real and growing threat to regional stability.\

China Perspective

The current situation is not a full return to the military-dominated government of the 1930s, but rather a significant re-evaluation of Japan’s security posture and military capabilities in the 21st century, the nature and implications of which remain a subject of intense debate.

• Historical Vigilance: Citing the brutal history of Japan’s aggression during World War II, where 20 million Chinese perished, China officials and state media repeatedly emphasize the need for high vigilance against any resurgence of militarism, stressing that the painful lessons of the past must not be forgotten.

• Taiwan Issue: China views Japan’s remarks about a potential military response to a Chinese attack on Taiwan as a grave violation of international law, interference in China’s internal affairs, and a core issue of concern. Taiwan is considered by Beijing to be an inalienable part of its territory.
• International Alignment: Beijing has launched a coordinated diplomatic campaign, including sending letters to the UN and engaging with allies like Russia, to denounce Japan’s actions and urge other peace-loving nations to “resolutely contain” Japan’s right-wing forces.
• Diplomatic and Economic Measures: In response to perceived Japanese provocations, China has used diplomatic protests, military maneuvers, and economic leverage (such as restrictions on “dual-use exports”) to pressure Japan to change its course.
• Counter-narrative: Chinese state media outlets characterize Japan’s actions as “neo-militarism,” arguing that Tokyo is presenting itself as a guardian of security while actively provoking disputes in the region. 

China’s position is that any tolerance for Japan’s current military expansion would endanger Asia and the world, and it is determined to safeguard its national sovereignty and the post-war international order. 

Prevailing dissonance

Based on reports from late 2025 and early 2026, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has adopted a strong, proactive stance on Taiwan, marking a significant, more hawkish shift in Japan’s security policy.

Her position is widely viewed as a continuation of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s stance that “a Taiwan emergency is a Japanese emergency”. 

• Survival-Threatening Situation: Takaichi stated in the Diet on November 7, 2025, that a Chinese attack on Taiwan, including a naval blockade, could constitute an “existential crisis” or “survival-threatening situation” for Japan.
• Collective Self-Defense:She indicated that under such a scenario, Japan would be justified in exercising its right to collective self-defense and potentially engaging in military action.
• Japan-U.S. Alliance Focus: Takaichi has emphasized that the Japan-U.S. security alliance would “collapse” if Japan failed to respond to an attack on U.S. forces involved in a Taiwan crisis.
• Evacuation Scenarios: She suggested Self-Defense Forces (SDF) could cooperate with U.S. forces to evacuate Japanese and American citizens during a contingency.

• “No Change” Position (Dec 2025): Despite the strong rhetoric, Takaichi, in classic doublespeak, maintained that Japan’s fundamental position, which respects the 1972 Japan-China Joint Communiqué, has not changed.
• Reaction to Criticism: Takaichi has refused to withdraw her remarks, despite sharp criticism and retaliatory economic measures from China.

Prognosis

            This overall scenario must be evaluated, moving forward, with the two treaties the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has on neutrality and non-nuclear proliferation.

We should also have our ears on the ground on the four partners of NATO in the Asia-Pacific namely Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand who have been meeting often ever since the start of the War in Ukraine discussing how to respond to China’s and Russia’s hybrid warfare. In 2022, these countries participated in a NATO summit for the first time, and in another first in 2024, sent their defense ministers to  a NATO ministerial conference in Brussels.

            Unlike Japan who is umbilically connected to Taiwan for administering it for 50 years since being ceded by China to Japan in the Treaty of Shimoneseki in 1895 (up to 1945),  many South Koreans question the relevance of the Taiwan issue to their national security.

I would say that despite the Sokor government generally balancing its security alliance with the U.S. and its critical economic partnership with China, the issue of reunification, rather than independence, resonates better with the Koreans. Just like China’s civil war, the Korean War has not met any closure, and is still divided at the 38^th parallel with only an armistice holding the peace.

During his January 2026 visit to China, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung aimed at strengthening economic ties, seeking to avoid conflict amid rising regional tensions, and focusing on bilateral cooperation with President Xi Jinping.

Seoul officially recognizes Beijing’s “One China” policy, which considers Taiwan part of China. This delicate position prioritizes stability to avoid economic retaliation from Beijing and to ensure Chinese cooperation against North Korean threats.

In the middle of this regional dissonance, the Philippines finds itself on the verge of breaking diplomatic relations with China, with a government facing bankruptcy because of a monumental corruption scandal, a Senate jockeying for elections two years from today, an economy that is performing worst in 14 years; a predicament threatened by regime change because of political instability, and a president whose cocaine addiction has brought himself to some near death medical complications.

It is still possible to save the Philippines, but it must find its way back to a balanced and independent foreign policy,

A neo-militarist Japan will only take us closer to the fringes of war, and on the wrong side of history at that!

Next: What happens when Clowns enter the Palace?

 

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: