It was also reported that Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso – deeply impressed by Obama’s speech which mentioned an American ‘moral responsibility’ as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon – sent a personal letter to President Obama in order to express Japan’s strong commitment to the US initiative for non-proliferation and disarmament.
At the same time, Obama’s speech also illuminated the so-called ‘nuclear dilemma’ that inherently exists in Japan’s post-war nuclear policy. As often mentioned, while keeping its national identity as a non-nuclear state, Japan has consistently relied upon the US nuclear umbrella for its national security.
Although logic of both positions is fundamentally contradictory, the Japanese Government has been able to maintain these two different postures as integral parts of its nuclear policy.
As Japan perceives greater threats from within its region (for example, from North Korea), Japan’s ‘nuclear dilemma’ will become more prominent. Tokyo’s commitment to nuclear disarmament as a global agenda will occasionally be challenged by regional security demands, which call for credible nuclear deterrence by the United States.
This is why Japan should make greater efforts at securing regional stability, such as through the denuclearisation of North Korea. Such efforts will not only mitigate immediate threats but also help to preserve its non-nuclear identity while reducing its dependence on the US nuclear extended deterrence over the long term.
This post is adapted from a longer article, ‘Japan’s Nuclear Policy: Between Non-Nuclear Identity and US Extended Deterrence’, published in Nautilus. It can be found here.
The US has other moral obligations beyond the elimiation of nuclear arms too.
A world free of any nuclear weapons will be good for everyone, except some handful. Nuclear disarmament of the two nuclear superpowers should be welcomed by all countries.
Just as Japan’s nuclear dilemma, if the Americans are serious of world including Asia peace and stability, they should cease to continue their cold war thinking and strategies and put an end to NATO’s expansion, and begin to dismantle all cold war military structure, treaties and organisations.
The world needs a new security structure that is based on UN Security Council. For that to be effective and reliable, the Security Council needs to be reformed. Broader permanent representation of the world current reality is required. The veto power by each of the 5 permanent members should change to make it less extreme.
Americans not only have the moral obligation for eliminating all nuclear arms, they, as the sole superpower and the leader of the only cold war era legacy of NATO, also have the moral obligation to bury all cold war legacies and to establish a new collective world security.
Eventually, the world should be a place of humanity of permanent peace and every country, every nation, irrespective large or small, no matter of rich or poor will live with dignity, peace and harmony. They will compete (just like the market economy) as well as cooperate with each other for prosperity and better living standard.
It would be interesting to know what concrete proposals might come out of the argument that ‘Japan should make greater efforts at securing regional stability, such as through the denuclearisation of North Korea.’ What would these ‘greater efforts’ consist of? Japan can hardly ramp up sanctions against NK any further – this is an approach that has just about reached the limits of its potential. The Six-Party talks have not proven a very effective instrument either. What else is there?
On a related point: the big difference between the Bush and Obama administrations is the latter’s apparent adoption of nuclear disarmament as a way of dealing with the problem of nuclear proliferation. However, this is very long-term methodology, which does not have much pay-off in the short term, and is hardly going to have any immediate effect on the strategic dynamics in NE Asia that impact on Japanese security.