Japan’s Expanding Military Role Could Be Good News for the Pentagon and Its Contractors

Japan’s Expanding Military Role Could Be Good News for the Pentagon and Its Contractors
Foreign Policy: 16 July 2015

Japan, a country that swore off offensive warfare after World War II, took its first step down a very different path Thursday by passing legislation giving its military the power to engage in combat overseas. That’s something the Pentagon has wanted for years, and it could be very good news for U.S. defense contractors.

In January, the government of conservative Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe endorsed a defense budget of nearly 5 trillion yen, or $42 billion, continuing a three-year growth trend after nearly a decade of decline. The sum still represents a small portion of Japan’s GDP — it accounts for just one percent of it, according to the World Bank — but because offensive military action is prohibited by Japan’s constitution, even a modest increase is controversial. Protesters rallied against the shift outside parliament Wednesday, the night before 11 controversial security-related bills were pushed through that will give Japan’s military the power to engage in more than just defensive actions.

This year’s defense budget is part of a larger push to improve Japan’s military capabilities. Abe has promised to spend 24.7 trillion yen, or $240 billion, between 2014 and 2019 on new warplanes, naval vessels, and drones, including American-made F-22s, F-35s, and Global Hawk drones. He’s also formed an advisory board, modeled after the U.S. National Security Council, to advise him on security matters.

The United States and Japan have been allies since shortly after World War II. In April, as Abe visited Washington, officials from both countries vowed to strengthen those ties.
“What should we call this, if not a miracle of history? Enemies that had fought each other so fiercely have become friends bonded in spirit,” Abe told U.S. lawmakers during a joint session of Congress.

During the same visit, the United States and Japan unveiled a new agreement, the Joint Defense Guidelines, which will allow greater military cooperation between the countries. As part of the deal, Japan agreed to shoot down missiles heading toward U.S. territory, even if Japan itself isn’t under attack. U.S. and Japanese military staffs can now work more closely.

When the partnership was announced, Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Ash Carter and their Japanese counterparts, Foreign Affairs Minister Fumio Kishida and Minister of Defense Gen Nakatani, released a joint statement saying the new guidelines showcase “the ironclad U.S. commitment to the defense of Japan, through the full range of U.S. military capabilities, including nuclear and conventional.”

There’s a very specific reason that Tokyo and United States, which is currently attempting to reallocate more military resources to the region, are increasing their military cooperation: China. Tokyo is engaged in a tense standoff with Beijing over the contested Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. China, which calls them the Diaoyu, has also been building a series of concrete runways capable of handling military planes in the South China Sea’s contested waters. The two nations have been engaged in an increasingly sharp-edged war of words, and Beijing reacted harshly to this week’s vote.

“We solemnly urge the Japanese side to draw hard lessons from history, stick to the path of peaceful development, respect the major security concerns of its Asian neighbors, and refrain from jeopardizing China’s sovereignty and security interests or crippling regional peace and stability,” Hua Chunying, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said in a statement after the lower house approved the measures Thursday.

For the moment, the idea of Japan jeopardizing China’s sovereignty anytime soon is a bit laughable. Reports indicate that Beijing’s 2015 defense budget increased 10 percent to around $145 billion, second only to the United States.

But $240 billion can buy Tokyo a lot of new equipment, which could be good for American defense contractors. F-35s are made by Lockheed Martin, based in Texas, and the Marine vehicles are manufactured by BAE Systems, based in Northern Virginia.

Tokyo also plans to buy U.S.-based Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk drones. It’s also developing two Aegis radar-equipped destroyers and missile defense system with Washington. Those are made by Lockheed.

Japan’s embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday’s vote.
The rise of China’s military, and the perceived decline of the Pentagon’s, is a key talking point cited by Abe’s allies pushing for the change. Last year, Yosuke Isozaki, a security advisor to Abe, said the United States “can no longer afford to play the world’s policeman.”

“This is no longer an era when Japan is permitted to do nothing and count on America to protect us. It’s become extremely important we do our own share alongside the U.S.,” he said.

