Editorial: Japan and U.S. now at odds over nuclear disarmament
Nov. 10, 2018
A resolution on the abolition of nuclear weapons, proposed by Japan, has been adopted by the First Committee of the United Nations, which deals with disarmament issues. This is the 25th such resolution that has been sponsored by Japan and adopted in as many years. This year’s resolution garnered support from 160 countries and regions, an increase of 16 over last year. However, Austria and some other supporters of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons abstained from voting. Among the nuclear weapon states, the United States abstained, and the United Kingdom was the only nuclear power to support Japan’s resolution.
The fact that the resolution was not backed by a mix of nuclear nations and non-nuclear nations highlights the Japanese government’s half-hearted attitude toward the elimination of nuclear arms. How can Japan effectively serve as a bridge between these two sides under such circumstances? This plainly shows the lack of logic in the government’s approach.
Japan’s approach began to waver after Donald Trump became president of the United States last year. Until that time, the number of countries that supported Japan’s resolution had increased each year before decreasing by 23 last year. Because last year’s resolution made no direct mention of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, some non-nuclear nations became skeptical of the Japanese government’s seriousness about nuclear abolition. As a result, they stopped backing the resolution and abstained from voting. But due to the weaker language used in the resolution regarding the inhumanity of nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, all of which are nuclear weapon states, supported that resolution.
It looks as if the Japanese government is in a state of confusion, torn between trying to please both sides. The fact that the government of the only nation to have suffered nuclear attack is acting in this way, instead of exercising leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons, is appalling.
The government must have been worried over last year’s sharp drop in the number of countries that supported its resolution. This year’s resolution did not mention the nuclear weapons ban treaty, either, but it referred to Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which stipulates that the nuclear weapon states have an obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament, as well as the agreements made at NPT Review Conferences in the past. This year’s resolution thus took a more severe stand toward the nuclear weapon states.
However, it was learned the day before yesterday that the United States reacted very negatively toward the draft resolution. The United States reportedly said that the NPT was a treaty for nuclear non-proliferation and that nuclear disarmament should not become the focus. It also urged Japan to amend the draft, arguing that the past agreements made among all the signatories, including the nuclear-armed states, were now outdated. This follows the nuclear policy of the Trump administration, which seeks to possess “usable nuclear arms.”
It is also too one-sided to interpret the NPT as a treaty for nuclear non-proliferation. The treaty would not have more than 190 signatories if its aim were only to prevent nuclear arms from proliferating into other countries beyond the five main nuclear powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. It must be remembered that the treaty requires all nuclear weapon states to reduce their nuclear arms and seeks to make the world free of nuclear weapons. This is why the NPT is still functioning.
Last month President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which was concluded with the former Soviet Union. As the administration won a certain level of support in the midterm elections held last week, Mr. Trump may grow more confident and adopt a harder-line nuclear strategy.
The Japanese government, which relies on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for its security, supports “a gradual reduction of nuclear arms” as a realistic approach to the elimination of nuclear weapons. But the reality is that there are mounting concerns about military expansion.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted by the United Nations through the diligent efforts of some non-nuclear nations after they realized that they could not leave the issue of disarmament up to the nuclear weapon states. Thus, this is nuclear disarmament led by non-nuclear states.
With Japan’s painful knowledge of the humanitarian consequences that nuclear weapons can bring about, it is clear which side Japan should be on. The resolution proposed by this nation must welcome the trend toward abolition and persistently urge the nuclear powers to advance efforts for nuclear disarmament.
(Originally published on November 10, 2018)
The fact that the resolution was not backed by a mix of nuclear nations and non-nuclear nations highlights the Japanese government’s half-hearted attitude toward the elimination of nuclear arms. How can Japan effectively serve as a bridge between these two sides under such circumstances? This plainly shows the lack of logic in the government’s approach.
Japan’s approach began to waver after Donald Trump became president of the United States last year. Until that time, the number of countries that supported Japan’s resolution had increased each year before decreasing by 23 last year. Because last year’s resolution made no direct mention of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, some non-nuclear nations became skeptical of the Japanese government’s seriousness about nuclear abolition. As a result, they stopped backing the resolution and abstained from voting. But due to the weaker language used in the resolution regarding the inhumanity of nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, all of which are nuclear weapon states, supported that resolution.
It looks as if the Japanese government is in a state of confusion, torn between trying to please both sides. The fact that the government of the only nation to have suffered nuclear attack is acting in this way, instead of exercising leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons, is appalling.
The government must have been worried over last year’s sharp drop in the number of countries that supported its resolution. This year’s resolution did not mention the nuclear weapons ban treaty, either, but it referred to Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which stipulates that the nuclear weapon states have an obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament, as well as the agreements made at NPT Review Conferences in the past. This year’s resolution thus took a more severe stand toward the nuclear weapon states.
However, it was learned the day before yesterday that the United States reacted very negatively toward the draft resolution. The United States reportedly said that the NPT was a treaty for nuclear non-proliferation and that nuclear disarmament should not become the focus. It also urged Japan to amend the draft, arguing that the past agreements made among all the signatories, including the nuclear-armed states, were now outdated. This follows the nuclear policy of the Trump administration, which seeks to possess “usable nuclear arms.”
It is also too one-sided to interpret the NPT as a treaty for nuclear non-proliferation. The treaty would not have more than 190 signatories if its aim were only to prevent nuclear arms from proliferating into other countries beyond the five main nuclear powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. It must be remembered that the treaty requires all nuclear weapon states to reduce their nuclear arms and seeks to make the world free of nuclear weapons. This is why the NPT is still functioning.
Last month President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which was concluded with the former Soviet Union. As the administration won a certain level of support in the midterm elections held last week, Mr. Trump may grow more confident and adopt a harder-line nuclear strategy.
The Japanese government, which relies on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for its security, supports “a gradual reduction of nuclear arms” as a realistic approach to the elimination of nuclear weapons. But the reality is that there are mounting concerns about military expansion.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted by the United Nations through the diligent efforts of some non-nuclear nations after they realized that they could not leave the issue of disarmament up to the nuclear weapon states. Thus, this is nuclear disarmament led by non-nuclear states.
With Japan’s painful knowledge of the humanitarian consequences that nuclear weapons can bring about, it is clear which side Japan should be on. The resolution proposed by this nation must welcome the trend toward abolition and persistently urge the nuclear powers to advance efforts for nuclear disarmament.
(Originally published on November 10, 2018)
