Why Japan's opposition to nuclear weapons has always been a sham

Christian Kessler is a historian and professor at the Athénée français de Tokyo and at universities. Next work to be published:

Japanese suicide bombers. Their story. Their final writings

The only country to have been atomized, Japan prohibits in its constitution (article 9) the use of war as well as the threat or use of force as a means of resolving international conflicts. Its position on nuclear weapons has remained unchanged since 1957 - namely not to manufacture, not to possess or not to introduce such weapons into its territory. This axis of anti-nuclear policy, this theory of “three nis”, is the work of the former Japanese Prime Minister Eisaku Sato (1964 to 1972) who also won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1974 for his anti-nuclear commitment.

However, confidential documents from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, declassified, revealed that in reality, Eisaku Sato asked the United States, in 1965, to be ready to use the atomic bomb against China in the event of conflict. This must nevertheless be placed in the context of 1964, when the world had just learned with astonishment of China's entry into the club of nuclear powers, at a time when neither Japan nor the United States had diplomatic relations with this country. According to these documents, Eisaku Sato even proposed to Robert McNamara, US Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, under the presidencies of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, that such action could be undertaken from Japanese territorial waters. , in contradiction with his anti-nuclear profession of faith. We also know that the “three nors” were not respected: the Americans probably stored such weapons on certain Japanese islands - always between the 60s and 70s - at the height of the Cold War.

The forced resignation of Japan's Defense Minister, Fumio Kyuma, on July 3, 2007, also raises the question of nuclear weapons. In his incriminating remarks, the minister but also deputy for the martyred city of Nagasaki, had justified the two atomic bombings by calling them

, something no Japanese had until then dared to say.

he estimated. These remarks caused an uproar throughout the country. However, there is nothing unique about them. Historians have long known that, if the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the primary proven objective of forcing a Japan under the control of nationalist fanatics who promised resistance to the point of collective suicide, it was also for Harry S. Truman to put a stop to Stalin who was preparing to sweep into the north of the archipelago. Fumio Kyuma's point of view has not been fundamentally denied and he undoubtedly said out loud what many political leaders were thinking quietly. It was in relation to the lack of regard for the victims that he was criticized. It suggests that for this minister, but also for many politicians in power, the atomic bomb becomes a weapon, the use of which can be justified by a country at war.

Thus, Japanese “constitutional pacifism” is a sham pacifism. For decades, Japan has been pursuing a “virtual arsenal” policy, meaning that it is a potential nuclear power.

Christian Kessler

From then on, no moral obstacle would prevent Japan from acquiring it, too. These revelations and statements show that Japanese politicians have probably never positioned themselves in complete opposition to nuclear weapons. For many years, certain ministers have admitted the nuclear potential of their country. In June 1994, Prime Minister Tsutomu Hata publicly declared:

. "

And in fact, specialists consider that with its financial strike force and its tons of surplus plutonium, the country would have enough to manufacture 500 Nagasaki-type bombs in a relatively short time and even build a simulation system replacing the tests. Coupled with the performance of the electronics and aerospace industries, Japanese nuclear capabilities would be among the most advanced in the world. The country does not have an atomic weapon, but has the technical capabilities to acquire one in record time. It is therefore located in a “gray zone”.

Thus, Japanese “constitutional pacifism” is a sham pacifism. For decades, Japan has been pursuing a “virtual arsenal” policy, meaning that it is a potential nuclear power. A political, or even geopolitical, turnaround could therefore tip over the country that signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The crucial question is of course to know under what conditions Japan could move from virtual to real by becoming an effective nuclear power, as desired by certain nostalgic nationalists and part of the ruling right. It would undoubtedly take a serious crisis, a direct threat to its territory and the American withdrawal to reach this end. At that point, even the famous nuclear “allergy” (

) which has characterized the Japanese mentality since Hiroshima, could be transgressed. It is also possible to think that over time, the memory of the bomb could fade among new generations and give way to a more positive vision of the absolute weapon as an attribute of power. Because Japan renounced nuclear weapons in 1945, much like the Tokugawa (a Japanese dynasty) renounced firearms at the beginning of the 17th century: pacifism is possible as long as Japan remains far from the international scene. This is no longer the case today, under pressure from the Americans and its own political class in power, in the face of the deterioration, in recent years, of the security context in East Asia.

It is therefore a three-point nuclear defense strategy that prevails: all-out anti-nuclear diplomacy, protection of the American “umbrella”, “virtual” deterrence. Added today is the idea of ​​“nuclear sharing”, a system in which the five countries which have adopted it (Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Turkey), accept that nuclear warheads are stored in the bases. Americans who are on their territory. In nuclear sharing, there is neither independent use right nor veto right, which makes use easier. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon. By including Japan in this sharing, we would strengthen the United States-Japan alliance, which would constitute a strong deterrent. The recent discussions between US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on April 11 probably also focused on this issue. Especially since according to a survey by the

newspaper , as of March 2023, 83.1% of people questioned in Japan responded that they were in favor of a debate on nuclear sharing, proof that the feelings of the Japanese are evolving in the face of to the nuclear threat mentioned by Vladimir Putin.