Japan announced its decision to abstain from talks on a convention banning nuclear weapons on the opening day of the talks at UN headquarters.

While emphasizing Japan’s fundamental position of pursuing nuclear disarmament, disarmament ambassador Nobushige Takamizawa said Japan had to say that it would be difficult to participate in the talks in a constructive manner and in good faith.

If the treaty is formulated through talks from which nuclear powers -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- abstain, it would deepen division in the international community and instead delay the establishment of a nuclear-free world. Security risks, including North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons, will continue to face countries. It is understandable that Japan has decided not to take part in the UN talks for these reasons.

Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, elected from a constituency in Hiroshima, last year expressed a policy of taking part in the UN disarmament talks. But due partly to a request from the United States, most countries that take the same stance as Japan, including Australia and Canada, decided not to take part. He likely judged that efforts to pursue disarmament would not be able to produce sufficient results if Japan was isolated and alone in the talks.

Disappointment prevailed among groups of hibakusha atomic bombing victims. It is imperative for the government to explain the situation thoroughly and continue to call for nuclear abolition in various international events and forums.

What is problematic is that a group of more than 100 pro-convention countries, led by Austria and Mexico, and about 40 anti-convention countries, including the United States, Britain, France and Japan, have talked past each other as they have argued over the disarmament issue.

The pro-convention group, saying that nuclear weapons are a universal threat for the human being, calls for legally banning nuclear arms and believes that nuclear powers will likely be pressured to reduce nuclear weapons through the establishment of the convention. With the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines and other existing treaties in mind, the group aims for early establishment of the nuclear arms ban convention by a majority vote.

The anti-convention group points out that it is meaningless to hold disarmament talks without taking into consideration the security environment of each country. Unlike in the case of mines, deterrence can be expected from nuclear arms because they have a destructive power that could influence the survival of a state.

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley criticized the proposed nuclear arms ban treaty, saying, “We have to be realistic. Is there anyone that believes that North Korea would agree to a ban on nuclear weapons?”

The pro-convention countries need to lend an ear to this point.

Taking into account the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons and the realistic need of the US nuclear umbrella for security, it is essential to carry out viable nuclear disarmament in stages. Above all, commitment from the United States and Russia, which together account for 90 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal, is vital.

The situation is extremely severe. Both US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have shown a willingness to beef up their nuclear weapons capabilities. Easing tensions between the two superpowers is a priority.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has a good relationship with both Trump and Putin. Abe is called on to work toward preparing the ground for a constructive discussion of nuclear disarmament.

---

Editorial
The Japan News

(Asia News Network)