One of the focuses of the revisions to three security-related documents this year is the review of the three non-nuclear principles. This is because, although Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has explained that the three principles are ``firmly upheld as a policy,'' he has not explicitly stated that he will maintain the ``no importation'' policy into the future.
Three Non-Nuclear Principles - Prime Minister Takaichi is conscious of revising the security document
Why is there now a debate about the US bringing nuclear weapons to Japan? We spoke with University of Tsukuba Professor Atsuko Higashino, who was a member of the government's ``Expert Council that considers security from the perspective of comprehensive national strength'' and who opposed the revision of the three documents, and former Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobukatsu Kanehara, who compiled recommendations from the private sector in favor of the revision.
◇It is possible to strengthen deterrence by maintaining the three principles: Professor Atsuko Higashino, University of Tsukuba
- At a meeting of experts, you expressed your opposition to revising the three non-nuclear principles.
There is no need to change the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, and they should not be subject to revision of the three documents. If changes are to be made, an expert meeting of nuclear experts should be held.
-Why do you think there is no need to change?
The purpose of the three document revisions is to respond to "new ways of fighting" (such as drones and artificial intelligence). Japan is a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and the three non-nuclear principles of ``don't have, don't make'' are commonplace. The question is, "Do not allow nuclear weapons to be brought into Japan," but even if they are allowed to be brought into Japan, the meaning differs depending on whether it is an emergency or peacetime situation, and whether it is assumed that nuclear-equipped ships will make a temporary port call or that they will be brought into the country. The current discussion does not make that distinction.
The US has not changed its ``NCND'' policy of neither denying nor confirming whether nuclear weapons exist in specific locations. It is not a simple case that if Japan decides to bring in nuclear weapons from the United States, it will increase deterrence. It is necessary to work out the relationship with U.S. policy and operations.
-Those who favor the revision hope that the U.S.'s demonstration of its nuclear presence will strengthen deterrence.
Even without reconsidering the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, it is possible to increase deterrence by strengthening conventional forces. Those who want to reevaluate the situation insist on the possibility of a nuclear attack by China, but it is assumed that future emergencies faced by Japan will be a complex crisis that includes cyberattacks and cognitive warfare rather than traditional forms of war. Priorities are different.
―If you decide to revise it, what will be the impact on foreign and domestic politics?
Japan's reputation as the ``only atomic bombing country'' and its commitment to nuclear abolition and non-proliferation will be seriously undermined. China will say, ``Japan is on the path to becoming a nuclear power.'' It is not hard to imagine the amount of backlash there would be in Japan. Some may fear the risk of being ``caught up'' with the alliance.
-What are the important points to focus on when reviewing the three documents?
The idea was to make Japan think that attacking Japan would be pointless as it would not cause much damage, thereby discouraging attacks. The key is to be resilient and able to recover quickly if attacked. It is important to develop infrastructure, including roads and ports, and the Self-Defense Forces equipment. Priority should be given to areas with which the public is highly satisfied.
[Biography of Atsuko Higashino]
Atsuko Higashino completed her doctoral course at the University of Birmingham, Graduate School of Politics and International Relations. After serving as an expert researcher at the Japanese government's mission to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and as an associate professor at Hiroshima City University, he became a professor at the University of Tsukuba. Specializes in European international politics. 54 years old.
◇ Deterrence of China by nuclear-equipped ships calling at ports = Former Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobukatsu Kanehara
- Of the three non-nuclear principles, is it necessary to revise "not allowed to be brought into the country"?
The only way to deter China, which is increasing its nuclear arsenal, is to say, ``If you shoot, the United States will shoot back.'' "Do not allow people to bring in" should be changed to "Do not allow them to be shot," or delete it. How can we protect the safety of our citizens by telling the United States not to bring nuclear weapons into the country?
-Japan is already under the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
The United States has declared that it will protect Japan with strategic nuclear weapons (with high explosive power). However, strategic nuclear weapons are so powerful that they are "unusable weapons." On the other hand, if China proceeds with the development of tactical nuclear weapons, which have lower yield and are said to be easier to deploy in actual combat, it is necessary to discuss with the US side whether the United States would also use tactical nuclear weapons to defend Japan.
-The United States has a policy of not disclosing the location of its nuclear weapons.
The Japanese government has previously explained that U.S. warships calling at ports in Japan do not carry nuclear weapons. Given that the United States has not explicitly stated the existence of nuclear weapons, this can be called a lie. There is no need to discuss (routine port calls) now (because the United States removed its sea-based tactical nuclear weapons after the Cold War).
However, the United States plans to deploy a sea-launched cruise missile (SLCMN) equipped with a nuclear warhead, probably in the late 2030s. The port calls to Japan will begin again, but I can't lie anymore. Even if we don't know whether the country is carrying nuclear weapons or not, we must say ``I accept it.''
-The government is following former Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada's statement in the Diet, which stated that in an emergency situation, the government at the time should decide whether or not a nuclear-equipped ship should be allowed to call at a port. Is this not enough?
It's not enough. Mr. Okada said, ``Someone will make the decision,'' and the focus now is on who will make the decision. Deterrence will not work unless ports are made available during peacetime.
-Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has said that he "firmly upholds" the three non-nuclear principles, but also includes implications for future revisions.
If we really want to change things, we need to get public opinion on our side. This is an issue that divides national opinion, and if it appears too forceful, it will fail. It should be discussed openly at a meeting of experts, and if it receives majority support, it should be advanced.
[Biography of Nobukatsu Kanehara]
Nobukatsu Kanehara (Nobukatsu Kanehara) Graduated from the University of Tokyo in law. Joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1981. He has previously served as Director-General of International Law, Deputy Assistant Secretary-General of the Cabinet Secretariat (For Foreign Affairs), and Deputy Director-General of the National Security Bureau. Executive director of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation in 2013. Born in Yamaguchi Prefecture. 67 years old.
