The Obama Initiative and Differing Degrees of Commitment on Nuclear Deterrence

Published in The Mainichi Daily News
(Japan) on 18 April 2010
by Masato Kishimoto (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nathan Biant. Edited by Alex Brewer.
It has been one year since U.S. President Obama’s speech in Prague calling for a world without nuclear weapons. From the beginning of April to the beginning of May is the “Obama Initiative” month.

(1) The U.S. government’s “Nuclear Posture Review” (NPR) was announced on April 6. This sets out to convert half-hearted security guarantees by stating the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons against countries that adhere to non-proliferation.

(2) Nuclear superpowers America and Russia signed the new nuclear disarmament treaty on April 8.

(3) On April 12 and 13 a Nuclear Security Summit was held where leaders of 47 countries, including India and Pakistan, who possess nuclear weapons, and Israel, who is thought to be possessing them, confirmed the nuclear terrorism countermeasures. All three of these countries are not yet affiliated with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

From May 3 onward, an NPT review meeting, where the national interests of each country are sure to collide — such as Iran, who despite being one of the countries affiliated with the NPT is still believed to be developing nuclear weapons — is going to be held, and discussions regarding nuclear arms will be treated as a major turning point.

Editorials of every newspaper have mostly assessed the U.S.-Russia nuclear disarmament treaty and Nuclear Security Summit. Regarding the summit, The Mainichi stated that “there is no evident correspondence with North Korea,” and what was “significant” was that Ukraine declared it would abandon the highly enriched uranium it possessed. Regarding the U.S.-Russia nuclear disarmament signing, the Asahi said that “they have put in the groundwork, urging action from other countries retaining nuclear weapons,” especially having sought nuclear disarmament from China. The Yomiuri, Nikkei and Sankei newspapers each had pretty much the same opinions.

Facing these things, varying degrees of commitment have been observed, but they are estimations of the U.S. government’s “Nuclear Posture Review.”

Mainichi welcomes “the evaluation of the Obama administration’s initiative, which aims to improve the presently dangerous condition of the world by returning to the starting points of the teetering NPT.” Along the same lines, it is “natural” that North Korea, which has carried out nuclear tests with Iran, was made an exception from the passive security guarantees. Making requests of North Korea while keeping in mind the threat they pose to Japan, “the American nuclear strategy must be certain about whether or not to contribute to the peace and safety of Japan.”

The newspaper that has strongly hammered out doubts concerning the NPR is the Sankei. They published an article with the title “Fear bequeathed for use in a ‘Nuclear umbrella’ “ and expressed concern about reducing the role of nuclear weapons, having emphasized that both Japan and America “must advance the fortification of defense and control conditions in which there is no end to the attainment of nuclear weapons from their conventional (military) forces.”

The Yomiuri are avoiding making any definite evaluations regarding the NPR, opining that, “the decision to weaken the deterrence of realistic threats probably won’t be made.” The Nikkei, upon making the assessment that the NPR was “a step in the promotion of a world without nuclear weapons,” stated, “America, which is keeping an eye on countries like China and North Korea, must defend its nuclear deterrent force which at the present time is shaky.”

Meanwhile, regarding the relationship between North Korea and the NPR, the Asahi has not given any definite opinions or assessments.



論調観測 オバマ・イニシアチブ 「核抑止」めぐり温度差

「核兵器なき世界」を呼びかけたオバマ米大統領のプラハ演説から1年。今月上旬から5月初めにかけては「オバマ・イニシアチブ」月間である。

 (1)核不拡散を順守する非核保有国に核兵器を使用しない「消極的安全保障」など核戦略転換を打ち出した米政府の「核態勢見直し」(NPR)発表=6日

 (2)核超大国である米露による新核軍縮条約の調印=8日

(3)核拡散防止条約(NPT)未加盟で核兵器を持つインド、パキスタン、保有国とみなされるイスラエルを含め、47カ国の首脳が核テロ対策を確認した核安全保障サミット=12・13日

そして、来月3日からは、NPT加盟国ながら核兵器開発が懸念されるイランなど各国の国益がぶつかり合うNPT再検討会議が開催され、核をめぐる議論は大きな山場を迎える。

各紙社説は一連のイベントのうち米露の核軍縮と核安保サミットをおおむね評価した。毎日は、サミットについて「北朝鮮への対応が明確でない」としつつも、ウクライナなどが高濃縮ウラン放棄を表明したことを「意義深い」と述べた。朝日は米露の核軍縮調印について「他の保有国の動きを促す下地を作った」とし、特に中国に核軍縮を求めた。読売、日経、産経各紙もほぼ同様の主張だった。

これに対して、温度差が見られたのが、米政府のNPRについての評価である。

毎日は「揺らぐNPTの原点に戻って世界の危険な現状の改善をめざすオバマ政権の取り組みを評価する」と歓迎した。同時に、イランと核実験を行った北朝鮮を消極的安全保障の例外としたことは「当然」とし、日本政府に対し、北朝鮮の脅威を念頭に「米国の核戦略が日本の平和と安全に寄与するかどうかを見定める」よう求めた。

NPRへの疑問を強く打ち出したのが産経だ。「『核の傘』運用に不安残す」との見出しを掲げ、核兵器の役割を縮小させることに懸念を表明し、日米両国が「通常戦力から核に至る切れ目のない防衛・抑止態勢強化を進める必要」を強調した。

読売はNPRについて明快な評価を避けつつ、「現実の脅威への抑止を弱めることになってはなるまい」と主張、日経は「『核兵器なき世界』推進への一歩」と評価したうえで、「中国や北朝鮮などをにらんだ米国の核抑止力が揺らぐ事態は防がねばならない」とも述べた。

一方、朝日はNPRと北朝鮮の関係について、明確な主張や評価はなかった。【論説委員・岸本正人】
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Trump’s Film Tariffs Hurt Hollywood

Canada: Donald Trump’s Oddities Mask a Real Threat that Lurks in Plain Sight

Austria: The Deal for Kyiv Is Better Than the Many Threats against It

Austria: The US Pope Will Not Please Trump for Long

Topics

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Australia: Played by Vladimir Putin, a ‘Weary’ Donald Trump Could Walk away from Ukraine

Canada: Donald Trump’s Oddities Mask a Real Threat that Lurks in Plain Sight

Austria: The US Pope Will Not Please Trump for Long

Austria: Maybe Trump’s Tariff Bludgeon Was Good for Something after All

Austria: The Deal for Kyiv Is Better Than the Many Threats against It

Related Articles

Japan: Trump’s 100 Days: A Future with No Visible Change So Far

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Japan: US-Japan Defense Minister Summit: US-Japan Defense Chief Talks Strengthen Concerns about Single-Minded Focus on Strength

Japan: Trump’s Tariffs Threaten To Repeat Historical Mistakes

Hong Kong: China, Japan, South Korea Pave Way for Summit Talks; Liu Teng-Chung: Responding to Trump