Joint statement opposing use of nuclear weapons: Australian diplomatic correspondence reveals Japan lent support despite concerns
Mar. 14, 2014
Impact on U.S. nuclear umbrella considered
by Yumi Kanazaki, Staff Writer
Last October, 125 nations, including Japan, signed a statement issued by the First Committee (disarmament and international security) of the United Nations General Assembly that cited the inhumanity of nuclear weapons and declared that they must not be used. It was the first time Japan lent its support to such a statement. The course of some of the negotiations leading up to Japan’s decision to sign the statement have been revealed in documents released by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). A picture emerges of the change of course Japan made after New Zealand, which proposed the joint statement, mounted a diplomatic offensive to get it to sign. The documents indicate that Japan signed despite its concern that such a step would weaken its relationship with the United States, which provides it with a nuclear umbrella (nuclear deterrence).
A total of 112 pages of documents were released, including reports and e-mail messages exchanged between Australia’s DFAT and its disarmament envoy, among other Australian entities, on the one side and Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the other, mostly in October and November of last year. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a non-governmental organization, obtained the documents last month after requesting them under Australia’s Freedom of Information Act.
Japan and Australia have so far cited their security policies, which include dependence on U.S. nuclear deterrence, and have expressed a desire to bring about nuclear disarmament with a “step-by-step” approach under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Meanwhile, since 2012, at sessions of the U.N. General Assembly and meetings of the NPT preparatory committee, Switzerland and Mexico, which want to accelerate the movement to abolish nuclear weapons, have proposed statements citing the inhumanity of nuclear weapons and seeking a ban on their use. The governments of Japan and Australia came under fire from atomic bomb survivors and citizens’ groups in both nations for their failure to support these statements.
According to the documents that were released, at the U.N. General Assembly session last year, Australia expressed concern about the statement’s impact on the nuclear umbrella and strongly opposed this language: “It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances.” Japan had similar reservations and at one point made revision of this wording a condition of its support for the joint statement.
In a report prepared in late September, one diplomat said, “In my own discussions with the Japanese, it is clear that this whole issue has been causing them great anxiety.” The report also suggests that the government was concerned about the course of the negotiations and how the U.S. would respond to its approach. The report noted that on October 10, “after two weeks of intensive consultations on the issue, [the Ministry of Foreign Affairs] had recommended Foreign Minister Kishida approve Japan's support for the statement.” An e-mail message stated that Australia should consider its stance based on the “strong response” of the U.S. to Japan. It is believed that the harsh criticism of Japan by the U.S. may have made Australia even more cautious.
Stronger urging needed
According to Tim Wright, Australian director for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), Japan has taken a step forward, but Japan and Australia are alike in their rejection of moves that would lead to a treaty banning nuclear weapons. There is an even greater need for urging by the public, he said.
Analysis: Outcry from Hiroshima put pressure on foreign minister
Japan and Australia are preparing for their jointly led foreign ministerial meeting of the Non-proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI), comprising 12 non-nuclear nations, to be held in Hiroshima next month. Though they consistently fall in line when it comes to nuclear disarmament, at the U.N. General Assembly session last fall, the two nations went their separate ways with regard to the joint statement. Public opinion in Hiroshima had an impact on Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, who represents a local electoral district. The change in his stance was brought about by no more than that.
The documents that were released illustrate how uneasy Australia was about any action that would have an adverse effect on the nuclear umbrella of the U.S. One diplomat expressed alarm that “the implicit objective” of the statement was “to advocate for a nuclear weapons convention to outlaw the possession of nuclear weapons.” Another high-ranking official justified Australia’s reliance on the nuclear umbrella saying, “We should also say that it is precisely because the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use are so horrendous that deterrence works.”
This notion is completely incompatible with the sentiments of Hiroshima. Just who does Australia think might launch a nuclear attack against it? Australia’s expression of faith in the notion that these inhumane and dangerous weapons are keeping the nation safe is surprising.
Although Japan signed the statement at the United Nations, the government’s desire to remain under the nuclear umbrella remains unchanged. This must not be forgotten.
Next month a meeting of the preparatory committee of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty will be held on the heels of the foreign ministerial meeting of the NPDI. There will also be a session of the U.N. General Assembly in the fall. What will Japan and Australia do if a more specific statement citing the inhumanity of nuclear weapons and calling for a ban on their use is proposed? If they reject such a statement again, it may throw cold water on the growing momentum toward nuclear abolition. The message of Hiroshima will once again be put to the test.
