Nuclear nations cling to their A-bombs

November 6, 2015

Editorial: Nuclear powers cling to their A-bombs, letting disarmament efforts wilt

O http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20151106p2a00m0na007000c.html

On Nov. 2, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, dedicated to disarmament issues, voted on a Japan-backed draft resolution on "united action with renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons." Especially for the only nation ever to be attacked with nuclear arms, the result was not a truly happy one.

The vote was 156 nations in favor, making 2015 the 22nd year in a row the resolution has been adopted -- a welcome development to be sure. This year, however, the United States, Britain and France -- which had all backed the draft last year -- abstained. Meanwhile, two countries that had abstained last year -- China and Russia -- voted against the resolution this year.

Until 2015, the United States had voted in favor of the resolution every year since Barack Obama took over as president in 2009. This year's version, however, contains some new wording, such as expressing "deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons," and encouraging "every effort to raise awareness of the humanitarian impact of the use of nuclear weapons, including through, among others, visits by leaders, youth and others, to the cities devastated by the use of nuclear weapons." The draft also contained the term "hibakusha" (atomic bombing survivors) in the Latin alphabet.

The phrase "humanitarian consequences" appears to have sparked the greatest alarm among all the new additions. The U.S., Britain, France, China and Russia are all permitted to possess nuclear arms under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which calls on all of them to make sincere efforts at disarmament. In recent years, however, they have been going in the opposite direction, expanding and modernizing their atomic arsenals.

That being the case, this document decrying the inhumanity of nuclear arms, and the strengthening movement for a new international legal framework including a treaty to supersede the NPT, has the U.S. and Britain on guard. Meanwhile, though Japan is calling for nuclear arms reductions under the NPT framework, does it in fact favor a new treaty banning the weapons outright? The U.S., Britain and other atomic powers have likely developed concern about that possibility as well.

The average age of the atomic bombing survivors is now over 80, and it has been 70 years since the bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The Japanese government submits the nuclear weapons abolition resolution every year, and it's no surprise that Japan included a few new phrases in the 2015 resolution. The problem is really the obstinacy of the nuclear powers, those countries clinging to their A-bombs as they make what look like half-hearted efforts at fulfilling their nuclear disarmament duties.

It is also inappropriate to dredge up historical issues in this discussion. In opposing the resolution, China referenced Japan's wartime aggression, and said that Japan was attempting to use the resolution provision on visiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a tool to twist history. At the NPT conference in April and May this year, too, China made similar claims against Japan. But then nuclear disarmament is an issue concerning the entire world, and the future of humanity itself. In this context, using Japan's past misdeeds as ammunition against it in the present is simply meaningless.

Now that the resolution has been approved by the First Committee, it will go to a General Assembly vote in December. No country is likely to change their vote in the meantime, but we would very much like to see the ostensibly anti-nuclear Obama administration take a proactive stance on the resolution and support it. The U.S. must be aware of the slow hollowing out of the NPT. If things keep progressing as they are, North Korea will become a nuclear power and the entire anti-proliferation effort will be set adrift. The U.S. should have a greater sense of urgency on this problem.

Meanwhile, even as Japan has sponsored the nuclear abolition resolution, it has taken a far more cautious attitude to a related proposal on a nuclear abolition treaty, maintaining its status as a bridge between the nuclear and non-nuclear powers. As the gap in opinion on either side of that bridge begins to widen, however, Japan will eventually be forced to change its approach. First of all, it must re-evaluate its own position as mediator, and then be a truly proactive intermediary in the pursuit of nuclear disarmament.