The beginning of a tough road ahead
Oct. 26, 2020
by Yumi Kanazaki, Executive Director, Hiroshima Peace Media Center
The worst weapons of indiscriminate mass slaughter used for the first time in human history in wartime on Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be rendered illegal under international law on January 22 next year. That is when the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons takes effect, representing the first step toward “the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons.” But that does not mean the end is in sight. In fact, a longer, more difficult path awaits.
On October 25, when the number of nations and regions ratifying the treaty reached 50, A-bomb survivors rejoiced. Listening to their expressions of delight, I remembered what a survivor had said a few days earlier. “I won’t be able to witness the elimination of nuclear weapons [while still alive]. But I believe the treaty will always shine its light amid a difficult future.” Thinking of that path until elimination is realized, I felt my heart would break, because effectuation of the treaty seems as if it may have been too late.
On that fateful day 75 years ago, people of Hiroshima were burned alive. Survivors suffered from radiation injuries and died before hearing this news about the treaty. Survivors still alive today have become elderly. Effectuation of the treaty is nothing but the fruit brought forth the determination shared by all A-bomb sufferers that “others must never experience what we went through.”
After the treaty comes into force, the possession, production, and transfer of nuclear weapons, and other acts, will violate the law. But the treaty is not binding for the nine nuclear-weapon states, which possess around 13,000 nuclear weapons, unless they become parties to the treaty. The shared feeling of guilt about possessing such weapons of evil, however, will surely spread around the world.
The Japanese government is the one that should feel guilty. Although it experienced nuclear attacks, Japan not only relies on U.S. nuclear deterrence but seeks it out while maintaining that joining the treaty is “premature.”
Nations that promote the nuclear ban treaty regard it as a complement to, or reinforcement of, the obligation to disarm stipulated in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear weapon states claim that the nuclear ban treaty will deepen the division between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states. The rift between them is deep. Concerning this issue, however, the target of criticism should be those nations that cling to such horrific weapons.
This year, once again, the Japanese national government submitted an antinuclear resolution to the UN General Assembly’s First Committee, which deals with disarmament issues. The resolution is said to make no direct mention of the nuclear ban treaty. If the country that experienced nuclear attacks requests all UN member states to support its resolution just as the excitement of the ban treaty’s effectuation permeates the United Nations, does that not constitute an act of support for nuclear weapon states, which are trying to widen the rift between the nations? That is not at all consistent with Japan’s self-image of serving as a “bridge” between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states.
The Japanese government can no longer gloss over its tendency to take both sides of this issue, with its public face toward A-bomb survivors being one side and its actual national security policy the other.
The greater the number of nations that are parties to the treaty, the stronger its presence will grow. People around the world should urge their own governments to sign and ratify the treaty. In Japan, the treaty must be ratified in the Diet. The will of the people is what can move the parliamentary body to act. Ironic it is that this process seems difficult, but the next task has come into view: the A-bombed cities have to motivate the A-bombed nation to act.
(Originally published on October 26, 2020)
The worst weapons of indiscriminate mass slaughter used for the first time in human history in wartime on Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be rendered illegal under international law on January 22 next year. That is when the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons takes effect, representing the first step toward “the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons.” But that does not mean the end is in sight. In fact, a longer, more difficult path awaits.
On October 25, when the number of nations and regions ratifying the treaty reached 50, A-bomb survivors rejoiced. Listening to their expressions of delight, I remembered what a survivor had said a few days earlier. “I won’t be able to witness the elimination of nuclear weapons [while still alive]. But I believe the treaty will always shine its light amid a difficult future.” Thinking of that path until elimination is realized, I felt my heart would break, because effectuation of the treaty seems as if it may have been too late.
On that fateful day 75 years ago, people of Hiroshima were burned alive. Survivors suffered from radiation injuries and died before hearing this news about the treaty. Survivors still alive today have become elderly. Effectuation of the treaty is nothing but the fruit brought forth the determination shared by all A-bomb sufferers that “others must never experience what we went through.”
After the treaty comes into force, the possession, production, and transfer of nuclear weapons, and other acts, will violate the law. But the treaty is not binding for the nine nuclear-weapon states, which possess around 13,000 nuclear weapons, unless they become parties to the treaty. The shared feeling of guilt about possessing such weapons of evil, however, will surely spread around the world.
The Japanese government is the one that should feel guilty. Although it experienced nuclear attacks, Japan not only relies on U.S. nuclear deterrence but seeks it out while maintaining that joining the treaty is “premature.”
Nations that promote the nuclear ban treaty regard it as a complement to, or reinforcement of, the obligation to disarm stipulated in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear weapon states claim that the nuclear ban treaty will deepen the division between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states. The rift between them is deep. Concerning this issue, however, the target of criticism should be those nations that cling to such horrific weapons.
This year, once again, the Japanese national government submitted an antinuclear resolution to the UN General Assembly’s First Committee, which deals with disarmament issues. The resolution is said to make no direct mention of the nuclear ban treaty. If the country that experienced nuclear attacks requests all UN member states to support its resolution just as the excitement of the ban treaty’s effectuation permeates the United Nations, does that not constitute an act of support for nuclear weapon states, which are trying to widen the rift between the nations? That is not at all consistent with Japan’s self-image of serving as a “bridge” between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states.
The Japanese government can no longer gloss over its tendency to take both sides of this issue, with its public face toward A-bomb survivors being one side and its actual national security policy the other.
The greater the number of nations that are parties to the treaty, the stronger its presence will grow. People around the world should urge their own governments to sign and ratify the treaty. In Japan, the treaty must be ratified in the Diet. The will of the people is what can move the parliamentary body to act. Ironic it is that this process seems difficult, but the next task has come into view: the A-bombed cities have to motivate the A-bombed nation to act.
(Originally published on October 26, 2020)
