The spirit of aiming for the abolition of nuclear weapons should be respected. However, it must be said that it will be ineffective if this treaty ignores the role that nuclear deterrence plays in national security and the content of the treaty unilaterally urges the "prohibition" of nuclear weapons.
About three years after its adoption, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which comprehensively bans the development, possession, use and other purposes of nuclear weapons, has been ratified by 49 countries and one region. The treaty will take effect on Jan. 22 next year, 90 days after the 50th state ratified it, as stated by an article in the treaty.
The United States, Britain, France, China and Russia, which are nuclear powers, and U.S. allies such as Japan and South Korea are not participating in the treaty, and are not bound by it.
Many countries that ratified the treaty, including those in Latin America and Africa, are not directly exposed to nuclear threats. It is difficult to share an awareness of the gravity of nuclear weapons. It should not be discussed in the same manner as the treaties banning land mines and cluster munitions.
The preamble of the treaty banning nuclear weapons refers to the suffering caused to victims of nuclear weapons and shows a determination not to repeat such disasters. There is no room for discussion as to whether the use of nuclear weapons should be prohibited from a humanitarian standpoint.
On the other hand, from a security perspective, the treaty is fatally flawed in that it does not take into account the security environments of individual nuclear powers or countries that need the "nuclear umbrella" of the United States.
The United States and Russia have maintained a framework to prevent war through a balance of nuclear forces. Japan, which is close to nuclear powers China and Russia and faces the nuclear threat of North Korea, relies on the U.S. nuclear deterrent. Germany, which faces Russia, is in the same situation.
For U.S. allies, the treaty's article banning "threatening" to use nuclear weapons amounts to a denial of the credibility of the nuclear umbrella. It would shake the Japan-U.S. security framework and the foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Japan's position is to make steady progress in nuclear disarmament while appropriately dealing with real threats. The treaty banning nuclear weapons is unacceptable. As there is a possibility that participation as an observer in conferences among the parties to the treaty could be taken as an endorsement of the treaty, it is important to deal with it carefully.
As the only country to have suffered atomic bombings, Japan needs to mediate dialogue between nuclear powers and nonnuclear states and repair the rifts between them.
First and foremost, the United States and Russia, which possess 90% of the world's nuclear weapons, should promote nuclear disarmament and put a brake on the arms race. There are even some positive signs that the two countries are moving toward a compromise to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which will expire in February next year.
The role of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in which most countries of the world participate, must also be enhanced. North Korea has declared its withdrawal from the NPT and continues its nuclear development. Denuclearizing Pyongyang would be an approach to restoring confidence in the NPT regime.
-- The original Japanese article appeared in The Yomiuri Shimbun on Oct. 28, 2020.
Read more from The Japan News at https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/