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/16/japans-expanding-military-role-could-be-good-news-for-the-pentagon-and-its-contractors/?utm_content=buffer24684&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Please also refer to:

 

Is the US Army Near a Breaking Point?

http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/is-the-us-army-near-a-breaking-point/

 

 

 

U.S. Eases Rules on Exporting Military Technology to Secure Role as World's Leading Arms Dealer

U.S. Eases Rules on Exporting Military Technology to Secure Role as World's Leading Arms Dealer
Democracy Now: 16 October 2013

In a boon for military contractors, the United States is relaxing controls on military exports, allowing some U.S.-made military parts to flow to nearly any country in the world with little oversight. ProPublica reports that beginning this week, thousands of parts for military aircraft can be sent freely around the world, even to some countries currently under U.N. arms embargoes. Previously, military firms had to register with the State Department and obtain a license for each export deal. That allowed U.S. officials to screen for issues including possible human rights violations. But now, tens of thousands of items are shifting to the Commerce Department, where they fall under looser controls. The changes were heavily lobbied for by military firms including Lockheed Martin, Textron and Honeywell. "The whole globe, basically, is going to get an easier deal in terms of getting access to U.S. military technology without very many questions asked," says William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. The United States already heavily dominates arms exports market: In 2011, the U.S. concluded $66 billion in arms sales agreements — which accounts for nearly 80 percent of the global market.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

 

AMY GOODMAN: In a boon for military contractors, the United States is relaxing controls on military exports, allowing some U.S.-made military parts to flow to nearly any country in the world with little oversight. ProPublica reports, beginning this week, thousands of parts for military aircraft can be sent freely around the world, even to some countries currently under U.N. arms embargoes. Previously, military firms had to register with the State Department and obtain a license for each export deal. That allowed U.S. officials to screen for issues including possible human rights violations. But now, tens of thousands of items are shifting to the Commerce Department, where they fall under looser controls. The changes were heavily lobbied for by military firms including Lockheed Martin, Textron and Honeywell. The U.S. already heavily dominates arms exports market: In 2011, the U.S. concluded $66 billion in arms sales agreements, which accounts for nearly 80 percent of the global market.

To talk more about this, we’re joined by Bill Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy.

Bill, we thank you very much for being with us. You’ve just completed a report on the Obama administration’s loosening of controls over U.S. arms exports. Your latest book, Prophets—that’s P-R-O-P-H-E-T-S— Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex. Talk about what this Obama administration relaxing of the sending of weapons and parts means.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Sure. I think the amazing thing, which you mentioned, is that the United States already dominates the trade. It’s not clear they can make a lot more money here, but they’re trying. And one of the things that will happen is, if you’re a smuggler and you want to do a circuitous path through a third-party country, those countries are now getting license-free spare parts, surveillance equipment and so forth, that can then go on to a human rights abuser, to a terrorist group. And detecting this is going to be much more difficult without the State Department licensing process.

AMY GOODMAN: How did this happen?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, the industry has been pushing for this for two decades, and they have a couple points of leverage. Of course, they have campaign contributions. They’ve got people on the advisory committees that help develop these regulations. They’ve done studies making bogus claims about the economic impacts. And the Obama administration, more than even the Bush administration, bought into industry’s arguments—argued, "Well, we’re going to streamline this. It’s going to make things more efficient. We’re going to get the economic benefits." And I think they took a great risk in taking those industry suggestions, not looking hard enough at the human rights proliferation and anti-terrorist implications of that. So, I they they may have had good intentions, but I think they tilted way too far towards the industry.

AMY GOODMAN: Several trade groups have been calling for this easing of restrictions on arms exports. Lauren Airey of the National Association of Manufacturers said in an interview with ProPublica that foreign competitors are, quote, "taking advantage of perceived and real issues in U.S. export controls to promote foreign parts and components—advertising themselves as State-Department-free." Can you comment on that?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Sure. This is an anecdote that comes up frequently, but there’s never been any documentation of how common this is. The Commerce Department was asked in a congressional hearing, "What’s the economic downside of the current system or the upside of your reforms?" He said, "We haven’t looked at that." So they really haven’t looked at the economic effects. In fact, if it’s easier to export production technology to build U.S. parts overseas, this reform could actually make it worse for U.S. jobs, even as it helps the big companies, like Lockheed Martin, outsource their components globally.

AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about, Bill Hartung, the countries that can get these weapons and these parts.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, the first round is NATO allies, but includes countries like Bulgaria, countries like Turkey, which have had bad records of keeping those parts within their countries, keeping them from being transhipped to, you know, destinations that the U.S. would not want to see them in, places like Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia during its most repressive periods. Basically, almost anywhere in the world, it’s now going to be much easier to do this kind of roundabout sale. But also, many parts are going to be license-free altogether, so they can go almost anywhere in the world, other than perhaps Venezuela, Iran, China, in certain circumstances. So, the whole globe basically is going to get an easier deal in terms of getting access to U.S. military technology, without very many questions asked.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain, as even the Obama administration is pushing for more gun control at home, how this happens now?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I think, you know, they promised this to industry. They see it as a big achievement that they’ve undertaken since Obama’s first term. They have taken a look at the firearms issue. They’re going slow on rolling out those regulations, because they know it’s a very sensitive item. People, like the gun lobby, want no new restrictions, and in fact to roll back restrictions on gun exports. So I think there may still be room for leverage here over the administration, because they have been kind of shy about putting forward what they’re going to do about guns, ammunition, small arms or light weapons, which are among the biggest problems in terms of getting into conflict zones. So, I think there might still be some hope there to turn them around, but, you know, it will take some pressure, which so far we haven’t seen a great deal of pressure from the Congress on this.

AMY GOODMAN: Countries like Bahrain, that’s cracking down on its own people protesting human rights abuses there?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Exactly. Bahrain will probably have an easier time getting U.S. weapons. Saudi Arabia has just gotten a $60 billion deal, the biggest in history, for attack helicopters, fighter planes, guns and ammunition, armored vehicles. And they’ve been helping Bahrain put down the democracy movement there, also obviously repressing their own people. So, not only are the sales at record levels, but they’re going to some of the most undemocratic countries in the world at a time when they’re supposed to be—our policy should be to support democracy in the Persian Gulf and Middle East, not, you know, help the oppressors, as some of these sales will do.

AMY GOODMAN: What should President Obama be doing differently, Bill Hartung?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I think, for starters, there should be a moratorium on any new changes in these regulations. You know, let them see what the first round—what the impacts are, which I think they’re going to see are going to be quite negative. Second of all, for things that have gone over to the Commerce Department, are not—unvetted by State, there should be new laws to say, well, Commerce has to use the same criteria as State, in terms of vetting for human rights. I think also they should look at what the economic impacts are really going to be. Instead of making these claims about how it’s going to be wonderful for U.S. jobs, really dig in and see how many jobs are going to be exported as a result of letting this technology flow more freely. I think if we can get him to do those three things, we could probably blunt the most negative consequences of these so-called reforms.

AMY GOODMAN: What’s the type of military equipment, including U.S. arms, most commonly used in human rights violations around the world?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, you know, there’s things like tear gas. U.S. tear-gas canisters showed up in Egypt, for example. There’s things like, you know, automatic weapons. There’s armored personnel carriers. In some of the conflicts, obviously, against internal adversaries, attack helicopters are used.

AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, Bill, I’m going to interrupt—

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Sure.

AMY GOODMAN: —just to get this last question in. You just wrote a piece saying, "After the Shutdown, Don’t Exempt the Pentagon." We’ve got 15 seconds.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I think the Pentagon is going to try to wriggle out of this, when they’ve been—had their budget doubled since 9/11. It’s time to put them on a diet, put them under discipline. And I think their allies in Congress are going to try to do an end run around that, which I think would cost us tremendously on the domestic side of the budget.

AMY GOODMAN: So the State Department, soon its employees will be furloughed, and I’m sure a number of them are right now, but the Pentagon has pulled back and called back most of its employees.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Exactly. They’re already kind of on the verge of getting special treatment. We have to make sure they don’t jack up their budget, which in recent years has been at the highest levels since World War II.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill Hartung, I want to thank you for being with us at the Center for International Policy. We will link to your report.
That does it for our show. I’ll be speaking at the Green Festival in Los Angeles at 1933 Broadway at LA Mart, Saturday at 2:00.

Please also refer to:

Are Obama's Record Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt and Iraq Fueling Unrest in Middle East?
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/7/are_obamas_record_arms_sales_to

Abe eases weapons export rules
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/04/01/national/politics-diplomacy/abe-eases-weapons-export-rules/#.VsLUsP1FDZ7

Are Obama's Record Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt and Iraq Fueling Unrest in Middle East?

