August 9, 2007
Japan’s House of Councilors election held five days ago saw an historic defeat for the ruling parties, the Liberal Democratic Party and the Komei Party. This was a clear-cut judgment the people passed on the policies of the Abe cabinet formed 10 months ago, policies which found expression in the exacerbated poverty and the widening gap between rich and poor as well as in justification of the past war of aggression. The crushing defeat of the LDP, which placed constitutional revision at the top of its election platform, has dealt a heavy blow to the pro-Yasukuni forces that form the backbone of the Abe cabinet calling for Japan’s “departure from the postwar regime.” This at the same time means that a new political process has started to seek a political course as an alternative to the Abe government. We have renewed our resolve to make further efforts as demanded by the current situation.
As regards peace, the abnormal character of the Abe cabinet was clearly demonstrated by Defense Minister Kyuma’s incredible remark made just before the election campaign started, that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki “couldn’t be helped.” Fumio Kyuma, the then Defense Minister, on June 30 said in his speech at Reitaku University, “Indeed countless numbers of people suffered disasters, but my understanding is that it ended the war and that it couldn’t be helped.”
Sixty-two years ago, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed the two cities and killed more than 200,000 people indiscriminately, including children and old people. Many people who were burned by heat rays and exposed to radiation are still suffering. The excuse that the bombing brought a speedy ending to the war and saved many lives does not hold water. The U.S. military leadership at the time had an understanding that the atomic bombing was unnecessary for bringing Japan to capitulation, as it had lost most of its warfare capability. Dwight Eisenhower was one of those who opposed the atomic bombing, which was clearly recorded in his memoirs.
Justifying the atomic bombing with the words “it couldn’t helped” not only further violates the victims, but also leads to justification of a third use of nuclear weapons. The crux of the matter is that nuclear weapons are against humanity, and that they should be eliminated. Included in the UN General Assembly’s first resolution in 1946 was “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons,” which shows the international community’s determination postwar.
What we can read from Mr. Kyuma’s remarks is the Abe government’s position of relying on the U.S. “nuclear umbrella,” abstaining on resolutions on a ban on the use of nuclear weapons, and turning its back on the swift abolition of nuclear weapons. During last year’s UN General Assembly sessions, the Japanese government abstained on both the Malaysia-proposed resolution of “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons” and the India-proposed “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons.” It also abstained from voting on the elimination of nuclear weapons which Myanmar presented on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. They say “it is yet too early” to demand the start of negotiations for a treaty on elimination of nuclear weapons and prohibition of their use, and that any treaty must be one based on reality with a step-by-step approach.
The World Conference against A and H Bombs, succeeding to the determination of the international community postwar, has now developed into a movement embracing national governments, municipalities and citizens’ movements, with the common goal of the abolition of nuclear weapons. This has taken shape since representatives of the governments which made great efforts in the 2000 NPT Review Conference participated in that year’s World Conference.
At the 2000 NPT Review Conference, even the nuclear weapon states agreed to an “unequivocal undertaking” to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. But the Bush administration, with its “preemptive attack strategy” backed by its enormous nuclear arsenal, revoked its promise. It has developed a military strategy for integrated use of nuclear and conventional weapons, and is carrying forward a nuclear weapon development plan to secure for dozens of years ahead a large number of nuclear weapons with a lower threshold for their use.
Meanwhile, the Iraq quagmire has exposed the failure of the “preemptive attack strategy” for all to see. The U.S, policy to prevent “nuclear proliferation” for others while clinging to its own nuclear weapons, aggravated the situation about the nuclear program in North Korea and Iran. Mirroring these realities, earlier this year, former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and three other former U.S. Government and Congressional leaders published an appeal in the Wall Street Journal, stating, “we endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal.” Last June in a speech in Washington, the then British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, referring to their appeal, expressed her sense of urgency over the NPT regime being threatened by the nuclear weapon states’ neglect of disarmament efforts, and called for strengthened international activity toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.
In the face of the nuclear tests by North Korea last October, the international community centered around the United Nations has unanimously made efforts towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. The road to an actual settlement will be full of twists and turns, but there is now a possibility to resolve this question through the six-party talks. We seek the swift elimination of nuclear weapons on a global scale, and therefore, we criticize the NPT regime that allows a monopoly of nuclear weapons by the few, and at the same time shall never tolerate the emergence of new nuclear weapon states under any pretexts.
In order to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, whether to implement the accord of the 2000 NPT Review Conference is once again called into question, the accord which includes13-point “practical measures,” including “unequivocal undertaking” to eliminate nuclear arsenals by nuclear weapon states, as well as a commitment to security assurances for non-nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT. In late April this year, the U.S. government presented a document to the preparatory committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, and insisted that the 13-point “practical measures” are inappropriate in the present international circumstances. On the basis of the achievements in the 2000 NPT Review Conference, we should step up activities to demand the elimination of nuclear weapons, with a view to the 2010 NPT Review Conference.
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which the Abe cabinet shows enmity towards, is an irreplaceable world treasure which comes at the expense of the enormous sacrifice of the peoples in Asia and Japan. An attempt to adversely revise this Constitution goes against the friendship with Asian nations and to bring back the militarism we experienced in the past. We must not simply accept this attempt. Let’s carry out our responsibility as the only atomic-bombed country and energetically develop our struggle against nuclear weapons and for peace.
