Why Is America Anxiously Demanding that Japan Return Nuclear Materials?

Published in Global Network
(China) on 3 March 2014
by Fengjun Chen (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Darius Vukasinovic. Edited by Brent Landon.
As soon as the U.S. demanded from Japan that they return nuclear materials, the announcement drew rapt attention from the worldwide community. At the same time it also left people feeling baffled — why has the U.S. has been giving plutonium to Japan for decades, and why is it now suddenly demanding that it all be returned? Ultimately, what is the connection between the U.S. and Japan where these nuclear issues are concerned? In truth, these affairs stem from the U.S. re-evaluating its position toward Japan with regard to America's nuclear umbrella policy.

The nuclear umbrella policy is a promise made by the U.S. to its allies. During the Cold War period, the U.S. nuclear umbrella covered America's staunchest supporters, which included those in the NATO alliance as well as South Korea and Japan. After the conclusion of the Cold War, America's nuclear umbrella remained an important cornerstone in maintaining relations with its friends and allies; in fact, the trend has actually been to prolong the policy's existence. In January 1965, when Japan's Prime Minister Eisaku Sato visited Washington, the U.S. president at the time, Lyndon B. Johnson, told him that "Japan has no need for nuclear weapons because the U.S. already has them. Should Japan ever need to be defended or need to contain nuclear weapons, the U.S. promises to supply them."* This statement is a concrete example of a top level bilateral arrangement made between the U.S. and Japan concerning the nuclear umbrella policy. In December of 1967, Prime Minister Eisaku Sato made his famous announcement at Japan's national parliament, stating Japan's Three Non-Nuclear Principles of nonpossession, nonproduction, and nonintroduction of nuclear weapons. This became Japan's founding policy regarding nuclear arms. The nuclear umbrella and the Three Non-Nuclear Principles are not in contradiction with one another — the former is the cause, the latter is the result. In South Korea, the U.S. also put into effect a similar nuclear umbrella policy. According to the U.S. and South Korean agreement of 1978, the U.S.-Republic of Korea Mutual Defense Treaty, America has promised that it will defend South Korea as part of its nuclear umbrella. This promise remains in place, even today.

In truth, America's intentions in providing a nuclear umbrella have been, without question, to prevent Japan and Korea from possessing nuclear arms. At the same time, come any nuclear attack on Japan, the U.S. would be personally committed to protecting it. From this perspective, we can say that the U.S. nuclear umbrella policy was formulated with the idea of maintaining America's nuclear monopoly throughout the world. But this policy, aimed at stopping the rise in the number of nuclear capable countries and the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world, did have a positive effect. This is especially evident where preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of those seeking to revive Japan's militarism has been concerned — here it has been a crucial strategic move. Japan, South Korea and other countries that are still operating within a no-nuclear weapons framework cannot neglect the checking power that the United States' nuclear umbrella holds over them.

However, America's nuclear umbrella policy also has some seriously exploitable points within it. Its greatest weakness comes from this: The U.S. and Japan are not united on the execution of the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, and in some important areas of concern, they even contradict one another. To give an example, the U.S. once entrusted Japan with processing nuclear waste materials. Another case in point: During joint military exercises with Japan and South Korea, the U.S. does not refrain from transporting, possessing and installing any nuclear arsenal. The most frightening thing of all is that the U.S. and Japan have a "secret agreement" to directly transport nuclear weapons within Japan's borders.

From this it can be seen that, under the shelter of a nuclear umbrella, the Three Non-Nuclear Principles lost shape at an early stage — it doesn't live up to its name. This kind of slant to the nuclear umbrella policy has bought along with it disastrously negative results, and ones that are becoming all the more clear as time go on. The first of these is that America's nuclear materials, its nuclear manufacturing techniques, its atomic experts and even the importing of its nuclear weapons into Japan have — when combined with Japan's own advanced nuclear energy capabilities — created the world's greatest hidden "nuclear empire" or "permitted nuclear empire." The second is that this has stimulated the wild ambitions of Japan's right wing's militarization revival and its nuclear potential. It has also aroused Japan into talking more about the "logic of possessing nuclear weapons." Therefore, it has magnified the dangerous potentials for a nuclear capable Japan.

We should thank our lucky stars that the U.S. is already on the alert over Japan's nuclear moves. Its insistence that Japan return 331 kilograms of plutonium is a clear indication of this. This writer believes that the U.S. — being absolutely clear on demanding these nuclear materials — is doing the astute thing here. But there is also another suggestion that I can raise — intimidate those who seem ambitious to form a nuclear Japan into submission. Along with the glorified rise of Japan's right wing will come a subsequent loss in power control. The U.S. must take preventative measures against this by increasing its control over Japan, its control over the nuclear umbrella and its influence, as well as demonstrating the effectiveness of its awesome power. Also, the U.S. should revise the nuclear umbrella policy to remove the weak points throughout it — keep the good parts and dispense with the bad ones. The evils within it must be eradicated completely.