Democracy Now: 7 April 2015

As Saudi Arabia continues U.S.-backed strikes in Yemen and Washington lifts its freeze on military to aid to Egypt, new figures show President Obama has overseen a major increase in weapons sales since taking office. The majority of weapons exports under Obama have gone to the Middle East and Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia tops the list at $46 billion in new agreements. We are joined by William Hartung, who says that even after adjusting for inflation, "the volume of major deals concluded by the Obama administration in its first five years exceeds the amount approved by the Bush administration in its full eight years in office by nearly $30 billion. That also means that the Obama administration has approved more arms sales than any U.S. administration since World War II." Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, and author of "Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

 

AARON MATÉ: We turn now to the major increase in U.S. arms exports under President Obama. As Saudi Arabia continues U.S.-backed strikes in Yemen and Washington lifts its freeze on military aid to Egypt, new figures show the majority of U.S. weapons exports under Obama have gone to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia tops the list at $46 billion in new agreements. William Hartung writes that even after adjusting for inflation, quote, "The volume of major deals concluded by the Obama administration in its first five years exceeds the amount approved by the Bush administration in its full eight years in office by nearly $30 billion." That also means the Obama administration has approved more arms sales than any other U.S. administration since World War II.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about these figures, we’re joined now by Bill Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. His latest book is Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex. He recently wrote an article headlined "The Obama Arms Bazaar: Record Sales, Troubling Results."
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Bill.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Thanks for having me.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the numbers. Talk about the weapons. Where are they going?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I was astonished, in researching the article, that Obama had sold this much. I mean, I knew there were record deals with the Saudis, but to outsell the eight years of Bush, to sell more than any president since World War II, was surprising even to me, who follow these things quite closely. The majority, 60 percent, have gone to the Persian Gulf and Middle East, and within that, the Saudis have been the largest recipient of things like U.S. fighter planes, Apache attack helicopters, bombs, guns, almost an entire arsenal they’ve purchased just in the last few years.

AARON MATÉ: What do you think the Iran nuclear deal, if anything, portends for U.S. sales to the Middle East? President Obama is about to call a meeting at Camp David with the leaders of all the Gulf nations. Do you see them exploiting that to call for increased military purchases from the U.S.?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Unfortunately, yes. I mean, you would think a reduction of tensions should reduce the arms sales, but the Saudis have been screaming about the deal, saying, "Well, you’re letting Iran off the hook," which is not the case, "and therefore you have to bulk up our armaments," which is kind of insane, given the amounts that have already gone there.

AMY GOODMAN: So how does the Obama administration spending on military weapons—and is it the Obama administration spending money on military weapons or just allowing the weapons to be sold to these countries? And how does it compare to the two terms of the George W. Bush administration?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, primarily, these are sales, because the Saudis and others in the Gulf can afford them, the exceptions being aid to Egypt and Israel, which are the biggest recipients of U.S. military aid. Under Bush, they sold about $30 billion less than the $169 billion of the first five years of Obama. So already in five years, he’s outsold what Bush did in eight years.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does this mean for war in the world?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I think we’re seeing the results now. As they mentioned in the prior segment, Saudi Arabia is using U.S. weapons to bomb Yemen. Civilians have been killed. Egypt is not exactly a democratic regime, as we know. Now they’ve opened sales again to them. They’ve supported dictators for many years, prior to Obama, which helped, in one hand, spark the Arab Spring, but also has armed the counterattacks by places like Egypt and the Saudis, the Saudis going in to crush democracy movement in Bahrain, along with the government there. So it’s been a force—a negative force for many years. I think it’s spinning out of control now.

AARON MATÉ: And your piece also points out that it’s not just U.S. arms going to regimes. When countries go haywire and into chaos, like in Yemen, Iraq and Syria, U.S. weapons end up in the hands of militants.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Exactly. We don’t know the full numbers, but in Iraq the security forces abandoned large amounts of the weaponry to ISIS. U.S.-armed rebels in Syria, armed by the CIA, went over to join ISIS. There’s $500 million missing of weapons in Yemen. Some think it’s gone to the Houthis. Some think it’s gone to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Of course, there’s arms on both sides, because the government and the forces have split in this war. So it’s quite possible every side of that war in Yemen may have some level of U.S. weaponry. So it’s really gone, you know, haywire. It’s sort of what I call the boomerang effect, when U.S. arms end up in the hands of U.S. adversaries.

AMY GOODMAN: I’d like to ask about a recent exchange between Deutsche Bank analyst Myles Walton and Lockheed Martin chief executive Marillyn Hewson during an earnings call in January. Financial industry analysts use earnings calls as an opportunity to ask publicly traded corporations like Lockheed about issues that might harm profitability. Hewson said that Lockheed was hoping to increase sales and that both the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region were, quote, "growth markets."

