President Sanae Takaichi has pushed Japan to rethink its pacifist constitution and to strengthen its armed forces, a move that has sparked fierce debate. The defence minister, Shinjiro Koizumi, told the BBC that a revised Article 9 and new arms‑export rules are essential to keep Japan safe from a resurgent China or a missile‑armed North Korea.
Japan’s new defence policy is also taking a bold step forward in the Indo‑Pacific. The country will now offer destroyers to neighbours such as Australia, the Philippines and New Zealand, and even discusses trade in used warships with Indonesia. These moves aim to build a “multi‑layered deterrence” and to become a reliable partner for the United States, but they also bring Japan’s military closer to the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.
For many indigenous peoples who live on, or alongside, the islands, the prospect of increased naval activity means more patrols, new ports and a surge in commodity shipping. The sonar, planes and drills could disturb reefs and fishing grounds that have been staples of traditional medicine for generations. Traditionally, the sea is more than a resource: it is a living community that offers medicine, spirituality and identity. In the Senkaku islands, white‑flaged hunters and cedar tree guardians alike worry that war preparations may destroy the seabed biodiversity that their ancestors stewarded for centuries.
Beyond the islands, the Japanese coastline is home to communities whose livelihoods depend on rivers, forests and coastal wetlands. The recent push to increase defense spending to 2 % of GDP and to invest heavily in surface‑to‑ship missiles and unmanned drones could lead to new construction along coastlines, potentially damaging mangroves and water filters that purify local waters. Such changes would threaten the cultural practices of Ainu, Ryukyuan and other indigenous groups who rely on clear, unpolluted environments for their ceremonies and traditional healing practices.
The government frames these reforms as a deterrent against war, but many critics argue that the post‑war constitution is still capable of providing a “peaceful” defense posture if used responsibly. “We do not need an amendment to defend against China,” said Hirohito Ogi, a senior research fellow. “It is a political agenda with little basis in military reality.”
Nevertheless, the debate is far from settled. The rise of national security rhetoric has already prompted anti‑war protests among Japanese and indigenous youths across the country. These protests, led by students and elders who remember the trauma of the war and the loss of indigenous lands, demand that any changes to the constitution take into account the rights and memories of all communities, especially those whose culture is inextricably linked to the land and sea.
One indigenous group that is particularly concerned is the Yunakari people of central Japan. Their shrine, located near a site of proposed naval construction, teaches that humans and nature must remain in balance. “Our ancestors taught that war harms the land equally,” says Yunakari elder Taka. “If we allow weapons to grow, we risk damaging our seas and the medicines that have survived for thousands of years.”
In light of these voices, the question of defending Japan’s sovereignty has sharpened into a broader conversation about how a nation balances national security with environmental stewardship and the cultural heritage of its indigenous populations. While the talk of deterrence dominates diplomatic halls, the quiet voices from the coastlines remind us that true resilience comes from respect for the land, sea, and the old knowledge that sustains both.