(Originally published on March 12, 2014)
by Yumi Kanazaki, Staff Writer
Last October, 125 nations, including Japan, signed a statement issued by the First Committee (disarmament and international security) of the United Nations General Assembly that cited the inhumanity of nuclear weapons and declared that they must not be used. It was the first time Japan lent its support to such a statement. The course of some of the negotiations leading up to Japan’s decision to sign the statement have been revealed in documents released by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). A picture emerges of the change of course Japan made after New Zealand, which proposed the joint statement, mounted a diplomatic offensive to get it to sign. The documents indicate that Japan signed despite its concern that such a step would weaken its relationship with the United States, which provides it with a nuclear umbrella (nuclear deterrence).
A total of 112 pages of documents were released, including reports and e-mail messages exchanged between Australia’s DFAT and its disarmament envoy, among other Australian entities, on the one side and Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the other, mostly in October and November of last year. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a non-governmental organization, obtained the documents last month after requesting them under Australia’s Freedom of Information Act.
Japan and Australia have so far cited their security policies, which include dependence on U.S. nuclear deterrence, and have expressed a desire to bring about nuclear disarmament with a “step-by-step” approach under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Meanwhile, since 2012, at sessions of the U.N. General Assembly and meetings of the NPT preparatory committee, Switzerland and Mexico, which want to accelerate the movement to abolish nuclear weapons, have proposed statements citing the inhumanity of nuclear weapons and seeking a ban on their use. The governments of Japan and Australia came under fire from atomic bomb survivors and citizens’ groups in both nations for their failure to support these statements.
According to the documents that were released, at the U.N. General Assembly session last year, Australia expressed concern about the statement’s impact on the nuclear umbrella and strongly opposed this language: “It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances.” Japan had similar reservations and at one point made revision of this wording a condition of its support for the joint statement.
In a report prepared in late September, one diplomat said, “In my own discussions with the Japanese, it is clear that this whole issue has been causing them great anxiety.” The report also suggests that the government was concerned about the course of the negotiations and how the U.S. would respond to its approach. The report noted that on October 10, “after two weeks of intensive consultations on the issue, [the Ministry of Foreign Affairs] had recommended Foreign Minister Kishida approve Japan's support for the statement.” An e-mail message stated that Australia should consider its stance based on the “strong response” of the U.S. to Japan. It is believed that the harsh criticism of Japan by the U.S. may have made Australia even more cautious.
Stronger urging needed
According to Tim Wright, Australian director for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), Japan has taken a step forward, but Japan and Australia are alike in their rejection of moves that would lead to a treaty banning nuclear weapons. There is an even greater need for urging by the public, he said.
Analysis: Outcry from Hiroshima put pressure on foreign minister
Japan and Australia are preparing for their jointly led foreign ministerial meeting of the Non-proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI), comprising 12 non-nuclear nations, to be held in Hiroshima next month. Though they consistently fall in line when it comes to nuclear disarmament, at the U.N. General Assembly session last fall, the two nations went their separate ways with regard to the joint statement. Public opinion in Hiroshima had an impact on Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, who represents a local electoral district. The change in his stance was brought about by no more than that.
The documents that were released illustrate how uneasy Australia was about any action that would have an adverse effect on the nuclear umbrella of the U.S. One diplomat expressed alarm that “the implicit objective” of the statement was “to advocate for a nuclear weapons convention to outlaw the possession of nuclear weapons.” Another high-ranking official justified Australia’s reliance on the nuclear umbrella saying, “We should also say that it is precisely because the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use are so horrendous that deterrence works.”
This notion is completely incompatible with the sentiments of Hiroshima. Just who does Australia think might launch a nuclear attack against it? Australia’s expression of faith in the notion that these inhumane and dangerous weapons are keeping the nation safe is surprising.
Although Japan signed the statement at the United Nations, the government’s desire to remain under the nuclear umbrella remains unchanged. This must not be forgotten.
Next month a meeting of the preparatory committee of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty will be held on the heels of the foreign ministerial meeting of the NPDI. There will also be a session of the U.N. General Assembly in the fall. What will Japan and Australia do if a more specific statement citing the inhumanity of nuclear weapons and calling for a ban on their use is proposed? If they reject such a statement again, it may throw cold water on the growing momentum toward nuclear abolition. The message of Hiroshima will once again be put to the test.
(Originally published on March 12, 2014)