Fengjun Chen is a Lecturer for Beijing University Graduate School of International Relations and a Global Network columnist.

*Editor’s note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.


美国向日本讨还核材料钚的消息一经公布,引起国际社会极大关注,同时也引发诸多疑惑:美国当年为何赠于日本钚长达几十年?现今美方为何如此急于讨还?美日在核问题上到底是怎样一种关系?实际上,这些问题归根结底还是如何评估美国对日本“核保护伞”政策的问题。
“核伞”政策是美国向其盟国作出的一种承诺。在冷战时期,美国“核保护伞”覆盖的都是其“铁杆”盟国,如北约国家、韩国、日本等。冷战后,美国的“核保护 伞”依然是其与盟友维持盟约关系的重要基石,并有进一步延伸的趋势。1965年1月,时任美国总统约翰逊对访美的日本首相佐藤荣作表示:“日本不必持有核 武器,因为美国已经有了。如果日本出于防卫而有核遏制必要的话,美国将履行承诺为其提供。”据信,这是日美首脑之间首次明确提出“核保护伞”之说。 1967年12月,时任日本首相佐藤荣作在国会演说中正式提出著名的“不制造、不拥有、不运进核武器”的“无核三原则”,并成为日本政府关于核武器的基本 政策。“核保护伞”与“无核三原则”二者并行不悖,前为因,后为果。美在韩国也实行同样的“核伞”政策。根据美韩在1978年签署的《美韩共同防御条约》,美国向韩国承诺提供“核保护伞”并延续至今。
其实,美国提供“核保护伞”的目的无非是:不准日韩等国拥核;同时,当日本受到核打击时美国承诺出面保护。从这个角度来说,美国“核伞”政策是出于其自身世界核垄断地位的考虑,但这一政策对防止核国家的增加与核扩散,起到了一定的正面作用。特别是对遏制与防止日本军国主义复活与“拥核”论调,是一项重大战略举措。日韩等国至今仍处于“无核”状态,不能不归功于美“核伞”的牵制威力。
但是,美“核伞”政策也有其严重弊端。最大的缺失在于:美日对“无核三原则”并非一以贯之,在某些重大问题上甚至背道而驰。比如,美国曾委托日本处理核废 料;又如,在美日韩频繁的军演过程中无不配有核武装置。尤为令人震惊的是,美日两国签有核武直接运入日本境内的“密约”。
可见,在“核伞”庇护下,“无核三原则”早已变味走样,名不符实。这种走偏的核伞政策带来的负面恶果日趋显露:一是由于美国将核原料、核技术、核人才乃至 核武器的“输入”,加上日本自身核能源的优势,使之或为世界上最大的潜在“核大国”或“准核大国”;二是刺激日本右翼军国主义复活与“拥核”野心, 使日本“拥核有理”的论调甚嚣尘上,从而增大了日本“拥核”危险性。
值得庆幸的是,美国对日本的核动向已有所警惕,讨回331公斤钚就是明显信号。但笔者认为,美国索要核材料固然是明智之举,但也仅仅是一个举措,尚不足以震慑日本“拥核”野心。随着日本右翼势力羽翼渐丰,大有难驾驭之势。美国必须防患于未然,加大对日防范掌控力度,牢牢掌控“核伞”这一紧篐咒,发挥其“给力”之用,修订与调整“核伞”政策中的缺失与弊端,存善避害、除恶务尽。
(陈峰君,北京大学国际关系学院教授,海外网专栏作者)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: The Epstein Curse Continues To Loom Large

Colombia: The Global Game: China Advances, but the United States Still Sets the Pace

Trinidad and Tobago: A Time for Diplomacy

Australia: As Southeast Asia Reels from Tariffs, Donald Trump’s Flashy ‘Peace’ Deal Falls Short

Ireland: Ireland Is Riding 2 Horses Galloping in Different Directions across the Atlantic

Topics

Austria: In His Blunt Manner, Vance Comes to Netanyahu’s Aid

Japan: Antagonism with South America: Ship Attacks Go Too Far

Colombia: Everything Is ‘the Caribbean’

Colombia: The Global Game: China Advances, but the United States Still Sets the Pace

Germany: The Epstein Curse Continues To Loom Large

Ireland: Ireland Is Riding 2 Horses Galloping in Different Directions across the Atlantic

Related Articles

Colombia: The Global Game: China Advances, but the United States Still Sets the Pace

Australia: As Donald Trump and Xi Jinping Prepare for Trade Talks, China Comes with a Strong Hand

Malaysia: US and China Will See a Breakthrough in Their Trade Ties at APEC: Here’s Why

Australia: Trump Seems Relaxed about Taiwan and Analysts Are Concerned