Editorial: Regaining momentum for nuclear abolition
Jan. 12, 2011
Two years ago, when Barack Obama became president of the United States, momentum built quickly for “a world without nuclear weapons.” That momentum, however, now seems to be flagging.
One reason for this involves the destabilizing events that have occurred one after the other in East Asia, including the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. Some even voice the opinion that now is not the time to discuss the abolition of nuclear arms.
At the start of this year, an internal document concerning China’s military strategy came to light. This document revealed that China would consider launching a preemptive nuclear strike if the nation found itself facing a crisis in a war with another nuclear weapon state, a stance that forsakes the policy of “no first use” of its nuclear weapons under any circumstances.
As if countering this development, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates then announced that the United States would strengthen its military capability. He said the U.S. military will seek to build new long-distance bombers that have the capacity to carry nuclear arms.
Is the idea of a world free from nuclear weapons, the vision advocated by President Obama, now fading from sight?
Despite the fact that the new START treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between the United States and Russia will soon go into effect, the two countries still hold enough nuclear warheads to annihilate the earth many times over. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France maintain their nuclear arsenals and the nations of India and Pakistan are aiming their nuclear missiles at one another. With regard to relations between the de-facto nuclear weapon state of Israel and the other nations of the Middle East, there has been no significant progress made in rapprochement.
Rather, the concern over nuclear weapons proliferation, as exemplified by uranium enrichment activities being conducted by Iran and North Korea, is mounting.
An international framework to prevent such proliferation has not even been resolved yet. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is not likely to go into effect any time soon. Negotiations involving the treaty that would ban the production of fissile materials containing highly enriched uranium and plutonium have suffered delay.
Under these circumstances, it is natural that many of the non-nuclear states and organizations campaigning for peace would call for the support of a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) that would outlaw all production and use of nuclear weapons. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has championed a convention of this kind as the breakthrough needed to advance the cause of a nuclear-weapon-free world.
However, the A-bombed nation of Japan has, in fact, helped stymie the effort for nuclear abolition.
At the annual session of U.N. General Assembly held at the end of last year, a resolution calling for the start of negotiations leading to the conclusion of an NWC was adopted with the approval of a majority of nations. As usual in such matters, however, Japan abstained from voting.
The current Japanese government has argued that the aim of nuclear abolition should be pursued by obtaining the support of the nuclear weapon states. This reasoning, though, is no different from that of the former administration led by the Liberal Democratic Party. Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who has declared that the nation will spearhead the international effort for nuclear abolition, cannot avoid the charge that his words and his actions are in contradiction.
The government’s passive attitude toward nuclear abolition is also a reflection of the public’s mood. Voices expressing support for the U.S. nuclear umbrella are steadily growing due to the instability in East Asia.
Given the worrying circumstances, wouldn’t a thorough consideration of non-nuclear diplomacy be a vital step forward? Without bold argument and action based on the A-bomb experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the aim of eliminating nuclear weapons will recede further into the distance.
As is clear by observing the six-party talks, multilateral talks with the intention to stabilize East Asia are far from a simple undertaking. However, such shared goals as realizing a nuclear-weapon-free zone for the region should serve as a catalyst for dialogue. Rather than sitting by idly, shouldn’t Japan be advocating this course of action?
To lead the effort at peace building, Japan should first enshrine the three non-nuclear principles into law and proceed on the road toward abandoning the U.S. nuclear umbrella. It would also be a wise time to rethink whether increasing cooperation militarily is the only means of deepening the alliance between Japan and the United States.
(Originally published on January 8, 2011)
One reason for this involves the destabilizing events that have occurred one after the other in East Asia, including the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. Some even voice the opinion that now is not the time to discuss the abolition of nuclear arms.
At the start of this year, an internal document concerning China’s military strategy came to light. This document revealed that China would consider launching a preemptive nuclear strike if the nation found itself facing a crisis in a war with another nuclear weapon state, a stance that forsakes the policy of “no first use” of its nuclear weapons under any circumstances.
As if countering this development, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates then announced that the United States would strengthen its military capability. He said the U.S. military will seek to build new long-distance bombers that have the capacity to carry nuclear arms.
Is the idea of a world free from nuclear weapons, the vision advocated by President Obama, now fading from sight?
Despite the fact that the new START treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between the United States and Russia will soon go into effect, the two countries still hold enough nuclear warheads to annihilate the earth many times over. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France maintain their nuclear arsenals and the nations of India and Pakistan are aiming their nuclear missiles at one another. With regard to relations between the de-facto nuclear weapon state of Israel and the other nations of the Middle East, there has been no significant progress made in rapprochement.
Rather, the concern over nuclear weapons proliferation, as exemplified by uranium enrichment activities being conducted by Iran and North Korea, is mounting.
An international framework to prevent such proliferation has not even been resolved yet. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is not likely to go into effect any time soon. Negotiations involving the treaty that would ban the production of fissile materials containing highly enriched uranium and plutonium have suffered delay.
Under these circumstances, it is natural that many of the non-nuclear states and organizations campaigning for peace would call for the support of a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) that would outlaw all production and use of nuclear weapons. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has championed a convention of this kind as the breakthrough needed to advance the cause of a nuclear-weapon-free world.
However, the A-bombed nation of Japan has, in fact, helped stymie the effort for nuclear abolition.
At the annual session of U.N. General Assembly held at the end of last year, a resolution calling for the start of negotiations leading to the conclusion of an NWC was adopted with the approval of a majority of nations. As usual in such matters, however, Japan abstained from voting.
The current Japanese government has argued that the aim of nuclear abolition should be pursued by obtaining the support of the nuclear weapon states. This reasoning, though, is no different from that of the former administration led by the Liberal Democratic Party. Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who has declared that the nation will spearhead the international effort for nuclear abolition, cannot avoid the charge that his words and his actions are in contradiction.
The government’s passive attitude toward nuclear abolition is also a reflection of the public’s mood. Voices expressing support for the U.S. nuclear umbrella are steadily growing due to the instability in East Asia.
Given the worrying circumstances, wouldn’t a thorough consideration of non-nuclear diplomacy be a vital step forward? Without bold argument and action based on the A-bomb experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the aim of eliminating nuclear weapons will recede further into the distance.
As is clear by observing the six-party talks, multilateral talks with the intention to stabilize East Asia are far from a simple undertaking. However, such shared goals as realizing a nuclear-weapon-free zone for the region should serve as a catalyst for dialogue. Rather than sitting by idly, shouldn’t Japan be advocating this course of action?
To lead the effort at peace building, Japan should first enshrine the three non-nuclear principles into law and proceed on the road toward abandoning the U.S. nuclear umbrella. It would also be a wise time to rethink whether increasing cooperation militarily is the only means of deepening the alliance between Japan and the United States.
(Originally published on January 8, 2011)
