Japan's Schizophrenia Toward Nuclear Weapons

TOKYO - The hot, muggy days of early August are a time when Japanese turn their thoughts to mushroom clouds. The dates August 6, and August 9 denote the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 67 years ago.

They are occasions for commemorative events in the two cities, speeches by the prime minister, displays of the bombings and their horrific aftermath in cities throughout the country, symposiums on nuclear disarmament and exhortations by the mayors of the two cities to abolish nuclear weapons entirely.

This year was no different, yet there was an undercurrent of conflicting emotions that one hasn't seen before, one could almost say that the Japanese are genuinely torn between their historical impulse toward nuclear disarmament and their growing concern about their unpredictable nuclear-armed neighbor across The Sea of Japan.

President Barack Obama's speech in Prague calling for a world free of nuclear armaments was welcomed in Japan, Indeed, it seems as if the Japanese have paid closer attention to it and debated its meaning than any other people, certainly more than Americans. Mayor TomihisaTaue of Nagasaki invoked President Obama's "watershed speech" in his memorial day remarks, as did others.

In July Kurt Campbell and Wallace Gregson visited Tokyo. They are respectively the new assistant secretaries for East Asian and Pacific Affairs for the state and defense departments in the Obama administration. They met with members of the government and the opposition party.

The real purpose of the meeting, other than acquainting two administration newcomers with Asian portfolios, was to discuss "extended nuclear deterrence or the "nuclear umbrella" - the U.S. promise to defend Japan even with nuclear weapons if necessary. Campbell told the Nikkei newspaper that the two countries will hold regular discussions on America's "extended nuclear deterrence" to protect Asian allies - a kind of nuclear umbrella forum.

There have been consultations and refinements to the U.S.-Japan alliance in the past, but it is fair to say that extended nuclear deterrence has not been on the agenda for a long time, As far as Japan and the U.S. is concerned Northeast-Asia has been a nuclear-free zone since President George H.W. Bush ordered tactical nuclear weapons removed from South Korea and from aboard naval ships.

The catalyst for this new thinking about nuclear options in Asia is, of course, North Korea's second detonation of an underground atomic bomb in May, preceded by the firing of a multi-stage rocket over Japanese airspace in April. China's slow but steady military modernization is also cause for concern.

At the same time, Japan is in the midst of an historic general election. The Liberal Democratic Party, a reliable partner with the U.S. for more than 50 years, is facing defeat at the hands of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), some of whose members hail from the pacifistic tradition of the old Socialist Party of Japan.

This schizophrenic attitude toward nuclear deterrence can be seen in the man who very likely will be Japan's prime minister this time next month. DPJ president Yukio Hatoyama professes his enthusiasm for the elimination of nuclear weapons. In a speech in Hiroshima on August 6 Hatoyama said, "President Obama's speech was very moving. I vow to make every effort to achieve a world
without nuclear weapons."

Yet in July Hatoyama hinted that his government might be "flexible" on the principle of not introducing nuclear weapons into Japan, one of the three country's sacred "Nos" regarding nuclear weapons. "This question has been dealt with in a pragmatic manner precisely because there was a need, with regard to the North Korea issue."

Since first enunciated by former premier Eisaku Sato in 1970, the "Three Nos" have been a foundation of Japan's foreign and defense policy. The Three Nos are never to (1) possess (2) manufacture or (3) allow nuclear weapons to be brought into its territory.

These principles have been repeated by every subsequent prime minister and enshrined in a resolution of the Diet (parliament). However, they do not have the force of law, which probably explains why they might be treated "flexibly".

The Japanese press has been flogging a story in which a senior foreign affairs ministry official went on the record claiming that there existed a secret protocol to the 1960 U.S.- Japan Security Treaty which allowed the U.S. to bring atomic weapons on its ships or to pass through territorial waters without seeking Tokyo's advance approval.

The government does not acknowledge its existence. There is speculation that should the DPJ win the election and assume power, that it might declassify these documents. It is generally believed that Tokyo turned a blind eye to nuclear-armed ships up until they were removed as normal complement by the senior president Bush.

Hatoyama backtracked after Mizuho Fukushima, leader of the left-wing Social Democratic Party, fiercely condemned his remarks. "If the three principles become shaky, Japan will not be able to talk to the world about the elimination of nuclear arms," she argued. She pressed for legislation making the three principles legally binding.

"It is unthinkable for U.S. ships carrying nuclear arms to call on Japanese ports. I believe that the three principles will continue to be full observed in the future." Hatoyama later said at a press conference in Hiroshima on August 6.

The Social Democratic Party has but a few members in the Diet (and may have fewer still after the election), but for the moment the main opposition party must defer to them. The two have formed an alliance to fight the August 30 general election.

Even if the DPJ obtains a clear majority in the House of Representatives, it still must depend on allies such as the SDP to control the upper house of Japan's bicameral national legislature, where it is a few votes short of a majority. This will be the case until next July when half of the house is up for election. One can fairly assume that Hatoyama and his lieutenants will be pulling out the stops to win an outright majority in that election.

The DPJ still has some members who came of age in the old socialist party, which opposed the security treaty and even the existence of the self-defense forces as the Japanese call their armed forces. But their numbers and influence are diminishing and will diminish further with the likely intake of 100 or so new parliamentarians who have no personal ties to the older parties.