Comment: Leadership needed from Japan following support of statement on nuclear weapons
Oct. 18, 2013
by Junpei Fujimura, Staff Writer
Behind Japan’s move to sign the new joint statement on the humanitarian impact and non-use of nuclear weapons is the nation’s desire to exercise leadership in the field of nuclear disarmament as the only country to have suffered nuclear attack, coupled with the desire of New Zealand and like-minded nations to make the statement as influential as possible. Still, Japan’s dependence on the U.S. nuclear umbrella has not changed. Whether or not the new statement can add momentum among the international community to abolish nuclear weapons remains to be seen.
Japan’s endorsement of the joint statement was a difficult challenge for Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, elected from district one in Hiroshima, an A-bombed city. The challenge, though, had to be met as Japan would like to make its presence felt at a series of upcoming international conferences on nuclear disarmament, such as the Non-proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI), a foreign ministers’ meeting composed of 12 non-nuclear states and scheduled to take place in Hiroshima next spring, and the Review Conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2015, marking the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings.
When Japan backed away from signing a similar statement in the spring--the third statement it had declined to endorse--the government was hit by harsh criticism, particularly from the A-bombed cities. Since then, during his travels abroad, Mr. Kishida has taken pains to explain Japan’s point of view, faced with such security threats as North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and missile activity, as he tried to pave the way for the nation to endorse the next statement.
The countries that produced the statement have also sought to bring more nations on board. A foreign ministry official had said, “If Japan joins the statement, this will have a strong impact.” The support of the country that suffered the atomic bombings can boost the total number of nations willing to back this declaration.
The primary condition for Japan, in signing the statement, is the guarantee that its endorsement will not affect U.S. nuclear policy. Japan reportedly made sure that the new statement will not bind Japan’s ability to act in the event of a crisis. This, however, underscores Japan’s contradictory policy in relying on the U.S. nuclear umbrella while calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
The countries that have jointly proposed the statement have consistently called for nuclear arms to be outlawed. Japan, on the other hand, has pushed for a step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament, which it views as more realistic. One positive angle on the statement is the fact that these two camps, which propose different approaches to nuclear abolition, have come together. The Japanese government must now act responsibly and pursue this new opening.
(Originally published on October 12, 2013)
Behind Japan’s move to sign the new joint statement on the humanitarian impact and non-use of nuclear weapons is the nation’s desire to exercise leadership in the field of nuclear disarmament as the only country to have suffered nuclear attack, coupled with the desire of New Zealand and like-minded nations to make the statement as influential as possible. Still, Japan’s dependence on the U.S. nuclear umbrella has not changed. Whether or not the new statement can add momentum among the international community to abolish nuclear weapons remains to be seen.
Japan’s endorsement of the joint statement was a difficult challenge for Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, elected from district one in Hiroshima, an A-bombed city. The challenge, though, had to be met as Japan would like to make its presence felt at a series of upcoming international conferences on nuclear disarmament, such as the Non-proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI), a foreign ministers’ meeting composed of 12 non-nuclear states and scheduled to take place in Hiroshima next spring, and the Review Conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2015, marking the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings.
When Japan backed away from signing a similar statement in the spring--the third statement it had declined to endorse--the government was hit by harsh criticism, particularly from the A-bombed cities. Since then, during his travels abroad, Mr. Kishida has taken pains to explain Japan’s point of view, faced with such security threats as North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and missile activity, as he tried to pave the way for the nation to endorse the next statement.
The countries that produced the statement have also sought to bring more nations on board. A foreign ministry official had said, “If Japan joins the statement, this will have a strong impact.” The support of the country that suffered the atomic bombings can boost the total number of nations willing to back this declaration.
The primary condition for Japan, in signing the statement, is the guarantee that its endorsement will not affect U.S. nuclear policy. Japan reportedly made sure that the new statement will not bind Japan’s ability to act in the event of a crisis. This, however, underscores Japan’s contradictory policy in relying on the U.S. nuclear umbrella while calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
The countries that have jointly proposed the statement have consistently called for nuclear arms to be outlawed. Japan, on the other hand, has pushed for a step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament, which it views as more realistic. One positive angle on the statement is the fact that these two camps, which propose different approaches to nuclear abolition, have come together. The Japanese government must now act responsibly and pursue this new opening.
(Originally published on October 12, 2013)
