Britain has thrown its weight behind Japan’s military expansion, with a government minister declaring Tokyo’s build-up “critical” for global security. The statement, delivered during a joint press conference in London, signals a deepening of defence ties between the two island nations, both wary of assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific.
Defence Procurement Minister James Cartlidge said Japan’s decision to double its defence budget by 2027, the largest overhaul since the post-war era, was not a threat but a necessary deterrent. “In a world where autocratic powers seek to redraw borders by force, Japan’s resolve strengthens the rules-based order,” he told reporters. “This is about peace through strength.”
The endorsement came as Japan’s ambassador to the UK, Hiroshi Suzuki, confirmed Tokyo would co-host a major Nato exercise in the Indo-Pacific next year, deepening a partnership that has moved from trade to military hardware. Last month, Britain and Japan signed a reciprocal access agreement, allowing troops to train on each other’s soil.
But the rush to arm has stirred unease, particularly in Japan’s industrial heartlands. Critics point to a citizenry that has long cherished its pacifist constitution, Article 9, which renounces war as a sovereign right. While Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s government argues the charter allows for self-defence, many Japanese remember the devastation of 1945. Polls show a split: a majority accept the need for a stronger military, yet few trust that it can be held in check.
For the British worker, the connection may seem remote. Yet the cost is tangible. The UK is shifting its own defence posture eastward, committing to a carrier strike group deployment in the Pacific by 2025. That means money that could shore up crumbling schools or fix potholed roads goes to warships and missiles. In Sheffield and Sunderland, where steel and shipbuilding once thrived, the promise of “security” rings hollow if the breadline grows longer.
Labour MP John Healey, shadow defence secretary, warned against “unfettered military spending without parliamentary scrutiny”. He called for a full debate on the implications for UK jobs and public services. “We cannot sleepwalk into a new arms race while families struggle to heat their homes,” he said.
The endorsement also risks straining ties with China, Japan’s largest trading partner. Beijing has repeatedly condemned the militarisation of the region. For a Labour government that might seek Chinese investment, the balancing act is delicate.
Nevertheless, the government insists the partnership is about deterrence, not provocation. Cartlidge pointed to joint development of next-generation fighter jets and shared missile technology as examples of a relationship that “puts peace first”.
Yet for those on factory floors in Osaka or Newcastle, the question remains: who decides what is “critical”? And who pays?
