Japan is often described as a pacifist country. At the same time, it is not a militarily weak country. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Japan’s military expenditure reached about $62.2 billion in 2025, or 1.4% of GDP. Some private military strength rankings also place Japan among the world’s top military powers. For example, Global Firepower ranked Japan 7th out of 145 countries in its 2026 index. These facts do not mean that Japan has abandoned pacifism, but they do show why Japan’s security policy is difficult to explain in simple words.
Japan has a constitution that renounces war, but it also has Self-Defense Forces. It depends on the United States for security, but it also spends significant money on its own defense. To understand this balance, we need to start with Article 9.
Article 9 is part of Japan’s postwar constitution, which came into effect in 1947. It says that Japan renounces war as a sovereign right and will not maintain land, sea, or air forces, or other war potential. In simple terms, it expresses the idea that Japan should never again use war as a tool of national policy.
However, Japan does have the Self-Defense Forces. The usual explanation is that Article 9 does not prevent Japan from having the minimum force necessary for self-defense. This has created a long-standing tension between the text of the constitution and the reality of national security. Japan is not a country without defense, but it has tried to define defense in a limited and non-aggressive way.
For many Japanese people, Article 9 is more than a legal clause. It is connected to the memory of World War II, the destruction caused by war, and the desire to rebuild Japan as a peaceful nation. This is why the article has become part of Japan’s postwar national identity. It is not only about what the government can do; it is also about what kind of country Japan believes it should be.
At the same time, the meaning of Article 9 has never been simple. Some people believe it has helped Japan remain peaceful and trusted. Others argue that the constitution should clearly recognize the Self-Defense Forces and match today’s security reality. Both views are part of a serious national debate.
Explaining Article 9 to foreigners therefore requires balance. It is not accurate to say that Japan has no military power. It is also not accurate to say that Japan has simply abandoned pacifism. Japan has lived for decades with a careful compromise: keeping a pacifist constitution while maintaining forces for self-defense. That compromise is now being questioned more openly than before.