MARILLYN HEWSON: Even if there may be some kind of deal done with Iran, there is volatility all around the region, and each one of these countries believes they’ve got to protect their citizens, and the things that we can bring to them help in that regard. So, similarly, you know, that’s the Middle East, and I know that’s what you asked about, but you could take that same argument to the Asia-Pacific region, which is another growth area for us—a lot of volatility, a lot of instability, a lot of things that are happening both with North Korea as well as some of the tensions between China and Japan. And so, in both of those regions, which are growth areas for us, we expect that there’s going to continue to be opportunities for us to bring our capabilities to them.

AMY GOODMAN: During the phone call, Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson, who you were just listening to, also noted 20 percent of Lockheed’s sales in 2014 were international—that is, to non-American customers. She added, Lockheed has set a goal to get to 25 percent over the next few years. Can you talk about the significance of this, Bill Hartung?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, there’s been a slight blip in Pentagon procurement. It’s still quite high, but the companies need to grow constantly. And so they’re looking to up foreign sales to make up for any reductions at the Pentagon. And as we heard in the clip, they’re looking to areas of conflict. And it’s not surprising, but I’m surprised that she said it so explicitly. You know, she was asked about the Iran question: Would that depress the market? She basically said, "Oh, there’s plenty of turbulence there, don’t worry about it, as there is in East Asia, and these will be our growth markets." So she’s more or less acknowledging they thrive on war and the threat of war, which is not surprising to a lot of people, but nonetheless, to say it like that, I think, is a bit shocking, to just put it right out there.

AARON MATÉ: I want to ask you about drones. Earlier this year, the White House announced it will allow foreign allies to purchase U.S.-made armed drones for the first time. Under a new policy, American firms can sell their drones abroad but will be subjected to a case-by-case review. Talk about this policy. You were very critical of it.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yes. I mean, it’s got some rhetoric that makes sense: You can’t use these drones to repress your own population, for illegal surveillance, to attack your neighbors. But as we’ve seen in other cases, once they’re sold, very little control over how they’re used. And given the regimes in the Persian Gulf, they’ve already sold unarmed Predators, or about to, the UAE. So it’s quite possible we’ll see, in the context of the war on Yemen, perhaps armed drones sold to some of these countries. And, you know, it’s fine to say we’re going to control their use, but the record in Iraq and Yemen and elsewhere makes that quite dubious.

AMY GOODMAN: As we see the Obama administration’s dramatic acceleration of U.S. weapons sales abroad, can you talk about the U.S. requirements on the licensing of weapons and weapons-related exports?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, the industry has wanted a relaxation for years, and the Obama administration finally delivered that. So, they took things from the State Department, which does a somewhat better job of vetting human rights and so forth, and took thousands of items and put them in the Commerce Department, which historically has been involved in promoting arms sales, not in vetting them. So, it’s going to be easier for some countries to get arms without a license, and those countries will become hubs of smuggling, no doubt. So it’s going to be counter to the—even the narrow security interests of the United States, but it’s something industry has wanted for quite a while.

AARON MATÉ: On the positive side, the world’s first treaty regulating the arms trade took effect last year, the Arms Trade Treaty. The U.S. has signed it. Senate hasn’t ratified it. But you write that that’s still a positive thing.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yes, I think, compared to Bush, which was joined at the hip with the NRA and wouldn’t go near the Arms Trade Treaty, at least the U.S. administration signed it, although a somewhat weaker version than some of us would have liked. It commits them on paper not to sell to human rights abusers, not to let arms that may be involved in corruption. Obviously, that’s been violated, in my opinion, in some of the current sales to the Middle East, but it’s a standard that they should be held to, because they did sign that treaty.

AMY GOODMAN: So, they sign the treaty, and they accelerate weapons sales abroad. Would you say the—financing the weapons industry is actually a motivation for being involved in wars abroad?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: I think it’s one element. I think there’s an ideological element. I think there’s an element of just U.S. global reach and global control. But certainly, a reinforcing point is to sell arms and to help these companies. And it sometimes is made quite explicit. When they sell to the Saudis, for example, the Pentagon points out it will create x number of jobs in the United States. So they’re not shy about talking about the jobs aspect.