Ogata Yasuo
Member, Committee of Chairpersons,
Organizing Committee of World Conference Against A and H Bombs
Vice Chairperson, Japanese Communist Party
As regards peace, the abnormal character of the Abe cabinet was clearly demonstrated by Defense Minister Kyuma’s incredible remark made just before the election campaign started, that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki “couldn’t be helped.” Fumio Kyuma, the then Defense Minister, on June 30 said in his speech at Reitaku University, “Indeed countless numbers of people suffered disasters, but my understanding is that it ended the war and that it couldn’t be helped.”
Sixty-two years ago, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed the two cities and killed more than 200,000 people indiscriminately, including children and old people. Many people who were burned by heat rays and exposed to radiation are still suffering. The excuse that the bombing brought a speedy ending to the war and saved many lives does not hold water. The U.S. military leadership at the time had an understanding that the atomic bombing was unnecessary for bringing Japan to capitulation, as it had lost most of its warfare capability. Dwight Eisenhower was one of those who opposed the atomic bombing, which was clearly recorded in his memoirs.
Justifying the atomic bombing with the words “it couldn’t helped” not only further violates the victims, but also leads to justification of a third use of nuclear weapons. The crux of the matter is that nuclear weapons are against humanity, and that they should be eliminated. Included in the UN General Assembly’s first resolution in 1946 was “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons,” which shows the international community’s determination postwar.
What we can read from Mr. Kyuma’s remarks is the Abe government’s position of relying on the U.S. “nuclear umbrella,” abstaining on resolutions on a ban on the use of nuclear weapons, and turning its back on the swift abolition of nuclear weapons. During last year’s UN General Assembly sessions, the Japanese government abstained on both the Malaysia-proposed resolution of “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons” and the India-proposed “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons.” It also abstained from voting on the elimination of nuclear weapons which Myanmar presented on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. They say “it is yet too early” to demand the start of negotiations for a treaty on elimination of nuclear weapons and prohibition of their use, and that any treaty must be one based on reality with a step-by-step approach.
The World Conference against A and H Bombs, succeeding to the determination of the international community postwar, has now developed into a movement embracing national governments, municipalities and citizens’ movements, with the common goal of the abolition of nuclear weapons. This has taken shape since representatives of the governments which made great efforts in the 2000 NPT Review Conference participated in that year’s World Conference.
At the 2000 NPT Review Conference, even the nuclear weapon states agreed to an “unequivocal undertaking” to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. But the Bush administration, with its “preemptive attack strategy” backed by its enormous nuclear arsenal, revoked its promise. It has developed a military strategy for integrated use of nuclear and conventional weapons, and is carrying forward a nuclear weapon development plan to secure for dozens of years ahead a large number of nuclear weapons with a lower threshold for their use.
Meanwhile, the Iraq quagmire has exposed the failure of the “preemptive attack strategy” for all to see. The U.S, policy to prevent “nuclear proliferation” for others while clinging to its own nuclear weapons, aggravated the situation about the nuclear program in North Korea and Iran. Mirroring these realities, earlier this year, former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and three other former U.S. Government and Congressional leaders published an appeal in the Wall Street Journal, stating, “we endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal.” Last June in a speech in Washington, the then British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, referring to their appeal, expressed her sense of urgency over the NPT regime being threatened by the nuclear weapon states’ neglect of disarmament efforts, and called for strengthened international activity toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.
In the face of the nuclear tests by North Korea last October, the international community centered around the United Nations has unanimously made efforts towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. The road to an actual settlement will be full of twists and turns, but there is now a possibility to resolve this question through the six-party talks. We seek the swift elimination of nuclear weapons on a global scale, and therefore, we criticize the NPT regime that allows a monopoly of nuclear weapons by the few, and at the same time shall never tolerate the emergence of new nuclear weapon states under any pretexts.
In order to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, whether to implement the accord of the 2000 NPT Review Conference is once again called into question, the accord which includes13-point “practical measures,” including “unequivocal undertaking” to eliminate nuclear arsenals by nuclear weapon states, as well as a commitment to security assurances for non-nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT. In late April this year, the U.S. government presented a document to the preparatory committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, and insisted that the 13-point “practical measures” are inappropriate in the present international circumstances. On the basis of the achievements in the 2000 NPT Review Conference, we should step up activities to demand the elimination of nuclear weapons, with a view to the 2010 NPT Review Conference.
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which the Abe cabinet shows enmity towards, is an irreplaceable world treasure which comes at the expense of the enormous sacrifice of the peoples in Asia and Japan. An attempt to adversely revise this Constitution goes against the friendship with Asian nations and to bring back the militarism we experienced in the past. We must not simply accept this attempt. Let’s carry out our responsibility as the only atomic-bombed country and energetically develop our struggle against nuclear weapons and for peace.
Ogata Yasuo
Member, Committee of Chairpersons,
Organizing Committee of World Conference Against A and H Bombs
Vice Chairperson, Japanese Communist Party
