Editorial: Former Prime Minister Abe’s remarks on “nuclear sharing” completely unacceptable
Mar. 1, 2022
Russian President Vladimir Putin has launched an invasion of Ukraine in an attempt to change the status quo by military force and even hinted at the potential for use of nuclear weapons. Amid such a situation in which nuclear war is a real possibility, the former prime minister of the A-bombed nation of Japan, of all people, has suddenly shown up on the scene by making unacceptable remarks.
Shinzo Abe, Japan’s former prime minister and a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, expressed his opinion on a commercial television broadcast that Japan should discuss the nuclear-sharing option, which calls for the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan. Why would he make such a remark as Ukraine is under siege and so many have fallen victim in that conflict? Mr. Abe took advantage of the Ukraine crisis to make the controversial proposal, which would violate the three non-nuclear principles to which Japan closely adheres.
Japanese people have experienced the horror of atomic bombings and know well that nuclear weapons cannot protect humanity. In fact, there are A-bomb survivors who continue to suffer 77 years later. Only natural, therefore, is the criticism leveled at Mr. Abe’s remarks by people in the A-bombed cities.
Mr. Abe also mentioned on the broadcast that, “Japan has to set the goal of nuclear abolition as the A-bombed nation.” The words of the former prime minister have great impact on the international community. The concern in this case is that his overall message might be interpreted to mean that Japan could abrogate its non-nuclear principles.
“From Japan’s perspective of upholding the three non-nuclear principles, the policy is unacceptable,” was Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s response, which he expressed at a budget committee meeting in Japan’s House of Councilors (upper house of the Diet). Without stopping there, Mr. Kishida should go so far as to demand that Mr. Abe withdraw his remarks. It is necessary for the government of the A-bombed nation to take the lead in discussions on a national security policy that is not reliant on nuclear weapons.
The nuclear-sharing arrangement is a military strategy to enhance, through the shared possession of nuclear weapons, the nuclear deterrence capability of nuclear-power allies that do not possess their own weapons. Five member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including Germany, Italy and Belgium, have been hosting U.S. nuclear weapons on their own territory, with operations of the weapons placed under joint control.
Mr. Abe touched on the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, through which the United States, Russia, and Britain committed to respecting the sovereignty and assuring the security of Ukraine in exchange for that country giving up nuclear weapons following the fall of the Soviet Union. “Some argue about what might have happened had Ukraine held on to some of their tactical nuclear weapons at that time,” Mr. Abe pointed out. Was his implication that the country would not have been invaded had it been in possession of nuclear weapons?
“Japan should conduct deliberations while keeping various options in mind,” Mr. Abe added forcefully. The comments could be interpreted by some to mean that Mr. Abe is encouraging the nation to arm itself with nuclear weapons.
The day before yesterday, a national referendum in Belarus, a country adjacent to Ukraine, resulted in rejection of a provision in the nation’s current constitution stipulating that the country must maintain neutrality without possessing nuclear weapons. As a result, a concern has arisen that Russian nuclear weapons could be deployed on Belarusian soil.
It feels like a return to the Cold War era. However, former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev chose to reduce nuclear armaments based on the understanding that there are no victors in nuclear war. One wonders if that decision, which led to the end of the Cold War, has been forgotten.
So long as nuclear weapons exist, there remains the risk that a one-time accident could occur or that the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. Not only that, there is no guarantee that a leader of a nuclear power would never make a foolish error in judgment such as that being witnessed in the case of Mr. Putin.
If nuclear weapons were to be used, there would cease to be any allies or foes. Clearly, the weapons do not function as a deterrent. That realization by the international community surely prompted the establishment of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Abolition of nuclear weapons is the only way to achieve peace and security. Such is the message that should be communicated to the world by the government of the nation that knows all too well the horror of this ultimate in inhumane weapons.
(Originally published on March 1, 2022)
Shinzo Abe, Japan’s former prime minister and a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, expressed his opinion on a commercial television broadcast that Japan should discuss the nuclear-sharing option, which calls for the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan. Why would he make such a remark as Ukraine is under siege and so many have fallen victim in that conflict? Mr. Abe took advantage of the Ukraine crisis to make the controversial proposal, which would violate the three non-nuclear principles to which Japan closely adheres.
Japanese people have experienced the horror of atomic bombings and know well that nuclear weapons cannot protect humanity. In fact, there are A-bomb survivors who continue to suffer 77 years later. Only natural, therefore, is the criticism leveled at Mr. Abe’s remarks by people in the A-bombed cities.
Mr. Abe also mentioned on the broadcast that, “Japan has to set the goal of nuclear abolition as the A-bombed nation.” The words of the former prime minister have great impact on the international community. The concern in this case is that his overall message might be interpreted to mean that Japan could abrogate its non-nuclear principles.
“From Japan’s perspective of upholding the three non-nuclear principles, the policy is unacceptable,” was Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s response, which he expressed at a budget committee meeting in Japan’s House of Councilors (upper house of the Diet). Without stopping there, Mr. Kishida should go so far as to demand that Mr. Abe withdraw his remarks. It is necessary for the government of the A-bombed nation to take the lead in discussions on a national security policy that is not reliant on nuclear weapons.
The nuclear-sharing arrangement is a military strategy to enhance, through the shared possession of nuclear weapons, the nuclear deterrence capability of nuclear-power allies that do not possess their own weapons. Five member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including Germany, Italy and Belgium, have been hosting U.S. nuclear weapons on their own territory, with operations of the weapons placed under joint control.
Mr. Abe touched on the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, through which the United States, Russia, and Britain committed to respecting the sovereignty and assuring the security of Ukraine in exchange for that country giving up nuclear weapons following the fall of the Soviet Union. “Some argue about what might have happened had Ukraine held on to some of their tactical nuclear weapons at that time,” Mr. Abe pointed out. Was his implication that the country would not have been invaded had it been in possession of nuclear weapons?
“Japan should conduct deliberations while keeping various options in mind,” Mr. Abe added forcefully. The comments could be interpreted by some to mean that Mr. Abe is encouraging the nation to arm itself with nuclear weapons.
The day before yesterday, a national referendum in Belarus, a country adjacent to Ukraine, resulted in rejection of a provision in the nation’s current constitution stipulating that the country must maintain neutrality without possessing nuclear weapons. As a result, a concern has arisen that Russian nuclear weapons could be deployed on Belarusian soil.
It feels like a return to the Cold War era. However, former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev chose to reduce nuclear armaments based on the understanding that there are no victors in nuclear war. One wonders if that decision, which led to the end of the Cold War, has been forgotten.
So long as nuclear weapons exist, there remains the risk that a one-time accident could occur or that the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. Not only that, there is no guarantee that a leader of a nuclear power would never make a foolish error in judgment such as that being witnessed in the case of Mr. Putin.
If nuclear weapons were to be used, there would cease to be any allies or foes. Clearly, the weapons do not function as a deterrent. That realization by the international community surely prompted the establishment of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Abolition of nuclear weapons is the only way to achieve peace and security. Such is the message that should be communicated to the world by the government of the nation that knows all too well the horror of this ultimate in inhumane weapons.
(Originally published on March 1, 2022)