AMY GOODMAN: So, weapons industry does better under the Democrats than the Republicans?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: I would say, at the moment, they’re doing better on the arms sales front. Slightly—

AMY GOODMAN: And where do their contributions go?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, they tip usually depending who’s in power. So they’re about two-thirds Republican in the Senate and the House, which are controlled by Republicans. They’re quite supportive of Obama. There’s such a flood of money from everywhere, sometimes it’s hard to follow one stream within that huge flow of money.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you, Bill Hartung, for being with us. Final question: What are you recommending?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I think the Obama administration should live up to its principles on the Arms Trade Treaty. I think Congress should take a closer look at some of these sales, speak out against them. I think civil society groups which oppose this should make their voices louder, because in many cases most Americans don’t even know this is happening.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill Hartung is director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. His latest book, Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex. We’ll link to his piece, "The Obama Arms Bazaar: Record Sales, Troubling Results."
When we come back, we look at the drought in California. What does it have to do with animal agriculture? What does it have to do with eating meat? Stay with us.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/7/are_obamas_record_arms_sales_to

Please also refer to:

U.S. Eases Rules on Exporting Military Technology to Secure Role as World's Leading Arms Dealer
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/16/us_eases_rules_on_exporting_military

Abe eases weapons export rules:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/04/01/national/politics-diplomacy/abe-eases-weapons-export-rules/#.VsLUsP1FDZ7

Abe eases weapons export rules

Abe eases weapons export rules
The Japan Times: 1 April 2014

The Cabinet on Tuesday approved eased principles and guidelines for weapons exports, ending a strict ban that lasted nearly 50 years as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sets the stage for Japan to play a more active role in global security.

The newly adopted three principles on the transfer of defense equipment prohibit Japan from exporting arms to countries involved in conflict and to those that violate U.N. resolutions. However, Japanese firms will be able to export weapons when the deals pass government screenings, a major policy change from the previous rule of banning arms exports to all countries, apart from a few exceptions.

The new principles state that Japan will continue to embrace the basic philosophy of a pacifist state that abides by the U.N. Charter, but the change in rules has sparked concern that the nation’s trade in weapons could expand in the future.

Arms exports will be allowed only if they serve the purpose of contributing to international cooperation and security interests, such as for United Nations peace-building missions. In another example, patrol vessels can be exported to countries along sea lanes to ensure the safe flow of natural resources.

When exports are allowed, the government is supposed to impose strict screenings and make the process transparent. The unstated use and transfer of Japanese equipment to third parties will also be kept in check, according to the principles. The government will oblige partner states to gain Japan’s consent for unstated use of Japanese defense equipment or their transfer to third parties.

“Japan has proactively contributed to international peace. And this stance won’t change moving forward,” Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said after the Cabinet meeting. The Defense, Foreign, and Economy, Trade and Industry ministries will normally conduct screenings. When deals are considered important and require caution, the final decision will be made by the National Security Council, the body launched in December to speed up decision-making on defense and foreign policy.
To make the process transparent, METI is to publish annual reports on defense equipment approved for export, and disclose information on deals discussed by the NSC.

Miho Aoi, a professor of constitutional law at Gakushuin University who has closely watched the arms export issue, questioned whether the government can really make sure that exported equipment isn’t passed on to third parties without Japan’s consent.

“It’s easy to say they’ll do it, but the government will have to spend a lot of money and manpower,” Aoi said. “We must watch closely if the government can really implement a system to thoroughly check” where exported weapons ultimately end up.

The so-called three principles on arms exports were adopted in 1967, when Prime Minister Eisaku Sato declared Japan would prohibit weapons exports to communist countries, countries subject to arms embargoes under U.N. resolutions and countries involved in or feared to be involved in international conflicts.

The principles were tightened into a blanket ban in 1976 by Prime Minister Takeo Miki.
The ban started to fray in 1983, however, when the government allowed Japanese companies to provide weapons technology to the United States as an exception. Since then, 21 “exceptions” have been made by chief Cabinet secretaries issuing a statement, one of which in 2013 allowed Japanese companies to take part in developing the F-35 fighter.

In 2011, the government relaxed the rules to allow exports for humanitarian and peaceful purposes, and to make it easier to participate in joint development and production of weapons.
Information from Kyodo added

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/04/01/national/politics-diplomacy/abe-eases-weapons-export-rules/#.VsLUsP1FDZ7

Please also refer to:

Are Obama's Record Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt and Iraq Fueling Unrest in Middle East?
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/7/are_obamas_record_arms_sales_to

U.S. Eases Rules on Exporting Military Technology to Secure Role as World's Leading Arms Dealer
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/16/us_eases_rules_on_exporting_military